alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 7293

JONATHAN PENDLETON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. LOUISE MARIE DIMATTEO, Arlington Circuit Court Judge; PAUL FERGUSON, Arlington Circuit Court Clerk; NELSON SMITH, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Roderick Charles Young , District Judge. ( 3:23

- cv - 00734

- RCY

- MRC )

Submitted : April 22, 2024 Decided: May 14, 2024

Before KING and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Jonathan Pendleton, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Gallagher, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7293 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/14/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Jonathan Pendleton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this stan dard by demonstrating that reasonable j urists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pendleton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pendleton’s emergency motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-7293 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/14/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
§ 1695.5 Significant guidance requirements. ( a ) Each proposed significant guidance document shall be: ( 1 ) Approved by the Commission before issuance and assigned a Z-RIN through the Regulatory Management System (RMS), or a successor data management system.
( 2 ) Comply with the applicable requirements for regulations, including significant regulatory actions, in E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, E.O. 13609, E.O. 13771, and E.O. 13777.
( 3 ) Submitted to OMB for coordinated review. Proposed guidance documents that are otherwise important to the Commission's interests may also be submitted for review.
( 4 ) Reviewed by OIRA under E.O. 12866 before issuance.
( b ) The Chair may determine that it is appropriate to coordinate with OMB in the review of guidance documents that are otherwise of importance to the Commission's interests.
§ 91.1005 Prohibitions and limitations. ( a ) Except as provided in § 91.321 or § 91.501, no owner may carry persons or property for compensation or hire on a program flight.
( b ) During the term of the multi-year program agreements under which a fractional owner has obtained a minimum fractional ownership interest in a program aircraft, the flight hours used during that term by the owner on program aircraft must not exceed the total hours associated with the fractional owner's share of ownership.
( c ) No person may sell or lease an aircraft interest in a fractional ownership program that is smaller than that prescribed in the definition of “minimum fractional ownership interest” in § 91.1001(b)(10) unless flights associated with that interest are operated under part 121 or 135 of this chapter and are conducted by an air carrier or commercial operator certificated under part 119 of this chapter.
§ 18.104 Preliminary questions. ( a ) *Questions of admissibility generally.* Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the judge, subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section. In making such determination the judge is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges.
( b ) *Relevance conditioned on fact.* When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the judge shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.
( c ) *Weight and credibility.* This rule does not limit the right of a party to introduce evidence relevant to weight or credibility.
#### KATZ-ROTHSTEIN FURNITURE CO v KANGESSER et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9900.

Decided April 29, 1929

Philip Novitch, Cleveland, for Furniture Co.

R Shapiro, Cleveland, for Kangesser et.

VICKERY, PJ.

We cannot quite follow this reasoning. If the party against whom this judgment was rendered had asked leave to file a reply during the trial or even after the judgment was entered! we think in the administration of justice, it would have been the duty of the court to permit the filing of such a reply. But since the party went on and produced the evidence, it was a waiver of the reply and the rights of the parties were not affected in the least by the failure of a reply.

The argument that is made would be sound if there had_ been no hearing and no evidence had been introduced in this case; that is, if it were a judgment on the pleadings alone. It would be manifestly unjust if, when a cross claim had set up $199 and the evidence showed that the cross petitioner was only entitled to $99, the court should ignore the evidence and render a judgment upon the pleadings simply upon the technical ground that there had been no reply filed. We do not understand that in the administration of justice, rules should be used so drastically as that. It might open the door wide to .abuses. The pleader of the cross demand knew that it should have been replied to, and if a reply containing a general denial had been filed he must admit that his contention in this court would be of no avail, but because there was no reply which he did not demand should be filed, he goes on and submits his evidence; and the evidence shows he is entitled to only $99; then he claims that he can avoid responsibility and get the amount that he set up in his pleading, irrespective of what the evidence shows. We do not think that this is in accordance with a just and correct administration of the law.- We do not see on this record that there is any such error that in the, absence of a bill of exceptions would warrant us in disturbing the verdict and judgment thereon.

The judgment of the court below will, therefore, be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
# EUR-Lex - 31997R0143 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997R0143

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 143/97 of 27 January 1997 concerning the third list of priority substances as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 025 , 28/01/1997 P. 0013 - 0014 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 143/97 of 27 January 1997 concerning the third list of priority substances as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (1) and in particular Articles 8 and 10 thereof,

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 envisages a system of evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances and whereas in order to undertake the risk evaluation of such substances, it is appropriate to identify priority substances requiring attention;

Whereas in consequence, Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 requires that the Commission shall draw up a list of priority substances; whereas Article 8 further indicates the factors which shall be taken into account in drawing up the said list;

Whereas Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 foresees that for each substance on the priority list a Member State shall be given responsibility for its evaluation and whereas the allocation of substances shall ensure a fair sharing of the burden between Member States;

Whereas a first and a second priority list have been adopted by Commission Regulations (EC) No 1179/94 of May 25 1994 (2) and No 2268/95 of 27 September 1995 (3);

Whereas the provisions of this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. The third list of priority substances as foreseen in Article 8 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

2. This list of priority substances also indicates the Member State which is responsible for each of the substances.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 January 1997.

For the Commission

Ritt BJERREGAARD

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 84, 5. 4. 1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 131, 26. 5. 1994, p. 3.

(3) OJ No L 231, 28. 9. 1995, p. 18.

ANNEX

>TABLE>
#### § 1402.1 Notice of dispute.

The notice of dispute filed with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service pursuant to the provisions of section 8(d)(3), of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, shall be submitted electronically via a platform provided by FMCS. If electronic submission creates an undue hardship, the filer may contact the FMCS Notice Processing office to explain the circumstances and receive assistance. The Form F-7, for use by the parties in filing a notice of dispute, has been prepared by the Service.

[86 FR 50855, Sept. 13, 2021]
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4857 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 275 Penn Avenue in Salem, Ohio, as the 

‘‘Howard Arthur Tibbs Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4857 ES

1 SECTION 1. HOWARD ARTHUR TIBBS POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 275 Penn Avenue in Salem, 

4 Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Howard Ar5 thur Tibbs Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Howard Arthur Tibbs 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the Senate December 17, 2020. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4857 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postfice’’. Ohio, as the ‘‘Howard Arthur Tibbs Post Of- al Service located at 275 Penn Avenue in Salem,
#### § 413.1 Scope of this part.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 85 FR 79710, Dec. 10, 2020.

(a) This part explains how to apply for a license or experimental permit. These procedures apply to all applications for obtaining a license or permit, transferring a license, and renewing a license or permit. In this part, the term application means either an application in its entirety, or a portion of an application for incremental review and determination in accordance with § 450.33 of this chapter.

(b) Use paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) in the following table to locate specific requirements:

| Subject | Part |
| --- | --- |
| (1) Obtaining a Launch License (*only applications accepted before June 8, 2021*) | 415 |
| (2) License to Operate a Launch Site | 420 |
| (3) Launch and Reentry of a Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) (*only applications accepted before June 8, 2021*) | 431 |
| (4) License to Operate a Reentry Site | 433 |
| (5) Reentry of a Reentry Vehicle other than a Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) (*only applications accepted before June 8, 2021*) | 435 |
| (6) Experimental Permits | 437 |
| (7) Launch and Reentry License Requirements | 450 |

[Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 413-12, 85 FR 79710, Dec. 10, 2020]
Exhibit 23

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We  hereby  consent  to the use in the  Annual  Report  on Form  10-KSB of Baron
Capital Properties,  L.P. of our report dated February 25, 2000, except for Note
13, as to which the date is April 7, 2000 (which report  contains an explanatory
paragraph  relating  to  substantial  doubt about the  Partnership's  ability to
continue as a going concern) relating to the consolidated  financial  statements
of Baron  Capital  Properties,  L.P. as of December 31, 1999 and for each of the
two years in the period then ended, appearing in such Annual Report.



                                                 RACHLIN COHEN & HOLTZ LLP


Miami, Florida
April 14, 2000
# Úřední věstník C 68A/2011

| | ISSN 1725-5163
  doi:10.3000/17255163.CA2011.068.cze |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 68A |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Svazek 543. března 2011 |

ISSN 1725-5163

doi:10.3000/17255163.CA2011.068.cze

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 68A

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Svazek 543. března 2011

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Opravy |
| 2011/C 068A/01 | Oprava oznámení o otevřeném výběrovém řízení EPSO/AST/112/10 – Asistenti (AST 3) (Úř. věst. C 341 A, 16.12.2010) | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

Opravy

2011/C 068A/01

Oprava oznámení o otevřeném výběrovém řízení EPSO/AST/112/10 – Asistenti (AST 3) (Úř. věst. C 341 A, 16.12.2010)

(Úř. věst. C 341 A, 16.12.2010)

1

PŘEHLED VÝBĚROVÝCH ŘÍZENÍ ZVEŘEJNĚNÝCH V ŘADĚ C A ÚŘEDNÍHO VĚSTNÍKU

Níže najdete seznam Úředních věstníků řady C A publikovaných v tomto roce.

Pokud není uvedeno jinak, jsou Úřední věstníky publikovány ve všech jazykových verzích.

| 19 | (PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 24 | |
| 35 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 37 | (PL/RO) |
| 60 | |
| 68 | |

19

(PL)

24

35

(DE/EN/FR)

37

(PL/RO)

60

68

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

Opravy

| 3.3.2011 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 68/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2011

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 68/1

---

Oprava oznámení o otevřeném výběrovém řízení EPSO/AST/112/10 – Asistenti (AST 3)

(
  Úřední věstník Evropské unie C 341 A ze dne 16. prosince 2010
  )

(2011/C 68 A/01)

Strana 3, část IV.2:

místo:

| „Test d) | odborné schopnosti:


  správnost a přesnost | hodnocení: 0 až 20 bodů


  požadované minimum: 10 bodů |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Test e) | odborné schopnosti:


  schopnost stanovit si priority a organizovat svou práci | hodnocení: 0 až 20 bodů


  požadované minimum: 10 bodů“ |

„Test d)

odborné schopnosti:

správnost a přesnost

hodnocení: 0 až 20 bodů

požadované minimum: 10 bodů

Test e)

odborné schopnosti:

schopnost stanovit si priority a organizovat svou práci

hodnocení: 0 až 20 bodů

požadované minimum: 10 bodů“

má být:

| „Test d) | odborné schopnosti:


  správnost a přesnost | hodnocení: 0 až 20 bodů |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Test e) | odborné schopnosti:


  schopnost stanovit si priority a organizovat svou práci | hodnocení: 0 až 20 bodů |
| | součet bodů za testy d) a e) musí být nejméně 20“ |

„Test d)

odborné schopnosti:

správnost a přesnost

hodnocení: 0 až 20 bodů

Test e)

odborné schopnosti:

schopnost stanovit si priority a organizovat svou práci

hodnocení: 0 až 20 bodů

součet bodů za testy d) a e) musí být nejméně 20“

---
§ 258.5 Notice requirement. ( a ) *Notice in schedules.* Carriers holding out or operating change-of-gauge services to, from, or within the United States shall ensure that in the written and electronic schedule information they provide to the public, to the Official Airline Guide and comparable publications, and to computer reservations systems, these services are shown as requiring a change of aircraft.
( b ) *Oral notice to prospective consumers.* In any direct oral communication with a consumer in the United States concerning a change-of-gauge service, any carrier or ticket agent doing business in the United States shall tell the consumer before booking scheduled passenger air transportation to, from, or within the United States that the service requires a change of aircraft en route.
( c ) *Written notice.* At the time of sale in the United States of transportation that includes a change-of-gauge service to, from, or within the United States, or, if no ticket is issued, no later than the time when the passenger checks in at the airport for the first flight in an itinerary that includes such a service, the selling carrier or ticket agent shall provide the following written notice:
Notice: Change of Aircraft Required For at least one of your flights, you must change aircraft en route even though your ticket may show only one flight number and have only one flight coupon for that flight. Further, in the case of some travel, one of your flights may not be identified at the airport by the number on your ticket, or it may be identified by other flight numbers in addition to the one on your ticket. At your request, the seller of this ticket will give you details of your change of aircraft, such as where it will occur and what aircraft types are involved.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Schools and staffing survey.Private school teachers questionnaire.**
 
1987-88 | 1990-91 | 1993-94 | 1999-2000 | 2003-2004 | 2007-2008
 
SuDoc Number:LinkC 3.272:SASS-4 B/
Item Number:0146-M (online)
CGP systemNumber:000935524
 
March 27, 2018
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
Pursuant to


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
added by


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of  Pulaski Financial Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirement 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 results of operations of Pulaski
      Financial as of and for the period covered by the
  Report.





Date:  December
18, 2009


/s/ Paul J. MilanoName:
              Paul
      J. MilanoTitle:
              Chief
      Financial Officer
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Laws Pertaining to Agricultural Short Term and Intermediate Credit, as Compiled in Chapter 7, Title 12 of the United States Code as Amended to February 1, 1934

              														Laws Pertaining to Agricultural Short Term and Intermediate Credit, as Compiled in Chapter 7, Title 12 of the United States Code as Amended to February 1, 1934, February 1934.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/857,			accessed on September 15, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER