alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 15 51

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Dou g Weis ch m an
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Caro lyn W . Col vi n, Act in g C omm is si on er o f So ci al Secu rit y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Aug us t 1 2, 2 01 6 Fi le d: Aug us t 1 7, 2 01 6 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, ARNOLD, andMURPHY, Ci rcu itJu dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Dou gl as W ei sc hm an ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r affi rm in g th e de ni al of 1

su pp le m en ta l se cu rit y in co m e. Upo n d e n o vo rev ie w, we fin d th at su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce on th e reco rd as a who l e s u p po rts th e adm in is tra ti ve la w jud ge ’s (ALJ’s) de ci si on th at Mr. W ei sc hm an w a s no t di sabl ed

. See And rews v. Co lv in , 79 1 F.3 d 92 3, 92 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Sp eci fic al ly, we de fer to th e ALJ’s cred ib il it y fin di ng s, se e McDa de v. Ast ru e, 72 0 F.3 d 99 4, 99 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (cre di bi li ty fin di ng s are en ti tl ed to de fere nc e if supp or te d by go od reas on s an d su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce); an d we fin d th at th e ALJ’s d e t erm in at io n of Mr. W ei sc hm an ’s res idua l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty (RFC ), whi ch was m or e li m it ed th a n th e de te rm in at io ns of th e rev ie win g an d co ns ul ti ng ph y si ci an s, i s co ns is te nt wit h th e m ed ic al ev id en ce an d, fo r th e m os t p art , wit h M r. W ei sc hm an ’s own de sc rip ti on of hi s ab il it y to si t, s ta nd , walkan d c arry, see Myers v. Col vi n, 72 1 F.3d 52 1, 52 7 (8t h Cir. 20 13 ) (RFC m us t be de te rm in ed ba se d on al l rel ev an t ev id en ce, in cl ud in g m ed ic al reco rd s, ob se rv at io ns of tre at in g ph y si ci an s an d ot he rs , an d cl ai m an t’s own de sc rip ti on of hi s li m it at io ns ; RFC m us t be su pp or te d by

so m e m ed ic al ev id en ce). Th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Kris ti ne G. Bak er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le J. Tho m as Ray, Uni te d S ta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s. -2

-
[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:****Evaluation of automateddecisionmaking methodologies and development of an integrated robotic systemsimulation**
 
SuDoc Number:NAS 1.26:178050 | NAS 1.26:178051| NAS 1.26:178052

Item Number:0830-H-14 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000879640
 
Volumes: 010203
 
April 29, 2020
#### § 22.571 Responsibility for mobile stations.

Mobile stations that are subscribers in good standing to a two-way service in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service, when receiving service from that station, are considered to be operating under the authorization of that station. Licensees are responsible for exercising effective operational control over mobile stations receiving service through their stations. Mobile stations that are subscribers in good standing to a two-way service in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service, while receiving service from a different station, are considered to be operating under the authorization of such different station. The licensee of such different station is responsible, during such temporary period, for exercising effective operational control over such mobile stations as if they were subscribers to it.
#### § 22.715 Technical channel assignment criteria for rural radiotelephone stations.

Channels are assigned in the Rural Radiotelephone Service using the procedures in § 22.567.
580P05-14

#### In re David L. Smith

Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

Dismissed

Ervin, J.,

recused
792 A.2d 1240

#### IN THE MATTER OF CARMINE DESANTIS, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

April 2, 2002.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 01-027, concluding that CARMINE DeSANTIS of STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1988, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year for violating *RPC*8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the attorney’s honesty as a lawyer) and *RPC*8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation);

And CARMINE DeSANTIS having been temporarily suspended from practice pursuant to *Rule*1:20 — 13(b)(1) by Order of this Court filed October 17, 2000, and remaining suspended at this time;

And the Court having granted the petition for review filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics and ordered respondent to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that CARMINE DeSANTIS is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and until the further Order of the Court, retroactive to October 17, 2000; and it is further

*143ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 2.1035 [Reserved]
SCPW-16-0000789 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

________________________________________________________________ VICTOR ESTRADA, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE MARGARET K. MASUNAGA, Judge of the District Court of the Third Circuit, Kona District, Respondent Judge, and
STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I, Respondent.

________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 3DTA-14-01510)
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR FOR OTHER RELIEF (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Victor Estrada’s “Petition for Writ of Mandamus or for Other Relief,” filed on November 7, 2016, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner has filed an appeal in the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) in CAAP-16-0000682, and may seek the requested relief in that court, as appropriate. See Kema v. Gaddis , 91 Hawai ʻ i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-16-0000789 10-NOV-2016 09:53 AMclear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative

means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action) . Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice to petitioner seeking relief from the ICA in CAAP-16-0000682, as appropriate.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the appellate clerks’ office shall process the petition for writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, November 10, 2016. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson
31.1

CERTIFICATION



I, Mikhail A. Smirnov, Chief Executive Officer of Moscow CableCom Corp., certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Moscow CableCom Corp.;

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 officer(s) 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 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; and

c)       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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officer(s) 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 functions):

a)       All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; 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 over financial reporting.

Date:  October 24, 2006





/s/ Mikhail A. Smirnov

Mikhail A. Smirnov

Chief Executive Officer
No. D-2676.

#### In re Discipline of Simon.

Bruce W. Simon, of Saint Joseph, Mo., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In   connection   with   the   accompanying  Annual  Report   of  Concierge
Technologies,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30,
2003  (the  "Report"), I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby  certify  that  to  my  knowledge:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  October  9,  2003
                              /s/  Allen  E.  Kahn

                              Allen  E.  Kahn
                              Chief  Financial  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-KSB  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.














                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
EX-4.1


 Exhibit 4.1 

SEE RESTRICTIVE LEGENDS ON REVERSE SIDE OF CERTIFICATE 
  

					
	PX-        	 	 Incorporated Under

the Laws of the State of Delaware

on December 31, 2011
	 	**        **

 XOMA CORPORATION 

Series X Preferred Stock 

THIS CERTIFIES THAT
[STOCKHOLDER] is the record holder of [Number of Shares] (                ) Shares of Series X Preferred Stock of
XOMA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, hereinafter designated “the Corporation,” transferable only upon the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in person or by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this
Certificate properly endorsed or assigned. 
 A statement of the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions granted to or imposed upon
the respective classes or series of shares of stock of the Corporation and upon holders thereof as established by the Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, and the number of shares constituting each series and the designations thereof, may be
obtained by any stockholder upon request and without charge at the principal office of the Corporation. 

IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed with the signatures of its duly authorized officers this      day of
            , 20    . 
  

					
	  
	 		 	  

	James R. Neal, President	 		 	Denis J. Quinlan, Secretary







 A STATEMENT OF THE RIGHTS, PREFERENCES, PRIVILEGES AND RESTRICTIONS GRANTED TO OR IMPOSED UPON THE RESPECTIVE
CLASSES OR SERIES OF SHARES OF STOCK OF THE CORPORATION AND UPON HOLDERS THEREOF AS ESTABLISHED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OR BY ANY CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION OF PREFERENCES, AND THE NUMBER OF SHARES CONSTITUTING EACH SERIES AND THE
DESIGNATIONS THEREOF, MAY BE OBTAINED BY ANY SHAREHOLDER UPON REQUEST AND WITHOUT CHARGE AT THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION.
# Cyber Beacon 2021

/ Published Dec. 9, 2021
9th of December 2021, 
Watch most of CB 2021 on our YouTube channel here and read the Defense.gov article (National Cyber Director Unveils New Approach at Cyber War College Conference) here.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4161

GABRIEL AGUILERA-GUTIERREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge.

(CR-98-256)

Submitted: September 30, 1999

Decided: October 8, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States

Attorney, Arnold L. Husser, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Gabriel Aguilera-Gutierrez pled guilty to illegal re-entry by a

deported alien, see 8 U.S.C.A. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (West 1999), and

possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, see 18 U.S.C.A.

§§ 922(g)(5), 924(a)(2) (West Supp. 1999). We affirm the conviction

and sentence.

Aguilera-Gutierrez's attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising as a potentially meritorious issue the district court's failure to depart below the guideline

range pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2, comment. (n.5) (1998). Application Note 5 suggests that a downward

departure may be warranted when the defendant received an enhancement for having a prior conviction for an aggravated offense, but has

only one such conviction, the prior offense was neither a crime of violence nor a firearms offense, and the prior sentence did not exceed

one year. However, the district court's decision not to depart is not

reviewable on appeal. See United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 31

(4th Cir. 1990).

Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm the conviction and

sentence. We deny counsel's motion to withdraw. This court requires

that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client

requests that a petition be filed, then counsel may again move this

court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion

must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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

 2
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: MIODRAG KOSTIC, GUY VANDEVELDE, 

Appellants

______________________

2023-1437

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 16/667,530.

______________________

O R D E R

The Appellants having failed to file an appendix 

required by Federal Circuit Rule 30(a) within the time 

permitted by the rules, it is 

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the 

Case: 23-1437 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2024
2 IN RE: KOSTIC 

same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

February 5, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 5, 2024

Case: 23-1437 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2024
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4569

AMENDMENTS
In the Senate of the United States,

August 10 (legislative day, August 8), 1994.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 4569) entitled ‘‘An Act to extend and make

amendments to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination

Records Collection Act of 1992’’ do pass with the following

AMENDMENTS:

1 Ω1æPage 2, strike out lines 1 to 3 and insert:

2 (1) by striking ‘‘2 years after the date of enact3 ment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30,

4 1996’’; and

5 (2) by striking ‘‘2-year’’.

6 Ω2æPage 2, line 6, strike out øSection 8(j)(1)¿ and in7 sert: Section (7)(j)(1)

8 Ω3æPage 3, lines 7 and 8 strike out øoffered the posi9 tion¿ and insert: employed conditionally in accordance

10 with subsection (b)(3)(B)

11 Ω4æPage 4, after line 8, insert:
2

HR 4569 EAS

1 (d) CONDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT OF STAFF.—Section

2 8(b)(3)(B) of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination

3 Records Collection Act of 1992 (44 U.S.C. 2107 note) is

4 amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘(B)(i) The Review Board may offer conditional em6 ployment to a candidate for a staff position pending the

7 completion of security clearance background investigations.

8 During the pendency of such investigations, the Review

9 Board shall ensure that any such employee does not have

10 access to, or responsibility involving, classified or otherwise

11 restricted assassination record materials.

12 ‘‘(ii) If a person hired on a conditional basis under

13 clause (i) is denied or otherwise does not qualify for all

14 security clearances necessary to carry out the responsibil15 ities of the position for which conditional employment has

16 been offered, the Review Board shall immediately terminate

17 the person’s employment.’’.

18 (e) COMPENSATION OF STAFF.—Section 8(c) of the

19 President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collec20 tion Act of 1992 (21 U.S.C. 2107 note) is amended to read

21 as follows:

22 ‘‘(c) COMPENSATION.—Subject to such rules as may be

23 adopted by the Review Board, the chairperson, without re24 gard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, govern25 ing appointments in the competitive service and without
3

HR 4569 EAS

1 regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III

2 of chapter 53 of that title relating to classification and Gen3 eral Schedule pay rates, may—

4 ‘‘(1) appoint an Executive Director, who shall be

5 paid at a rate not to exceed the rate of basic pay for

6 level V of the Executive Schedule; and

7 ‘‘(2) appoint and fix compensation of such other

8 personnel as may be necessary to carry out this Act.’’.

Attest:

Secretary.
106P16

#### Kimarlo Antonio Ragland v. N.C. Department of Public Instruction

Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COAP16-141)

Denied
501 P.2d 48

#### Carson RENDEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Arizona, and Frank A. Eyman, Warden, Arizona State Prison, Appellees.

No. 2 CA-CIV 1140.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Sept. 26, 1972.

*208Carson Rendel, in pro. per.

Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by John S. O’Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellees.

EUBANK, Judge.

This appeal is from the denial of appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant, who is presently incarcerated in the State Prison at Florence, contends that the judgment under which he is held at the state prison is void for three reasons. These same reasons were raised and answered by this Court in our decision on the criminal appeal from that same judgment, filed herewith, entitled, The State of Arizona v. Rendel, No. 1 CA-CR 379, 18 Ariz.App. 201, 501 P.2d 42 (1972).

Since the same facts and issues are involved in both this appeal and the criminal appeal, we deem it unnecessary to write an additional opinion. We therefore incorporate our opinion in Case No. 1 CA-CR 379 into this opinion as our decision in the case at bar.

The action of the Superior Court in denying the appellant’s petition for habeas corpus is affirmed.

HAIRE, Chief Judge, Division 1, and JACOBSON, J., concur.

NOTE: This cause was decided by the Judges of Division One as authorized by A.R.S. § 12-120, subsec. E,