alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 145.153 Supervisory personnel requirements. ( a ) A certificated repair station must ensure it has a sufficient number of supervisors to direct the work performed under the repair station certificate and operations specifications. The supervisors must oversee the work performed by any individuals who are unfamiliar with the methods, techniques, practices, aids, equipment, and tools used to perform the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations.
( b ) Each supervisor must— ( 1 ) If employed by a repair station located inside the United States, be appropriately certificated as a mechanic or repairman under part 65 of this chapter for the work being supervised.
( 2 ) If employed by a repair station located outside the United States— ( i ) Have a minimum of 18 months of practical experience in the work being performed; or
( ii ) Be trained in or thoroughly familiar with the methods, techniques, practices, aids, equipment, and tools used to perform the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations.
( c ) A certificated repair station must ensure its supervisors understand, read, and write English.
[Doc. No. FAA-1999-5836, 66 FR 41117, Aug. 6, 2001, as amended by Amdt. 145-30, 79 FR 46984, Aug. 12, 2014]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7286

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WAYNE E. JOYNER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-83, CA-97-615-AM)

Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne E. Joyner, Appellant Pro Se. John Patrick Rowley, III, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Joyner, Nos. CR-92-83; CA-97-615-AM

(E.D. Va. July 30, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  P ETERM. W ENDT , Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. D ARLENE L EONARD , Individually; R ALPH T HOMAS , J R ., Individually; No. 02-2374



#  R OY G ITTINGS , Individually; J OHN D OES , Individually; S EATOW S ERVICES OFC ARTERET C OUNTY , I NCORPORATED ; J ARRETT B AY B OAT W ORKS , I NCORPORATED , Defendants-Appellees. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern.

Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-135-4-H)
Submitted: March 21, 2003 Decided: April 3, 2003 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Peter M. Wendt, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Adinolfi, II, Assistant Attorney General, William McBlief, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Claud Roberson Wheatly, III, WHEATLY, WHEATLY, NOBLES, WEEKS & WAINWRIGHT, Beaufort, North Carolina; Janet MarieLyles, DAVIS, MURRELLE & LUMSDEN, Beaufort, North Carolina; Robert Clifton Dodge, ROBERT C. DODGE, P.A., Beaufort, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM:Peter Wendt appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint filed under 48 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. Wendt asserted civil rights claims against the Clerk of Carteret County Superior Court, the Carteret County Sheriff, and others, for their actions in confiscatinghis boat and other personal property when the North Carolina Department of Revenue obtained a tax judgment against him for failure to pay taxes in 2002, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-242 (2002). Wendt also sought to enjoin the sale of his property in satisfaction of the judgment.On appeal, Wendt contends the district court was required to exercise subject matter jurisdiction because he has presented a federal question by alleging violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. However, this court lacks jurisdiction over his claims under the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (2000). Lawyer v. Hilton Head Pub. Serv. Dist. No. 1 , 220 F.3d 298, 303-04 (4th Cir. 2000). Wendt does not allege that North Carolina has failed to provide a "plain speedy and efficient remedy." Furthermore, civil rights actions under § 1983 do not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts, and may therefore be brought in North Carolina courts. See Bacon v. Lee , 549 S.E.2d 840, 843 (N.C. 2001). Therefore we affirm 2 W ENDT v. L EONARDthe district court’s order for the reasons stated in its opinion. See Wendt v. Leonard , No. CA-02-135-4-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 23, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentionsare adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED 3 W ENDT v. L EONARD
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

10,500"

10,000

MAMMOTH?
VEIN

TERTIARY QUATERNARY

PRE-CAMBRIAN

BULLETIN 1032 PLATE 3
EXPLANATION

gneiss, local
"amatberus oc mat

‘PRE-CAMBRIAN

Silimanitic Biotite-quartz
‘Bnetss, locally migmatitic

Vein, dashed where Ne.
interred

‘Mine workings. Shaded
‘oreas are stopes

Base partly from company maps. Published
with permission of the owners

‘Geology by J. E, Harrison, 1952

VERTICAL PROJECTION ALONG THE LAMARTINE-GREAT WESTERN VEIN GROUP, FREELAND-LAMARTINE DISTRICT, COLORADO

500

1800 Feet
a Sa,
‘Datum is mean sea level

‘370788 © - 56 (In pocket) No. 1
#### § 1261.501 Definition.

*Administrative offset* —the term, as defined in 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(1), means “withholding money payable by the United States Government to, or held by the Government for, a person to satisfy a debt the person owes the Government.”
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2237
LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA97-1809-S) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 9, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Verline Wilder, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Tamera Lynn Fine, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing this action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wilder v. Shalala , No. CA-97-1809-S (D. Md. Aug. 25, 1997). 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
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 4.27    
  


 
 

CENTERPULSE USA HOLDING CO.
  12 East Greenway Plaza
  Suite 1000
  Houston, Texas 77046    
  


January 6,
2003 


SNIA
S.p.A.

Via Borgonuovo 14

20121 Milan, Italy 


Gentlemen: 


        This
document constitutes Amendment No. 1 to the Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 26, 2002, among Centerpulse Ltd., Centerpulse USA Holding Co. and
SNIA S.p.A., (the "Purchase Agreement"). Centerpulse USA Holding Co. and SNIA S.p.A. agree, with respect to the non-competition period referred to in Section 5.07 of the Purchase
Agreement, that such period shall, for the market in Spain only, be reduced from five years to three years. If prior to or after the closing contemplated by the Purchase Agreement SNIA persuades the
Spanish Ministry of Economics and Trade to agree in writing to a five year non-competition period for the Spanish market, then this Amendment shall thereafter promptly be modified to
provide for the full five year non-competition period described in Section 5.07 of the Purchase Agreement for the market in Spain. This Amendment may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which when executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same Amendment. 



	 	 	 	 	Sincerely,
	

 	
 	

 	
 	
CENTERPULSE USA HOLDING CO.
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  DAVID S. WISE      

	 	 	 	 	Name:	 	David S. Wise

	 	 	 	 	Title:	 	Secretary

	

 	
 	

 	
 	
CENTERPULSE LTD.
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  URS KAMBER      

	 	 	 	 	Name:	 	Urs Kamber

	 	 	 	 	Title:	 	CFO

	

 	
 	

 	
 	
CENTERPULSE LTD.
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  CHRISTIAN STAMBACH      

	 	 	 	 	Name:	 	Christian Stambach

	 	 	 	 	Title:	 	VP, Head Legal & Compliance

	

Agreed to and Accepted:	
 	

 	
 	

 
	
SNIA S.p.A.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

By:	
 	

/s/  CARLO VANOLI      
	
 	

 	
 	

 
	Name:	 	Carlo Vanoli
	 	 	 	 
	Title:	 	COO
	 	 	 	 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.27


CENTERPULSE USA HOLDING CO. 12 East Greenway Plaza Suite 1000 Houston, Texas 77046
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-30033 Summary Calendar

PAMELA THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CANADIAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. ET AL., Defendants, CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-1055

-------------------- October 28, 2002 Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: * Pamela Thomas appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Canada Life Assurance Company (Canada Life), on her claim u nder the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. She asserts that Canada Life erred in denying her long-term disability benefits. We have reviewed the record and hold that Thomas has failed to show that Canada LifeNo. 02-30033 -2- abused its discretion in determinin g that she was not totally disabled under the plan. S ee Meditrust Fin. Servs. Corp. v. St erling Chems., Inc. , 168 F.3d 211, 214 (5th Cir. 1999). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. We also deny Canada Life’s request for attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal. S ee Iron Worke rs Local No. 272 v. Bowen , 624 F.2d 1255, 1266 (5th Cir. 1980).
AFFIRMED.
§ 135.363 General. ( a ) Each certificate holder operating a reciprocating engine powered large transport category airplane shall comply with §§ 135.365 through 135.377.
( b ) Each certificate holder operating a turbine engine powered large transport category airplane shall comply with §§ 135.379 through 135.387, except that when it operates a turbopropeller-powered large transport category airplane certificated after August 29, 1959, but previously type certificated with the same number of reciprocating engines, it may comply with §§ 135.365 through 135.377.
( c ) Each certificate holder operating a large nontransport category airplane shall comply with §§ 135.389 through 135.395 and any determination of compliance must be based only on approved performance data. For the purpose of this subpart, a large nontrans- port category airplane is an airplane that was type certificated before July 1, 1942.
( d ) Each certificate holder operating a small transport category airplane shall comply with § 135.397.
( e ) Each certificate holder operating a small nontransport category airplane shall comply with § 135.399.
( f ) The performance data in the Airplane Flight Manual applies in determining compliance with §§ 135.365 through 135.387. Where conditions are different from those on which the performance data is based, compliance is determined by interpolation or by computing the effects of change in the specific variables, if the results of the interpolation or computations are substantially as accurate as the results of direct tests.
( g ) No person may take off a reciprocating engine powered large transport category airplane at a weight that is more than the allowable weight for the runway being used (determined under the runway takeoff limitations of the transport category operating rules of this subpart) after taking into account the temperature operating correction factors in section 4a.749a-T or section 4b.117 of the Civil Air Regulations in effect on January 31, 1965, and in the applicable Airplane Flight Manual.
( h ) The Administrator may author- ize in the operations specifications deviations from this subpart if special circumstances make a literal observ- ance of a requirement unnecessary for safety.
( i ) The 10-mile width specified in §§ 135.369 through 135.373 may be reduced to 5 miles, for not more than 20 miles, when operating under VFR or where navigation facilities furnish reliable and accurate identification of high ground and obstructions located outside of 5 miles, but within 10 miles, on each side of the intended track.
( j ) Each certificate holder operating a commuter category airplane shall comply with § 135.398.
[Doc. No. 16097, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135-21, 52 FR 1836, Jan. 15, 1987]
JAHMARCUS SHAVON SHADE

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 2845

_ ____________________________/

Opinion filed September 14, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Leandra G. Johnson , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney

General, and Jillian H. Reding, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
From: Marc Corrigan [mailto:Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov]

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 3:02 PM

To: Boyd, Christopher

Cc: Dianna Smith; Lynorae Benjamin; Farngalo.Zuri@epa.gov; Kelly Sheckler

Subject: VMT for SIPs

Chris,

I received your voicemail asking about where it states that VMT used in a SIP to establish MVEBs must come from a

TDFM. I seem to think I answered this question some time back, for someone, after having done some research.

Problem is, I can’t find my earlier response (our email purges a fter 90 days). I’m sure it was excellent, whatever it

was. 

Basically, I think it comes down to latest planning assumptions. We have to use the best tools and data available.

We also have to undertake interagency consultation in the development of the SIP, including the VMT data. So, by

default, the MPO would be the agency to provide that data.

I’m not sure what years you are considering in your question. Generally, actual HPMS data for historical years,

where available, should be used for those yea rs. So if you are establishing, let’s say, a base year 2011, that year

should be available already. If you are looking at 2011, UT prepared some data that the MPO can look at to see if

they think it is reasonable, but would generally be the preferred dat a since it is ‘measured’ data.

Otherwise, the best (most of the time) and most widely accepted data for VMT into the future comes from the

TDFM. Remember, you are not just looking for VMT, but also speed, road type distribution, sourcetype

population, et c. Many of these come from the TDFM as well, and are interrelated to the VMT.

So, I suspect I have not answered your question satisfactorily. What I propose we do is to convene an IAC call. It

might be easier to have your proposed planning assumptions detailed in a pre

- analysis consensus type of

document. This way we can quickly go over the easy ones, and spend more time discussing the more difficult

inputs. Also, this may get you some help if others have data readily available for your use.

I’ve cop ied a number of folks on this email so they can help me cite chapter and verse if there is one out there that

I am not recalling.

I hope this helps!

Marc

________________________________

Marc Corrigan

Environmental Specialist

Mobile and Air Resources Management

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

Air Pollution Control Division

William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower

312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 15th Floor

Nashvi le, TN 37243

E

- Mail: Marc.Corrigan@t n.gov

Phone: (615) 532

- 0616

Fax: (615) 532

- 0596
Britton Springs (Admin Site)

Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument Draft RMP / EIS

Map 29

US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Montana

 Wyoming

Pryor Mountain

Wild Horse Range 

0 0.45 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 4.5

Map scale 1:145,000

Miles

Map generated by the Billings Field Office in July 2011

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau

of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. 

This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was 

developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.

Wyoming

Location Map

Montana

Billings 

Field 

Office

Ü

j Cabins

Streams

Railroads

Roads

Pipelines &

Power lines

Public Lands

Survey System

Bureau of Indain Affairs

National Park Service

Division of State Lands

US Forest Service

Private

Legend

Bureau of Land

Management

State Border

Planning Area Boundary

R27E R29E

T

9

S

T

58

N

R94W

Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range
§ 1209.404 Membership. ( a ) The Board will consist of a full-time Chairperson and at least six members appointed by the Administrator from within NASA. One of the members will be designated by the Chairperson as Vice-Chairperson. The Chairperson is responsible directly to the Administrator.
( b ) The Chairperson of the Board is appointed for an unlimited period. All other Board members normally will be appointed initially for a period of 3 years. The Chairperson is authorized to extend the initial appointment of any Board member for an additional period of service. If a member resigns or is otherwise unable to participate in the Board's activities, a replacement may be appointed for the remainder of the uncompleted term and, with the approval of the Chairperson, may be appointed for a full 3-year term upon the expiration of the original term. This procedure will provide the Board with a continual infusion of new members with a variety of professional backgrounds and interests. Duties performed by the members of the Board will be in addition to their regular duties.
( c ) The Chairperson is authorized to: ( 1 ) Assemble the Board as required to discharge the duties and responsibilities of the Board;
( 2 ) Establish such panels as may be considered necessary to discharge the responsibilities and perform the functions of the Board; and
( 3 ) Issue implementing rules and procedures, and take such other actions as are necessary to perform the Board's functions.
Exhibit 32.1


                  Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of The South Financial Group,
Inc. ("TSFG") certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of
the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 of
TSFG (the "Report"):

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

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



/s/ Mack I. Whittle, Jr.
------------------------------------
Mack I. Whittle, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
The South Financial Group, Inc.
November 8, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to The South Financial Group, Inc.
and will be retained by The South Financial Group, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### RUTTER v. DUNLAP et al.

No. 32006.

Jan. 30, 1945.

*155 P. 2d 529.*

Robert D. Crowe, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

C. C. Wilkins, of Marietta, and H. A. Ledbetter, of Ardmore, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by petition in error and case-made which was filed in this court October 4, 1944.

The case-made was settled and signed by the trial court on the 4th day of October, 1944. It was served on the 7th day of September, 1944, but the record discloses that there was no service of a notice of settlement of the case-made.

In Pink v. McGuire, 187 Okla. 629, 105 P. 2d 229, we held:

> “A case-made settled and signed without notice to the opposing party of the time and place of settling and signing the same, and without the appearance of such party or parties, and without their waiver of such notice, is a nullity and confers no jurisdiction on this court to decide any questions thereunder.”

No waiver of any description has been made by the defendant in error, and under the above holding this court is without jurisdiction to consider the alleged errors presented in the case-made.

It is urged that the certificate of the trial court shows a waiver by the defendant in error. The motion to dismiss is sworn to by an affidavit of the movant, and under such circumstances we have held that the certificate of the trial judge is only prima facie evidence of the facts recited therein with respect to the service of notice of settlement of the case. In addition thereto there is no assertion by the plaintiff in error in the response that notice of settlement was given to the parties in the case at bar.

The appeal is dismissed.

GIBSON, C.J., HURST, V.C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, CORN, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.