alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

MANSFIELD HELIFLIGHT, INC. 

v. 

CITY OF BURLINGTON, 

VERMONT 

Complainant, 

Resnondent. 

FAA Docket No.16-14-06 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to July 11,2016. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

~ / 

,!;<J . / ,:] 

~h03~ 1. · ·-- -~··zc-- / / 

'//.Y 

A:ctmg Drrector, Arrport eomphance 

and Management Analysis (Acting) 

'!/)/! ;/ D~te 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April ih, 2016, I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the foregoing document addressed 

to: 

FOR RESPONDENT 

Pablo 0. Nuesch 

Anjali G. Patel 

Spiegel and McDiarmid, LLP 

1875 Eye Street, N.W. Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20006 

FOR COMPLAINANT 

Benjamin H. Klein 

The Klein Law Firm, LLC 

61 Broadway, Suite 2125 

New York, NY 10006 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-600 

FAA Airport Compliance and Field Operations, AC0-1 00 

FAA ANE Regional Office 

g~.Q~ audta Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
#### § 501.700 Applicability.

This subpart is applicable only to those parts of chapter V promulgated pursuant to the TWEA, which include parts 500, 505, and 515.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shane Zimblis, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 502]

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered May 11, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

*1087Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his *Alford*plea (see *North Carolina v Alford,*400 US 25 [1970]), of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [1]). Defendant contends that there was an insufficient recitation by the prosecutor concerning the facts underlying the crime to support the *Alford*plea *(cf. People v Harris,*269 AD2d 839, 840 [2000]). That contention is unpreserved *for*our review *(see People v Oberdorf, 5*AD3d 1000 [2004]), and we decline to exercise our power to address that . contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(cf. id.).*Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.
§ 49.4263-1 Duty to collect the tax; payments made outside the United States. ( a ) *Duty to collect tax.* Where payment upon which tax is imposed by section 4261 of the Internal Revenue Code is made outside the United States for a prepaid order, exchange order, or similar order, the person furnishing the initial transportation pursuant to such order must collect the applicable tax. *See* section 4291 and the regulations under section 4291 for cases where persons receiving payment must collect the tax. *See* section 6672 for rules relating to the application of the trust fund recovery penalty.
( b ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to amounts paid on and after January 19, 2021. For rules that apply before that date, *see* 26 CFR part 49, revised as of April 1, 2020.
[T.D. 9948, 86 FR 5007, Jan. 19, 2021]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136512 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136512 

 COA: 271693 

Kalamazoo CC: 05-000905-FC 

JOSEPH AVERON CAMPBELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

1117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
1

Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

Division Two

JOSEPH A. SMILEY, )

 )

Appellant, )

 )

vs. ) No. SD37012

 )

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) FILED: January 5, 2022

 )

Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY

Honorable Calvin R. Holden, Judge

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Joseph A. Smiley (“Movant”) appeals the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 

29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief (“PCR”).

1

 Because Movant’s amended motion 

was not timely filed and the motion court did not conduct an independent abandonment inquiry, 

we reverse the motion court’s judgment and remand the case to the motion court to conduct such 

an inquiry and then to proceed accordingly.

Movant’s convictions in the underlying criminal case were affirmed by this Court on 

direct appeal and mandate issued on July 14, 2016. Movant timely filed a pro se PCR motion on 

August 15, 2016. 

 1 All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2016).
2

Two days later, on August 17, 2016, the motion court appointed the State Public 

Defender to represent Movant, which triggered the commencement of the Rule 29.15(g) sixtyday period for filing an amended motion. Stanley v. State, 420 S.W.3d 532, 540 (Mo. banc 

2014). Thus, any amended motion was initially due to be filed by October 17, 2016.2 

Also, on August 17, 2016, on its own motion, the motion court granted “an additional 60 

days for filing of an Amended Motion.” At that time, however, the motion court was only 

authorized to extend the time for filing an amended motion “for one additional period not to 

exceed thirty days.” Rule 29.15(g). The motion court had no authority to extend the time limit 

for filing an amended motion beyond the initial 30-day extension. Stanley, 420 S.W.3d at 541. 

As so limited, the motion court’s order extended the filing deadline for an amended motion for 

only an additional thirty days. Thus, any amended motion was due to be filed no later than 

November 16, 2016.

 Appointed counsel untimely filed Movant’s amended PCR motion on January 23, 2017. 

When an untimely amended motion is filed, the motion court has a duty to undertake an 

independent inquiry to determine if abandonment occurred. Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822, 

825 (Mo. banc 2015). That was not done here, which requires us to “remand the case because 

the motion court is the appropriate forum to conduct such an inquiry.” Id. at 826. “The result of 

the inquiry into abandonment determines which motion—the initial motion or the amended 

motion—the court should adjudicate.” Id.

The motion court’s judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the motion court to 

conduct an independent abandonment inquiry and for further proceedings consistent with the 

outcome of that inquiry.

 2 The 60th day fell on Sunday, October 16, 2016, which by Rule 44.01(a) extended the period until October 17, 2016.
3

GARY W. LYNCH, C.J. – OPINION AUTHOR

DON E. BURRELL, J. – CONCURS

JENNIFER R. GROWCOCK, J. – CONCURS
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 359.5 What is the maturity period of a Series I savings bonds?

Series I savings bonds have a total maturity period of 30 years from the issue date, consisting of an original maturity period of 20 years and an extension period of 10 years.
exhibi10-14.htm




Exhibit 10.14




 


Supplemental Notice













	
RE:

	
Lease dated October 14, 2011, by and between Innovation Center, LLC, as Landlord, and SCIO Diamond Technology Corporation as Tenant.

















Dear Sirs:







Pursuant to Section 1.3 of the captioned Lease, please be advised as follows:







The interim rent commencement date for the office space only (4,919 rentable square feet) is the 14th day of December, 2011. Rent on that area only, based on the Base Rent Rate schedule in Section 1.1.10, will be due until the Rent Commencement Date defined below. The Lease Term will be determined based on the Rent Commencement Date defined below.







The Rent Commencement Date for the full Premises will be the 1st day of April, 2012, and the expiration date of the Lease Term is the 31st day of March, 2019, subject however to the terms and provisions of the Lease.







Terms denoted herein by initial capitalization shall have the meanings ascribed in the Lease.












Landlord: Innovation Center, LLC







By:   /s/ Robert E. Hughes, President                                                                           







Title: President                                                               












Acknowledged this            day of January, 2012.







Tenant: SCIO Diamond Technology Corporation







By:   /s/ Joseph D. Lancia                                                                      







Title: President
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

###### Editorial Note on Part 353

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 353 appear at 79 FR 8859, Feb. 14, 2014.

#### § 353.49 Correction of errors.

A bond may be reissued to correct an error in registration upon appropriate request supported by satisfactory proof of the error.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 157 (Monday, August 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19659]

[[Page 41484]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

18th Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 206/EUROCAE WG 76 Plenary

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 206 meeting; Aeronautical 
Information Services and Meteorology Data Link Services

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 206: Aeronautical Information 
Services and Meteorology Data Link Services

DATES: The meeting will be held September 14-18, 2009 from 9 a.m. to 5 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at World Meteorological 
Organization (WMO), 7bis, avenue de la Paix, Case postale No. 2300, CH-
1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In Geneva: Herbert Puempel, tel.: 
+41.22.730.82.83, Chief, Aeronautical Meteorology Unit (C/AEM), email: 
[email protected], Bridgette Vuitteney-Gelman, email: [email protected], Andrew Mirza, tel.: +44(0)1392 884108, e-mail: 
[email protected], Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 
3PB, United Kingdom

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a Special Committee 206/EUROCAE WG 76 Plenary 
meeting. The agenda will include:

14 September--Monday

9 a.m. Opening Plenary
    [dec222] Chairmen's remarks and introductions
    [dec222] Review and approve meeting agenda and approval of previous 
meeting minutes
    [dec222] Discussion
    [dec222] Schedule for this week
    [dec222] Action Item Review
    [dec222] Schedule for next meetings
10 a.m. Presentations
    [dec222] To be determined
1 p.m. SPR

15 September--Tuesday

9 a.m. Joint AIS and MET Subgroup Meetings

16 September--Wednesday

9 a.m. Joint AIS and MET Subgroup Meetings

17 September--Thursday

9 a.m. Joint AIS and MET Subgroup Meetings

18 September--Friday

9 a.m. Joint AIS and MET Subgroup Meetings
10:30 a.m. Plenary Session
    [dec222] Other Business
    [dec222] Meeting Plans and Dates
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 10, 2009.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E9-19659 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                      DESKTOP DATA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                      MARCH 31,
                                                    1997      1996
                                                  --------  --------
<S>                                               <C>       <C>
 
Net income available for common
  stockholders                                      $  870    $  841
                                                    ======    ======
 
Weighted average common shares outstanding           8,631     8,525
Common stock equivalents outstanding, pursuant
   to the treasury stock method                        156       238
                                                    ------    ------
 
Weighted average number of common and
   common equivalent shares outstanding              8,787     8,763
                                                    ------    ------
 
Net income per common and common equivalent
   share                                            $ 0.10    $ 0.10
                                                    ======    ======
 
</TABLE>
575 P.2d 353

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Keith Edward COOK, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 1940.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department' A.

Jan. 3, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 3, 1978.

Review Denied Feb. 28, 1978.

*155Bruce E. Babbitt, Arizona Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer, III, Chief Counsel, Crim. Div., and Lynn Hamilton, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

Steiger, Helm & Kyle by Theodore L. Kyle, Tempe, for appellant.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

NELSON, Presiding Judge.

Pursuant to the mandate of this Court, issued as a result of our initial opinion in this cause dated March 29, 1977, *State v. Cook,*115 Ariz. 146, 564 P.2d 97 (Ct.App. 1977), hearings were held in the Superior Court of Maricopa County on June 9th and 10th, 1977. Supplemental memoranda have been filed with this Court, as well as the transcript of those proceedings, and the matter is now ripe for decision.

Although only limited additional facts were adduced at the hearing, the doubt this Court entertained as to the appellant’s voluntary absence from the proceedings subsequent to his arraignment, including both the trial itself and the sentencing, have been removed.

It is certain that appellant was notified of the initial trial setting, as indicated in our prior opinion, *State v. Cook, supra.*It is also now clear that appellant made no effort to maintain contact with counsel subsequent to the arraignment, did not in fact show up at the courthouse on the day originally set for trial, even though the case had actually been set over, and continued to avoid all efforts of counsel to apprise him of the date of the subsequent trial, which proceeded without his presence. We hold the evidence supports appellant’s waiver of his appearance at trial and sentencing. Rule 9.1, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; *State*v. *Goldsmith,*112 Ariz. 399, 542 P.2d 1098 (1975).

The judgment of conviction and the sentence thereon are affirmed.

DONOFRIO and OGG, JJ., concurring.
Exhibit 35.5  LOGO

Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1050-084, 8th Fl
401 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334  ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2016, by and among Morgan Stanley
Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee
and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2016-C30 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise
defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 11.09 of the Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing
Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:  1.
A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2018 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and  2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.  LOGOLeslie Hayton Managing Director
Wells Fargo Bank    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

LOGO
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Barclay’s Travel to Geneva

# 									Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Barclay’s Travel to Geneva							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

February 23, 2023

Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Erin Barclay will travel to Geneva, Switzerland February 24 to March 1 for meetings around the 52nd session of the Human Rights Council (HRC).

In Geneva, she will meet with senior officials from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the International Committee of the Red Cross, UN member states, Syrian human rights defenders, and civil society organizations ahead of and during the 52nd session of the UN Human Rights Council.

For media inquiries, please contact DRL-Press@state.gov.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelSwitzerland

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
HomeBiographies...Steve  Lang

# 				Steve  Lang			

															Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Information and Communications Policy						Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy												

				November 13, 2022 -									Present							

Tags

Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital PolicyState Department Official

Back to Top
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry JOHNSON, a/k/a Gerald Lee Johnson, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-4742.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 16, 2001.

Decided Feb. 6, 2001.

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, SC, for appellant. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, SC, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Johnson appeals from the district court’s revocation of his term of supervised *148release and his resulting thirty-month sentence. We affirm. Johnson’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting claims in regard to Johnson’s guilty plea to violating terms of his supervised release but conceding that the claims lack merit. Although notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Johnson has not done so.

We have reviewed the claims asserted by counsel and conclude they lack merit. Revocation of supervised release is discretionary with the district court, and the court need only be reasonably satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the terms of release were violated. *United States v. Cates,*402 F.2d 473, 474 (4th Cir.1968); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp.2000). Given the informal nature of a revocation hearing, Johnson is not entitled to the full panoply of procedural safeguards under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. *Black v. Romano,*471 U.S. 606, 613, 105 S.Ct. 2254, 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985); *see also United States v. Stehl,*665 F.2d 58, 59-60 (4th Cir.1981). Instead, Johnson is entitled to notice of the hearing; disclosure of the evidence; the opportunity to be present, to be heard, and to contest the charges; the presence of a neutral judicial officer; a written statement of findings; and under some circumstances, the assistance of counsel. *Black,*471 U.S. at 611-12, 105 S.Ct. 2254. Our review of the record on appeal discloses that Johnson received all of these safeguards.

Pursuant to *Anders,*we have reviewed the record for potential error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Johnson’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2507

To disapprove amendment number 8 of the ‘‘Amendments to the Sentencing

Guidelines, Policy Statements, and Official Commentary’’, submitted by

the United States Sentencing Commission to Congress on May 1, 1995.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 19, 1995

Mr. BUNN of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To disapprove amendment number 8 of the ‘‘Amendments

to the Sentencing Guidelines, Policy Statements, and

Official Commentary’’, submitted by the United States

Sentencing Commission to Congress on May 1, 1995.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in accordance with section 994(p) of title 28, United

4 States Code, Amendment number 8 of the ‘‘Amendments

5 to the Sentencing Guidelines, Policy Statements, and Offi6 cial Commentary’’, submitted by the United States Sen-
2

•HR 2507 IH

1 tencing Commission to Congress on May 1, 1995, is here2 by disapproved and shall not take effect.

Æ