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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7963

JAMES C. HARRIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

VANESSA P. ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-6468

JAMES C. HARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VANESSA P. ADAMS, Warden,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (3:06-cv-00057-HEH)

Submitted: May 10, 2007 Decided: May 14, 2007
- 2 -

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James C. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, James C. Harris, a federal

prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e) motion for reconsideration. Harris also appeals the district

court’s order denying his motion for release. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Harris v. Adams, No.

3:06-cv-00057-HEH (E.D. Va. Nov. 1, 2006; Jan. 16, 2007; Mar. 23,

2007). We deny Harris’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
[No. 49074-5-I.

Division One.

December 2, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Mark Wade Knight, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 00-1-01730-2, Larry E. McKeeman, J., entered August 3, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Agid, J., concurred in by Cox, A.C.J., and Ellington, J.
#### § 1921.20 Subpoenas.

All applications for subpoenas ad testificandum and subpoenas duces tecum shall be made in writing to the hearing examiner. Application for subpoenas duces tecum shall specify as exactly as possible the documents to be produced, showing their general relevancy and reasonable scope.
§ 1614.505 Interim relief. ( a ) ( 1 ) When the agency appeals and the case involves removal, separation, or suspension continuing beyond the date of the appeal, and when the administrative judge's decision orders retroactive restoration, the agency shall comply with the decision to the extent of the temporary or conditional restoration of the employee to duty status in the position specified in the decision, pending the outcome of the agency appeal. The employee may decline the offer of interim relief.
( 2 ) Service under the temporary or conditional restoration provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be credited toward the completion of a probationary or trial period, eligibility for a within-grade increase, or the completion of the service requirement for career tenure, if the Commission upholds the decision on appeal. Such service shall not be credited toward the completion of any applicable probationary or trial period or the completion of the service requirement for career tenure if the Commission reverses the decision on appeal.
( 3 ) When the agency appeals, it may delay the payment of any amount, other than prospective pay and benefits, ordered to be paid to the complainant until after the appeal is resolved. If the agency delays payment of any amount pending the outcome of the appeal and the resolution of the appeal requires the agency to make the payment, then the agency shall pay interest from the date of the original decision until payment is made.
( 4 ) The agency shall notify the Commission and the employee in writing at the same time it appeals that the relief it provides is temporary or conditional and, if applicable, that it will delay the payment of any amounts owed but will pay interest as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Failure of the agency to provide notification will result in the dismissal of the agency's appeal.
( 5 ) The agency may, by notice to the complainant, decline to return the complainant to his or her place of employment if it determines that the return or presence of the complainant will be unduly disruptive to the work environment. However, prospective pay and benefits must be provided. The determination not to return the complainant to his or her place of employment is not reviewable. A grant of interim relief does not insulate a complainant from subsequent disciplinary or adverse action.
( b ) If the agency files an appeal and has not provided required interim relief, the complainant may request dismissal of the agency's appeal. Any such request must be filed with the Office of Federal Operations within 25 days of the date of service of the agency's appeal. A copy of the request must be served on the agency at the same time it is filed with EEOC. The agency may respond with evidence and argument to the complainant's request to dismiss within 15 days of the date of service of the request.
[64 FR 37660, July 12, 1999, as amended at 85 FR 35562, June 11, 2020]
|  **POWER                OF ATTORNEY**                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **Annual                Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended** |
| **December                31, 2005**                                    |

|  **Company**                             |  **State                of Incorporation** |
|----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
| **Appalachian                Power Company**       | Virginia                                        |
| **Columbus                Southern Power Company** | Ohio                                            |
| **Kentucky                Power Company**          | Kentucky                                        |
| **Ohio                Power Company**              | Ohio                                            |

|                                     |                                 |
|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| /s/                Carl L. English       | /s/                Michael G. Morris |
|                                     |                                 |
|                                     |                                 |
| /s/                John B. Keane         | /s/                Robert P. Powers  |
|                                     |                                 |
|                                     |                                 |
| /s/                Holly K. Koeppel      | /s/                Stephen P. Smith  |
|                                     |                                 |
|                                     |                                 |
| /s/                Venita McCellon-Allen | /s/                Susan Tomasky     |
|                                     |                                 |
|                                     |                                 |
|                                     | /s/                Dennis E. Welch   |
§ 1903.6 Advance notice of inspections. ( a ) Advance notice of inspections may not be given, except in the following situations: ( 1 ) In cases of apparent imminent danger, to enable the employer to abate the danger as quickly as possible;
( 2 ) In circumstances where the inspection can most effectively be conducted after regular business hours or where special preparations are necessary for an inspection;
( 3 ) Where necessary to assure the presence of representatives of the employer and employees or the appropriate personnel needed to aid in the inspection; and
( 4 ) In other circumstances where the Area Director determines that the giving of advance notice would enhance the probability of an effective and thorough inspection.
( b ) In the situations described in paragraph (a) of this section, advance notice of inspections may be given only if authorized by the Area Director, except that in cases of apparent imminent danger, advance notice may be given by the Compliance Safety and Health Officer without such authorization if the Area Director is not immediately available. When advance notice is given, it shall be the employer's responsibility promptly to notify the authorized representative of employees of the inspection, if the identity of such representative is known to the employer. (See § 1903.8(b) as to situations where there is no authorized representative of employees.) Upon the request of the employer, the Compliance Safety and Health Officer will inform the authorized representative of employees of the inspection, provided that the employer furnishes the Compliance Safety and Health Officer with the identity of such representative and with such other information as is necessary to enable him promptly to inform such representative of the inspection. An employer who fails to comply with his obligation under this paragraph promptly to inform the authorized representative of employees of the inspection or to furnish such information as is necessary to enable the Compliance Safety and Health Officer promptly to inform such representative of the inspection, may be subject to citation and penalty in accordance with § 1903.15(d)(4). Advance notice in any of the situations described in paragraph (a) of this section shall not be given more than 24 hours before the inspection is scheduled to be conducted, except in apparent imminent danger situations and in other unusual circumstances.
( c ) The Act provides in section 17(f) that any person who gives advance notice of any inspection to be conducted under the Act, without authority from the Secretary or his designees, shall, upon conviction, be punished by fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or by both.
[36 FR 17850, Sept. 4, 1971, as amended at 81 FR 43452, July 1, 2016]
#### § 1912.11 Terms of ad hoc committee members.

Each member of an ad hoc advisory committee shall serve for such period as the Assistant Secretary may prescribe in his notice of appointment. Appointment of a member to the Committee for a fixed time period shall not affect the authority of the Secretary to remove, in his or her discretion, any member at any time. If a member resigns or is removed before his or her term expires, the Secretary of Labor may appoint a new member to serve for the remaining portion of the period prescribed in the notice appointing the original member of the committee.

[67 FR 659, Jan. 7, 2002]
§ 1955.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part contains rules of practice and procedure for formal administrative proceedings on the withdrawal of initial or final approval of State plans in accordance with section 18(f) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667).
( b ) These rules shall be construed to secure a prompt and just conclusion of the proceedings subject thereto.
EXHIBIT
10.1


 


BLACKHAWK
BIOFUELS, LLC


 


RESOLUTIONS
OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS


 


November 21,
2009


 


RESOLVED, that the
Warrants dated June 30, 2006 issued by the Company to thirteen members of
the Company’s Board of Managers, which entitle each holder to purchase 50,000 Class A
Units of the Company, totaling 650,000 units, at an exercise price of $1.00 per
unit, and which are presently exercisable for a period of one year from and
after the date on which the Company’s biodiesel plant commences operations,
which the Company has determined was December 19, 2009, are hereby amended
to extend the exercise period of each such Warrant to the close of business on March 31,
2010, and the Chair, Vice Chair, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company are,
and each of them is, hereby authorized to execute and deliver to each holder of
such Warrants an amended Warrant, Amendment to Warrant or letter confirming
such amendment on behalf of the Company in such form and with such terms and
conditions as the executing officer may approve, such approval to be
conclusively evidenced by his or her execution and delivery thereof.


 


RESOLVED, that the Chair,
Vice Chair, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company are, and each of them is,
hereby authorized to take any and all other action, to execute any and all
other certificates, documents, agreements and instruments, including, without
limitation, powers of attorney and other delegations of authority, and take any
and all steps deemed by any of them necessary or desirable to carry out the purpose
and intent of and to consummate and implement the transactions contemplated by
the foregoing resolution, in the name of and on behalf of the Company.
#### CARL ALLGRUNN v. UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v. CARL G. ALLGRUNN

[67 C. Cls. 1; 84 C. Cls. 476; 302 U. S. 725]

Petitions for cross-writs of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court October 11, 1937.
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Annual Report of Ultrapetrol (Bahamas) Limited (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Leonard J. Hoskinson, Principal Financial 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, that:





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





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





This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose.  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: March 14, 2011





/s/ Leonard J. Hoskinson


Leonard J. Hoskinson


Principal Financial Officer
#### § 1924.1 Applicable safety standards.

The safety standards provided in 41 CFR part 50-204 shall have effect to the extent applicable to any workshop or rehabilitation facility assisted by a grant pursuant to section 12 or section 13 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1965, 79 Stat. 1284, 1286.

[32 FR 3052, Feb. 18, 1967. Redesignated at 32 FR 4170, Mar. 17, 1967. Further redesignated at 36 FR 25232, Dec. 30, 1971]
# EUR-Lex - 31997R1877 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997R1877

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1877/97 of 26 September 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 determining the intervention centres for cereals **

*
Official Journal L 265 , 27/09/1997 P. 0033 - 0040 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1877/97 of 26 September 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 determining the intervention centres for cereals

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 923/96 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas the intervention centres determined are listed in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2304/96 (4); whereas some Member States have applied for changes to that Annex; whereas these applications can be accepted;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 is hereby amended as follows:

1. Under 'Bundesrepublik Deutschland`, 'Bückeburg` in Land Niedersachsen is deleted;

2. The section for 'France` is replaced by that in the Annex to this Regulation;

3. Under 'Ireland`, 'Dundalk`, 'Dungarvan`, 'Limerick` and 'Navan` are replaced by 'Baltinglass`, 'New Ross`, 'Tullow` and 'Bunclody`.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following 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, 26 September 1997.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.

(3) OJ L 207, 18. 8. 1993, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 311, 30. 11. 1996, p. 47.

ANNEX

>TABLE>
ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

As of and for the year ended March 31,  2000,  pursuant  to Section  8.16 of the
Pooling and  Servicing  Agreement,  the  undersigned  on behalf of Centex Credit
Corporation  has performed the reviews of the activities of the Servicer  during
such preceding  fiscal year and of  performance  under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement,for Centex Home Equity Loan Trust 1999-1 under my
supervision.

To the best of my  knowledge,  based on such review,  the Servicer has fulfilled
all  obligations  under the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement for the fiscal year
above referenced.

Anthony H. Barone
President
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 Certification
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001.
 
 
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of BIO-TRACKING SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.
        (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004, as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        I,
        Jean-Francois Amyot, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act
        of 2001, that:
 
 The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: October
                  6, 2005
                By:
                /s/ Jean-Francois
                  AmyotJean-Francois
                    Amyot
                  Chief
                    Accounting Officer
EPA DR# 3885
EPA DR# 3885 EPA 3885
EPA DR# 3885 EPA 3885
[No. 27551-1-II.

Division Two.

November 8, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Arthur W. Walton, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 01-1-00458, Gary Tabor, J., entered July 6, 2001. *Remanded*by unpublished opinion per QuinnBrintnall, A.C.J., concurred in by Houghton and Bridge-water, JJ.
#### Juberky Silverio, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 669]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered July 13, 1998, which denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment against the police officer defendants, and granted defendants’ cross motion to compel acceptance of an answer on their behalf, upon payment of $350, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Alleging personal injuries as the result of the acts of two on-duty police officers, plaintiff commenced this action against the City of New York and the two police officers. The City timely answered on its own behalf. Plaintiff moved for a default judgment against the police officers and defendants cross-moved for leave to interpose an answer on the police officers’ behalf some three months after their time to answer had expired. The City maintained it was late in answering on the police officers’ behalf due to its investigation of its obligation to defend them (General Municipal Law § 50-k [2]), and submitted the proposed answer, verified by an employee in the Corporation Counsel’s office, as the statement of merit.

The court’s refusal to enter a default judgment against the police officers was not an abuse of discretion (see, *Mufalli v Ford Motor Co.,*105 AD2d 642; cf., *Aloizos v Trinity Realty Corp.,*171 AD2d 426). There was no showing that plaintiff suffered any prejudice by reason of the police officers’ delay in answering the complaint, nor aré there present other circumstances warranting deviation from New York’s strong public policy in favor of litigating matters on the merits (see, *Scott v Allstate Ins. Co.,*124 AD2d 481, 484). Finally, in the circumstances presented here, rigid adherence to a requirement that there be affidavits of merit by the police officers themselves would be inappropriate *(Drawhorn v Iglesias,*254 AD2d 97; *Vines v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.,*162 AD2d 229). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
# L_2009304EN.01002401.xml

| 19.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 304/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 304/24

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 508/1999 of 4 March 1999 amending Annexes I to IV of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 60 of 9 March 1999
  )

On page 38, Annex II, category 2 ‘Organic compounds’, under the entry for the pharmacologically active substance Rifaximin, third column ‘Other provisions’:

for:

‘For intramammary use, except if the udder may be used as food for human consumption’,

read:

‘For intramammary use, except if the udder may be used as food for human consumption, and intrauterine use only’.

---
#### § 2.22 Production or disclosure prohibited unless approved by the appropriate Deputy Solicitor of Labor.

In terms of instructing an employee or former employee of the manner in which to respond to a demand, the Associate Solicitor, Regional Solicitor, or Associate Regional Solicitor, whichever is applicable, shall follow the instructions of the appropriate Deputy Solicitor of Labor. No employee or former employee of the Department of Labor shall, in response to a demand of a court or other authority, produce any material contained in the files of the Department or disclose any information relating to material contained in the files of the Department, or disclose any information or produce any material acquired as part of the performance of his official duties or because of his official status without approval of the appropriate Deputy Solicitor of Labor.
# Unable to open file: 

# Unable to open file: