alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7166

GARRY L. JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MONTGOMERY E. TUCKER, Chairman; MEMBERS, VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-196-2)

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 3, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Garry L. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Garry L. Jones appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his claims brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

1998) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 (1994). 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. See Jones v. Tucker, No. CA-98-196-2 (E.D. Va. July 8,

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.

AFFIRMED
#### Stever *vs.*Somberger.

ALBANY,

June, 1838.

After the time of surrender has expired, the court will not relieve the bail by ordering an exoneretur, on the ground that the defendant is a resident, and not liable to arrest.

Whether the bail can in any stage of the proceedings move for an exoneretur on such ground, quere.

*K. Miller,*

on behalf of the bail, moved to enter an exoneretur on the bail piece, on the ground that this is an action of *122assumpsit, and the defendant a resident of this state and not liable to arrest. The plaintiff had proceeded to judgment against the principal, and then brought an action against the bail, who appeared and the cause was put at issue, and now, after the time for ~urrendering the principal had elapsed, the bail made this motion. Whether the defendant in the original action was a resident of this state or not, at the time of the arrest, was a controverted fact.

*M. T. Reynolds,*opposed the motion. *

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

It was for the defendant and not the bail, to take the objection that he was not liable to arrest. But if the bail could ever have been heard, they are now too late.

Motion denied.
§ 61.111 Cross-country flights: Pilots based on small islands. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an applicant located on an island from which the cross-country flight training required in § 61.109 of this part cannot be accomplished without flying over water for more than 10 nautical miles from the nearest shoreline need not comply with the requirements of that section.
( b ) If other airports that permit civil operations are available to which a flight may be made without flying over water for more than 10 nautical miles from the nearest shoreline, the applicant must show completion of two round-trip solo flights between those two airports that are farthest apart, including a landing at each airport on both flights.
( c ) An applicant who complies with paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this section, and meets all requirements for the issuance of a private pilot certificate, except the cross-country training requirements of § 61.109 of this part, will be issued a pilot certificate with an endorsement containing the following limitation, “Passenger carrying prohibited on flights more than 10 nautical miles from (the appropriate island).” The limitation may be subsequently amended to include another island if the applicant complies with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section for another island.
( d ) Upon meeting the cross-country training requirements of § 61.109 of this part, the applicant may have the limitation in paragraph (c) of this section removed.
[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997; Amdt. 61-103, 62 FR 40904, July 30, 1997]
§ 91.817 Civil aircraft sonic boom. ( a ) No person may operate a civil aircraft in the United States at a true flight Mach number greater than 1 except in compliance with conditions and limitations in an authorization to exceed Mach 1 issued to the operator in accordance with § 91.818.
( b ) In addition, no person may operate a civil aircraft for which the maximum operating limit speed MM0 exceeds a Mach number of 1, to or from an airport in the United States, unless— ( 1 ) Information available to the flight crew includes flight limitations that ensure that flights entering or leaving the United States will not cause a sonic boom to reach the surface within the United States; and
( 2 ) The operator complies with the flight limitations prescribed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or complies with conditions and limitations in an authorization to exceed Mach 1 issued in accordance with § 91.818.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005) [Docket No. 18334, 54 FR 34321, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. No. 91-362, 86 FR 3792, Jan. 15, 2021]
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 15, 1999, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Management of Accelerated Technology                           ( print page 30611)                        Insertion II (MATI II) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties are The Coca-Cola Company, Atlanta, GA; Ford Motor Company, Redford, MI; IBD Inc., Winnetka, IL; Kellogg Company, Battle Creek, MI; Kraft Foods, Glenview, IL; Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, NJ; McDonald's Corporation, Warrenville, IL; Redex Packaging Corporation, Schaumburg, IL; Rohm and Haas Company, Spring House, PA; and U.S.G. Corporation, Chicago, IL. Technologies Research Corporation of Ann Arbor, MI, has been engaged to administer the venture on behalf of the participants. The nature and objectives of the venture are to undertake research and development activities focusing on managing insertion 1f advanced technology.                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-12047  Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 49.33 Eligibility for recording: general requirements. A conveyance is eligible for recording under this subpart only if, in addition to the requirements of §§ 49.11, 49.13, and 49.17, the following requirements are met: ( a ) It is in a form prescribed by, or acceptable to, the Administrator for that kind of conveyance;
( b ) It describes the aircraft by make and model, manufacturer's serial number, and United States registration number, or other detail that makes identification possible;
( c ) It is an original document, or a duplicate original document, or if neither the original nor a duplicate original of a document is available, a true copy of an original document, certified under § 49.21;
( d ) It affects aircraft registered under 49 U.S.C. 44101-44104; and
( e ) It is accompanied by the recording fee required by § 49.15, but there is no fee for recording a conveyance named in § 49.31(b).
[Doc. No. 1996, 29 FR 6486, May 19, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 49-1, 31 FR 4499, Mar. 17, 1966; Amdt. 49-10, 70 FR 246, Jan. 3, 2005]
Exhibit 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Irwin Gross, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of  Amalgamated
Technologies, Inc.

      2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not  contain any
untrue  statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary
to make the  statements  made,  in light of the  circumstances  under which such
statements  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly report;

      3. Based on my knowledge,  the financial  statements,  and other financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

      4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls
and  procedures  (as  defined in Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

      (a)   Designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that
            material  information  relating  to the  registrant,  including  its
            consolidated subsidiaries, is made know to me by others within those
            entities,  particularly  during the  period in which this  quarterly
            report is being prepared;

      (b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls
            and  procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
            of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      (c)   Presented  in  this  quarterly  report  my  conclusions   about  the
            effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on my
            evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

      5.  I  have  disclosed,  based  on  my  most  recent  evaluation,  to  the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a)   All significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
            controls which could adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
            record,  process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have
            identified for the registrant's  auditors any material weaknesses in
            internal controls; and

      (b)   Any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
            other  employees  who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's
            internal controls; and

      6. I have  indicated in this  quarterly  report  whether or not there were
significant  changes  in  internal  controls  or in  other  factors  that  could
significantly  affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
evaluation,   including  any  corrective  actions  with  regard  to  significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  NOVEMBER 15, 2004

/s/ Irwin Gross
-------------------
Irwin Gross
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
#### Hilliard Judis, Appellant, *v.*V. B. Holding Corporation, Respondent, Impleaded with Others.

(Argued June 4, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*484
      *David Sleckler*and *Israel Hoffman*for appellant.

*Alexander Pfeiffer*and *Morris G. Duchin*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
§ 27.975 Fuel tank vents. ( a ) Each fuel tank must be vented from the top part of the expansion space so that venting is effective under all normal flight conditions. Each vent must minimize the probability of stoppage by dirt or ice.
( b ) The venting system must be designed to minimize spillage of fuel through the vents to an ignition source in the event of a rollover during landing, ground operation, or a survivable impact.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-23, 53 FR 34213, Sept. 2, 1988; Amdt. 27-30, 59 FR 50387, Oct. 3, 1994; Amdt. 27-35, 63 FR 43285, Aug. 12, 1998]
Filed 7/28/14 P. v. Kang CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SAMNANG KANG,

Defendant and Appellant. B249354

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. NA093628)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Raul A

Sahagun, Judge. Affirmed.

Jeffrey Lewis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________ ___2

Samnang Kang was charged in an information with possession of

methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11377, subdivision (a)

after he admitted to police officers the bindle of methamphetamine they saw him discard

belonged to him. H e pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The trial court granted Kang’ s motion for discovery of police personnel records

( Evid. Code, § 1045 ; Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531), reviewed the

records at an in camera hearing and found discoverable information, which was provided

to Kang

.

A jury found Kang guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Kang to the lower

term of 16 months in state prison. The court awarded Kang presentence custody credit of

186 days and imposed statutory fees fines and assessments.

We appointed counsel to represent Kang on appeal. After examination of the

record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. In an

accompanying declarati on, appellate counsel stated he was unable to notify Kang of his

right to file a supplemental brief because Kang had been released from custody and

counsel did not have Kang’s current address. On March 12, 2014, we advised Kang by

mail at county jail that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions

or issues he wished us to consider. On April 1, 2014, the notice was returned by the

county jail and marked “unable to identify.” After resending the notice, it was again

returned on May 19, 2014, marked “released, un able to forward.”

We have examined the entire record , including the transcript of the in camera

hearing, and are satisfied Kang ’s counsel has complied fully with his responsibilities and

no arguable issues exist. ( Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 27 7

- 284 [120 S.Ct. 746,

145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25

Cal.3d 436, 441.)3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

ZELON, J.

We concur:

WOODS, Acting P. J.

SEGAL, J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
* The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2708

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Jessie J. Reams, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 14, 2006 Filed: February 21, 2006

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
After Jessie J. Reams threatened his r oommate with a gun, police arrived and found the gun in Reams’s pocket. Reams later pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Before sentencing, Reams filed a memorandum about the presentence report (PSR) attaching a handwritten letter from his roommate, Keith Leeper, explaining the circumstances of Reams’s possession. Reams also filed a motion seeking to subpoena recordings of jailhouse telephone c onversations between himself and Leeper, and to present oral tes timony at sentencing. The district court *-2- issued an order stating it would not preclude Reams from presenting testimony about the incident if he contended the facts a nd circumstances surrounding the incident were relevant to sentencing. The court also stated, however, that Reams had not shown cause for the issuance of any subpoena. During the sentencing hearing, the court admitted all proffered exhibits. At th e hearing’s conclusion, the court observed, “While the circumstances of the defendant ’s possession of the firearm are somewhat different than the average case that we may see in court, I can’t say that the possession is less serious than the aver age case that we s ee in court.” The court then sentenced Reams within the applicable Guidelines rangeto thirty months in prison and three years of supervised release.
On appeal, Reams contends the distri ct court committed error by denying his subpoena request. Reams sought to obtain th e recording to show the circumstances surrounding his firearm possession. The r ecording was cumulative, however, because the district court had received Leeper’s letter into evidence and the circumstances surrounding Reams’s possession were essentially unchallenged. See United States v. Wyman , 724 F.3d 684, 687 (8 thCir. 1984) (court may prope rly deny subpoena seeking cumulative evidence). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a subpoena.
Reams also argues his post-Booker sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We disagree. Th e court determined the applicable advisory Guidelines range, considered and denied Reams’s motion for a downward departure from the range, and imposed a sent ence within the Guidelines range after considering all the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Vasquez , No. 05-1644, 2006 WL 47514, at * 4 (8 thCir. Jan. 11, 2006). The court considered the circumstances surrounding Reams’s offense, as Ream desired, but concluded the circumstances did not warrant lenity. Reams’s sentence is not unreasonable. See id.

We thus affirm Reams’s sentence.

______________________________
#### § 431.8 Human space flight.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76726, Sept. 19, 2024.

To obtain a license, an applicant proposing to conduct a reusable launch vehicle mission with flight crew or a space flight participant on board must demonstrate compliance with §§ 460.5, 460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 460.51 and 460.53 of this subchapter.

[Doc. No. FAA-2005-23449, 71 FR 75632, Dec. 15, 2006]
§ 91.421 Rebuilt engine maintenance records. ( a ) The owner or operator may use a new maintenance record, without previous operating history, for an aircraft engine rebuilt by the manufacturer or by an agency approved by the manufacturer.
( b ) Each manufacturer or agency that grants zero time to an engine rebuilt by it shall enter in the new record— ( 1 ) A signed statement of the date the engine was rebuilt;
( 2 ) Each change made as required by airworthiness directives; and
( 3 ) Each change made in compliance with manufacturer's service bulletins, if the entry is specifically requested in that bulletin.
( c ) For the purposes of this section, a rebuilt engine is a used engine that has been completely disassembled, inspected, repaired as necessary, reassembled, tested, and approved in the same manner and to the same tolerances and limits as a new engine with either new or used parts. However, all parts used in it must conform to the production drawing tolerances and limits for new parts or be of approved oversized or undersized dimensions for a new engine.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1: PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Nello Gonfiantini, III, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A-1 of Specialty Trust, Inc.2.
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):  a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely 97




---



##### 



affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. /s/ Nello Gonfiantini III
    
    Dated this
3rd day
of May 2005Name:
    
    Nello Gonfiantini IIITitle:
    
    Chairman of the Board and President
 98