alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6091

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEPHEN L. SAWYER, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-297, CA-96-866-A) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen L. Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se. Gordon Dean Kromberg, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Stephen L. Sawyer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Sawyer , Nos. CR-94- 297; CA-96-866-A (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 1998). 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
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE03898

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Coast Guard 

          - 33 CFR Part 117 
          - [CGD01-00-127] 

# AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DOT. 

# ACTION:

Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. 

# SUMMARY:

The Commander, First Coast Guard District has issued a temporary deviation from the existing drawbridge regulations for the Quincy Weymouth SR3A Bridge, mile 3.5, across the Fore River between Quincy and Weymouth, Massachusetts. This deviation allows the bridge owner to keep the bridge in the closed position for 4 hours, 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., on May 6, 2000. This deviation is necessary to facilitate necessary repairs to the bridge. 

# DATES:

This deviation is effective on May 6, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (617) 223-8364. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Quincy Weymouth SR3A Bridge has a vertical clearance of 33 feet at mean high water and 43 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations for the bridge in 33 CFR 117.621 require the bridge to open on signal, except that; from 6:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays observed in the locality, the draw need not be opened. The draw shall open on signal at all times for self-propelled vessels greater than 10,000 gross tons. 

The bridge owner, the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD), asked the Coast Guard to allow the bridge to remain closed on May 6, 2000, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. to facilitate electrical repairs at the bridge. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: April 24, 2000. 

Robert F. Duncan, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 00-10945 Filed 5-2-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-15-U
In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

DIVISION FIVE

EVANGELINE CULP, ) No. ED101563

)

Claimant/Appellant, )

)

vs. ) Appeal from the Labor and

) Industrial Relations Commission

TARGET CORPORATION and DIVISION )

OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, )

) Filed: August 26, 2014

Respondents. )

Claimant, Evangeline Culp, has filed a notice of appeal from the Labor and Industrial 

Relations Commission's (Commission) decision concerning her claim for unemployment 

benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant

was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Claimant appealed to both the Appeals 

Tribunal of the Division and then to the Commission, which both affirmed the disqualification. 

The Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on May 6, 2014. Claimant filed a notice of 

appeal to this Court.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal. Claimant has not filed a 

response to the motion. The Division contends that Claimant’s notice of appeal to this court was 

not filed within the time limits set forth in chapter 288, RSMo. Section 288.210, RSMo 2000, 

provides that: “Within twenty days after a decision of the commission has become final, the 
2

director or any party aggrieved by such decision may appeal the decision to the appellate court . . 

. .” The Commission’s decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to the parties. Section 

288.200.2, RSMo 2000. 

Here, the Secretary to the Commission certified she mailed its decision to Claimant on

May 6, 2014. Therefore, Claimant’s notice of appeal to this Court was due on or before June 5, 

2014. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210. Claimant mailed her notice of appeal to the Commission, 

which received it on June 11, 2011.

Section 288.240, RSMo 2000, provides that when a notice of appeal is mailed to the 

Commission, it is “deemed to be filed as of the date endorsed by the United States post office on 

the envelope. . . .” Here, Claimant did mail her notice of appeal, but the post office did not place 

a postmark on the envelope. As a result, Claimant’s notice of appeal is considered filed when it 

was received on June 11, 2014, which is untimely.

The unemployment statutes fail to provide a procedure for filing a late notice of appeal. 

Ross v. Division of Employment Sec., 332 S.W.3d 922 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). While there are 

procedures for filing a late notice of appeal in other civil matters, such procedures do not apply 

to special statutory proceedings, such as unemployment matters under Chapter 288. Heffner v. 

Division of Employment Sec., 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). Therefore, this 

court’s only option is to dismiss Claimant’s appeal.

The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________

ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, CHIEF JUDGE

LISA VAN AMBURG, J. and 

PHILIP M. HESS, J.,
§ 171.5 Minimum requirements for approval. ( a ) The following are the minimum requirements that must be met before the FAA will approve an IFR procedure for a non-Federal VOR: ( 1 ) The facility's performance, as determined by air and ground inspection, must meet the requirements of § 171.7.
( 2 ) The installation of the equipment must meet the requirements of § 171.9.
( 3 ) The owner must agree to operate and maintain the facility in accord- ance with § 171.11.
( 4 ) The owner must agree to furnish periodic reports, as set forth in § 171.13, and must agree to allow the FAA to inspect the facility and its operation whenever necessary.
( 5 ) The owner must assure the FAA that he will not withdraw the facility from service without the permission of the FAA.
( 6 ) The owner must bear all costs of meeting the requirements of this section and of any flight or ground inspections made before the facility is commissioned, except that the Federal Aviation Administration may bear certain of these costs subject to budgetary limitations and policy established by the Administrator.
( b ) If the applicant for approval meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the FAA commissions the facility as a prerequisite to its approval for use in an IFR procedure. The approval is withdrawn at any time the facility does not continue to meet those requirements.
[Doc. No. 5034, 29 FR 11337, Aug. 6, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 171-6, 35 FR 10288, June 24, 1970]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 88 (Friday, May 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26241-26242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11270]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental Program To Stimulate 
Competitive Research, Committee of Visitors; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Research (1198)
    Date and Time: May 24-25, 2000; 8 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, Room 830, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA
    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Richard J. Anderson, Senior Science Advisor, 
Office of Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, 
Room 875, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, 
VA 22230. (703) 306-1683.
    Purpose of Meeting: To carry out Committee of Visitors (COV) 
review, including examination of decisions on proposals, reviewer 
comments, and other privileged materials
    Public Sessions: May 24; 8 am-10 am; May 25; 3:00 pm-4:00 pm--
Presentation of Committee of Visitors findings including outcomes 
under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
    Agenda: To review and evaluate the Experimental Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Research Program and provide assessment of 
program level technical and managerial matters pertaining to 
proposal decisions and program operations.
    Reason for Closing: Proposals being reviewed include information 
of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical 
information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with proposals. These 
matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.


[[Page 26242]]


    Dated: May 2, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-11270 Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 25700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11041]


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

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Notice of Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to 
OMB for Review

SUMMARY: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has 
submitted the following information collections to OMB for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of 
having their full effect if received within 30 days of this 
notification. Comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for USAID, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), Washington DC 20503. Copies of submission may be obtained 
by calling (202) 712-1365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Number: OMB 0412-0017.
    Form Number; AID 1440-3.
    Title: Contractor's Certificate and Agreement with the U.S. Agency 
for International Development/Contractor's Invoice and Contract 
Abstract.
    Type of Submission: Renewal of Information Collection.
    Purpose: USAID finances host country contracts, for technical and 
professional services and for the construction of physical facilities, 
between the contractors for such services and entities in the country 
receiving assistance under loan or grant agreements with the recipient 
country. USAID is not a party to these contracts, and the contracts are 
not subject to the FAR. In its role as the financing agency, USAID 
needs some means of collecting information directly from the 
contractors supplying such services so that it may take appropriate 
action in the event that the contractor does not comply with applicable 
USAID regulations. The information collection, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements are necessary to assure that USAID funds are 
expended in accordance with statutory requirements and USAID policies.
    Annual Reporting Burden:
      Respondents: 18.
      Total annual responses: 216.
      Total annual hours requested: 126 hours.

    Dated: April 26, 2000.
Joanne Paskar,
Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of Administrative 
Services, Bureau for Management.
[FR Doc. 00-11041 Filed 5-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
§ 135.291 Applicability. Except as provided in § 135.3, this subpart— ( a ) Prescribes the tests and checks required for pilot and flight attendant crewmembers and for the approval of check pilots in operations under this part; and
( b ) Permits training center personnel authorized under part 142 of this chapter who meet the requirements of §§ 135.337 and 135.339 to conduct training, testing, and checking under contract or other arrangement to those persons subject to the requirements of this subpart.
[Doc. No. 26933, 61 FR 34561, July 2, 1996, as amended by Amdt. 135-91, 68 FR 54587, Sept. 17, 2003]
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3454-25 Filed:07/09/18 Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37 Desc:

Appendix Summons Andrew G. Biggs Page 1 of 2
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3454-25 Filed:07/09/18 Entered:07/09/18 14:08:37 Desc:

Appendix Summons Andrew G. Biggs Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(b)
                                ---------------


                         OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY

<PAGE>

               [Transamerica Life Insurance Company Letterhead]


April 2, 2003


Transamerica Life Insurance Company
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499-0001

Re: Separate Account VA B
    Registration on Form N-4 SEC File No. 33-56908

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under the Transamerica Freedom Variable Annuity
policies are those deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)   the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the Policies,

(2)   the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the
      policies,

(3)   the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management
      of the policies and/or riders to the Policy and that provides for a
      reasonable margin of profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the variable account
include:

(i)   Service Charge and Administrative Charge

(ii)  Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E)

(iii) Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable)

(iv)  Any applicable rider fees or charges

<PAGE>

Transamerica Life Insurance Company
April 2, 2003
Page 2

The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through
(iv) is established in the pricing of the Transamerica Freedom Variable
Annuity, to achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is within
the range of industry practice with respect to comparable variable annuity
products.

Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred. Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or systems development expenses) are incurred "up
front" and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years'
charges. In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the
Policies in the pricing process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the Policies, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the
expenses expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the Registration Statement.

/s/ Tim Bennett
------------------------------------------
Tim Bennett, ASA, MAAA
Assistant Actuary
Transamerica Life Insurance Company
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,578-01

EX PARTE DWAYNE EDWARD NASH, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 39596A IN THE 33 DISTRICT COURT RD

FROM BURNET COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and

sentenced to seventy-five years’ imprisonment. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.

Nash v. State, No. 03-12-00456-CR (Tex. App.–Austin Aug. 21, 2013).

Applicant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he did not

investigate and present witnesses who could have testified regarding the decedent’s aggressive

behavior towards Applicant and his girlfriend (the decedent’s mother). He also alleges that counsel

should have presented an expert witness regarding fight or flight and that he did not present a full

mitigation case at punishment.
2

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The

trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). 

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court.

Filed: August 26, 2015

Do not publish
§ 29.1159 Supercharger controls. Each supercharger control must be accessible to— ( a ) The pilots; or
( b ) (If there is a separate flight engineer station with a control panel) the flight engineer.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24330-18 Filed:05/25/23 Entered:05/25/23 15:46:12 Desc:

Exhibit EXHIBIT 18 - ANSWER TO CERTIORARI Page 1 of 2
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24330-18 Filed:05/25/23 Entered:05/25/23 15:46:12 Desc:

Exhibit EXHIBIT 18 - ANSWER TO CERTIORARI Page 2 of 2
Therma-Wave, Inc. Exhibit 10.45



 







Exhibit 10.45


[Therma-Wave Letterhead]



March 12, 2003



Mr. Papken S. Der Torossian


Dear Papken:


As you are aware, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Therma-Wave, Inc.
(the “Company”) has nominated you to serve as a director of the Company and has
further nominated you to serve as Chairman of the Board.


If you consent to serve as a director of the Company and as Chairman of the
Board, you will receive director fees in the amount of $10,000 per month. [You
will not receive any additional fees for your attendance at Board or Board
committee meetings.] Since you are not an employee of the Company, you will
not be eligible to receive employee benefits. However, the Company will
reimburse you for all out-of-pocket expenses you incur in your service as a
director and as Chairman of the Board. You will also receive an option to
purchase 400,000 shares of the Company’s common stock under the Company’s 2000
Equity Incentive Plan at an exercise price of $0.42 per share. Your option
will vest automatically upon a merger or sale of all the assets of the Company.


Sincerely,


/s/ Boris Lipkin




Boris Lipkin

President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
                  32.1
 
 **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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Capital Bank Corporation
        (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, B. Grant Yarber,
        President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
        18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:
 
 The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.


/s/*B. Grant Yarber*
 B.
          Grant
          Yarber
 President
        and Chief Executive Officer
 August
        8,
        2007
 This
        Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant
        to 18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for
        purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
        and
        shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under
        the
        Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
        as
        amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective
        of
        any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
        Company
        and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.