alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________ No. 98-3904

________________ Stephanie Doran; Melanie Erin Doran ; Justin Michael Doran; Elsa Louise Doran, by and through their mother, Stephanie Doran,

Appellants,

v. Patrick F. Condon, Deputy Lancaster County Attorney; Robert Th orson, Sergeant, Nebraska State Patro l; Todd Kinghorn, Investigator, NebraskaState Patrol; Kevin Knorr, Investigator, Nebraska State Patrol; Dan Doggett, Investigator, Nebraska State Patrol; Jud McKinstry, Investigator, Nebraska State Patrol; John Does, Five Unknown Officers of the Nebraska State Patrol, in their individual capacities; County of Lancaster; State of Nebraska,

Appellees. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Nebraska. [UNPUBLISHED]1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 2 ________________ Submitted: May 14, 1999 Filed: May 24, 1999

________________ Before LOKEN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

________________ PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs, Stephanie Doran and her children, appeal the district court's 1 order granting partial summary judgment to the defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. The defendants are the Lancaster County Attorney and officers of the Nebraska State Patrol. In their complaint, the Dorans alleged that the defendants violated their constitutiona l rights by obtaining a search warrant through material false statements and omissions. The Dorans also alleged that the defendants used excessive force when executing the warrant at their home in Lincoln, Nebraska. In its summary judgment order, the district court granted qualified immunity to the defendants on the search warrant application issue but denied qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.

On appeal, the Dorans assert that material issues of fact about whether the defendants made material false statements or omissions in the warrant application preclude summary judgment. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the district court properly granted partial summary judgment onthis issue. The undisputed facts demonstrate that the defendants were at most negligent and otherwise acted in an objectively reasonable manner in light of the facts known to them. See Waddell v. Forney , 108 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting we3

consider "whether, in view of the facts that the district court deemed sufficiently supportedfor summary judgment purposes, the individual defendants' conduct was objectively reasonable given their knowledge and the clearly established law"). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's partial grant of summary judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
#### Leon Clyde SMITH et al. v. Cecil T. ROBINSON.

78-823.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 29, 1980.

Kenneth W. Quattlebaum of Brogden & Quattlebaum, Ozark, for appellants.

Edward Jackson, Dothan, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon the authority of *Kubiszyn v. Bradley,*292 Ala. 570, 298 So.2d 9 (1974).

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
June 18, 2012

US Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

RE: AOPA and EAA request for extension of comment period for the AOPA/EAA petition for 

exemption; Docket No. FAA-2012-0350

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), representing more than 400,000 general 

aviation members nationwide and the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), representing 

over 176,000 members, request a 70 day extension to the current 20 day comment period 

slated to close on July 2, 2012 for the AOPA and the EAA petition for exemption. 

Collectively the two associations represent the interests of approximately 70 percent of the 

pilots holding active FAA-issued airman certificates. Furthermore, it is estimated that the 

petition for exemption will likely affect 39,120 pilots annually and between 86,664 and 

114,333 single-engine piston airplanes. This represents approximately 6.2 percent of the 

pilots eligible to fly in the United States and 37.4 to 49.3 percent of the airworthy aircraft. 

Based upon the numbers of pilots and aircraft owners the exemption request has the 

potential to affect, AOPA and EAA contend the current 20 day comment period is 

inadequate to allow for a comprehensive review and public input. The sheer numbers

comprising AOPA and EAA membership would necessitate a minimum of 90 days to 

effectively communicate the Federal Register posting. 

Additionally, prior to the posting of the AOPA/EAA petition for exemption in the Federal 

Register, the docket received over 1,800 comments, indicating the aviation community’s

significant level of interest. It would be in the agency’s best interest to not only extend the 

comment period, but to hold public meetings at the upcoming EAA AirVenture and take 

advantage of the centralized gathering of general aviation. A public meeting will allow the 

FAA to be fully and fairly informed regarding the appropriateness of the petition and have a 

dialog concerning the petition between industry and the FAA prior to any substantive 

decision being made. 
Therefore, AOPA and EAA strongly suggest the Federal Aviation Administration offer an 

additional 70 days for public review of the exemption request to ensure the public is offered 

time to provide substantive comments. 

We look forward to an extension of the comment period to allow for thorough

communication and opportunity for all aviators and the public to comment. 

Sincerely,

Robert E. Hackman

Vice President Regulatory Affairs

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association

Sean Elliott

Vice President Advocacy and Safety

Experimental Aircraft Association
Exhibit 99.3

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Alfacell Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kuslima Shogen, Acting
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Kuslima Shogen
                                        -----------------------
                                        Name: Kuslima Shogen
                                        Title: Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                        Date: November 19, 2002
DocketNo.FAA-2ulS-29g..3RegulatoryEvaluation).e-L5:-iUf.-2.&DirectorateIdentifier:-AD.lt!clthc•mw/,lto/11'·Jl<lr/\CtJ.\t,tllllf1/tllllh,·rof{..\.re_'.!,istt!ret!JWut!uctstothetuhfehelo\1'.1/'hen.t'o/1ore/illi.\ltecl.clid1111the..ljlduteField\"hll!ltllttoitt/Itt'totols.UpdateFields[EstimatedCosts:ActionCostsperProduct(e.g.,aircraft,engine,(e.g.,Inspection,propeller,appliance)Work-hoursLaborPartsCostTotalCostsNumberofTotalCostreplacement)(includecost(labor+u.s.forU.S.FleetDonotincludeonconditioncostshereaccess,testing,(@$85/hparts)Registeredandclose-up) our)ProductsInspection3094Theknownnumberofproductsincornpliance:TotalCostsofcomplianceforU.S.fleet:$23,970Costscoveredunderwarranty(ifknown)$I'On-ConditionCosts:•ActionWork-hoursLaborcostPartsCostCostperProduct(e.g.,Inspection,(includeaccess,(@$85/hour)replacement)testing,andclose-up)9SpecialconsiderationsforEconomicAnalysis(UsethisfieldtoexplainanythingintheEstimatedCoststablethatwasassumedormightnotbeobvious.Thisfieldcanalsobeusedtoexplainwarrantycosts):ExecutiveOrder12866:CouldtheADbeconsidereda"significantregulatoryaction"?@YES*0*Explanation:DOTRegulatoryPoliciesandProcedures:IstheADsignificant?8YES*0*Explanation:RegulatoryFlexibilityAct:WilltheADhaveasignificanteconomicimpactonasubstantialnumberofsmallentities?ExplainforeitheraYesorNoanswer.YES0Explanation:IntrastateAviationinAlaska:ThisADcouldaffectintrastateaviationinAlaska.IsitappropriatetoincludespecificrequirementsforaircraftoperatedinAlaskawhereaviationmightbetheonlymodeoftransp01iation?@)YES*0NOIZI*Explanation:10
- Office Home
- About Us
- Key Topics
- Resources
- Contact Us

HomeGlobal Community Liaison Office...Contact Us – Global Community Liaison Office

# 									Contact Us – Global Community Liaison Office							

Global Community Liaison Office

General Information: GCLO@state.gov

Community Liaison Office (CLO) Program: GCLOAskCLO@state.gov

Education and Youth: GCLOAskEducation@state.gov

Evacuation Support: GCLOAskEvacuations@state.gov

Expeditious Naturalization: GCLOAskNaturalization@state.gov

Family Member Employment: GCLOAskEmployment@state.gov

Global Employment Initiative: GEI@state.gov

Publications: GCLOPublications@state.gov

Support Services: GCLOAskSupportServices@state.gov 

Unaccompanied Tours: GCLOAskUT@state.gov 

 

Harry S Truman Building (Main State)2201 C St. NWWashington, DC

202-647-1076 or 800-440-0397

 

Tags

Global Community Liaison Office

Back to Top
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T C R UZ NO L B E R T O S UME T A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71995 A ge nc yN o. A 070- 212- 971 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 29, 2010 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , L E A V Y , an dG R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C ruz N ol bert o S um et a, nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f G uat em al a, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew o f th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to reco n si d er. O u r j u ri sd i ct i o n i s g o v ern edb y 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e rev i ew fo r ab u se of di sc re t i on the deni alof a m ot i on t o rec on si der, Ca n o -Me r i da v . I NS , 311 F . 3d 

# FI LED JU L 16 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71995 2 960, 964 ( 9th C i r . 2002) , and w e di s m i s s i n partand de nyi n partthe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. W e l ackj u ri sd i ct i o n t o rev i ew th e B IA ’ s Jan u ary 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , o rd er b ecau se S u m e taf a ile dto tim e lyp e titio n th is c o u rt f o rr e v ie w o f

th at o r d e r . See Si ng h v. I NS , 31 5 F . 3d11 86 , 11 88 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). T he B IA w as w i thi n i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng S um et a’ s m ot i on t o rec on si der because the m ot i on fa i l ed t o i dent i fyany e rr or of fa ctor l aw i n the B IA ’ s J anuary 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , o r d e r . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ; So c o p - G o n z a lezv . I

NS , 272 F . 3d 11 76 , 11 80 n. 2 (9th C i r. 20 01 ) ( en banc). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.
#### In re CHIN CHANG CHIEN.

No. 60578.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1978.

In re: Chin Chang Chien, applying for admission to the bar. On reconsideration.

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 174 (Thursday, September 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21924]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


 In the Matter of Super Nova Resources, Inc.; Order of Suspension 
of Trading

September 8, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Super Nova Resources, Inc. because questions have arisen regarding the 
trading in the company's stock, and the accuracy and adequacy of 
publicly available information concerning, among other things, the 
company's business operations.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, on 
September 8, 2009, through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on September 21, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21924 Filed 9-8-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                       6,391,868
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,259,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,064,487
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,642,678
<PP&E>                                       2,899,908
<DEPRECIATION>                                 407,817
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,619,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,210,084
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    190,377
<COMMON>                                        28,889
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,619,987
<SALES>                                     11,220,528
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,778,197
<CGS>                                        4,903,772
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,072,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,294,779)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (320,316)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (974,463)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (974,463)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.38)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21529]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated April 17, 2009, and published in the Federal 
Register on April 29, 2009, (74 FR 19597), Penick Corporation, 33 
Industrial Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered 
as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances 
listed in schedule II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cocaine (9041).............................  II
Codeine (9050).............................  II
Dihydrocodeine (9120)......................  II
Oxycodone (9143)...........................  II
Hydromorphone (9150).......................  II
Diphenoxylate (9170).......................  II
Ecgonine (9180)............................  II
Hydrocodone (9193).........................  II
Morphine (9300)............................  II
Oripavine (9330)...........................  II
Thebaine (9333)............................  II
Oxymorphone (9652).........................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
as bulk controlled substance intermediates for distribution to its 
customers for further manufacture or to manufacture pharmaceutical 
dosage forms.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Penick Corporation to manufacture the listed basic classes of 
controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this 
time. DEA has investigated Penick Corporation to ensure that the 
company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The 
investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 
21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a 
bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: August 21, 2009.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-21529 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
# C_2006131EN.01004101.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/41

---

Action brought on 11 January 2006 — Dimitrios Grammatikopoulos v OHIM

(Case T-20/06)

(2006/C 131/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Dimitrios Grammatikopoulos (represented by: Konstantinos Taoulas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (Santa Monica, USA)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul and set aside the decision of 18 August 2005 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1062/2000-4 and grant the applicant's application for registration of the word mark GRAMMY as a Community mark outright, as filed, or — in the alternative — in amended form as suggested in the present application to the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul and set aside the decision of 18 August 2005 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1062/2000-4 and grant the applicant's application for registration of the word mark GRAMMY as a Community mark outright, as filed, or — in the alternative — in amended form as suggested in the present application to the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dimitrios Grammatikopoulos.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark GRAMMY for goods in Classes 25 and 28 — Application No 19315.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National mark GRAMMY for goods in Classes 9, 35, 41 and 42.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld. Application for registration rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(5) and 43(3) of Council Regulation No 40/94. The applicant pleads that genuine commercial use of the mark cited in opposition was not proved, while he also contests the Board of Appeal's assessment that the mark cited in opposition has a reputation.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2006063EN.01003701.xml

| 16.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/37

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4143 — AACF/ASTORG/OFIC)

(2006/C 63/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 8 March 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4143. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4143. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---