alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3775

___________

David E. Collins, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

David Scurr, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 13, 2000

Filed: September 19, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1995, David E. Collins pleaded guilty to state drug-related charges and later

filed an application for state postconviction relief, which was denied on December 19,

1996. Collins did not appeal the denial of his application for state postconviction relief.

On September 9, 1998, Collins filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas

corpus. The district court dismissed Collins's § 2254 petition, concluding the petition

was not timely filed within the applicable one-year statute of limitations for § 2254

petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (Supp. IV 1998). 
-2-

On appeal, Collins concedes his § 2254 petition was filed outside the one-year

limitation period of § 2244(d), but argues the statute of limitations should have been

equitably tolled due to his alleged mental incompetence. We disagree. "In the habeas

context, equitable tolling is proper when '"extraordinary circumstances" beyond a

prisoner's control make it impossible to file a petition on time,'" Paige v. United States,

171 F.3d 559, 561 (8th Cir. 1999) (quoted case omitted), circumstances which Collins

has not alleged in this case. Instead, as the district court noted, Collins's "only response

to [his habeas action's] untimeliness is he was suffering from apparent mental

incompetency at the time of his plea [in 1995], and he needs to develop further how

long his mental incompetency continued and whether it affected his ability to file a

habeas petition." (Dist. Ct. Op. at 2-3.) These bald and unsupported assertions,

however, relate to an instance of alleged mental incompetency that "occurred at a time

[] remote to his [§ 2254 petition filing] deadline, and absent a showing that [Collins]

diligently pursued his application [after the denial of state postconviction relief in

December 1996] and still could not complete it on time [due to mental incompetency],"

Fisher v. Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 716 (5th Cir. 1999), Collins has failed to make the

required threshold showing of mental incompetency necessary to equitably toll the

statute of limitations and excuse the late filing of his § 2254 petition. See id. at 715-16;

Calderon v. United States Dist. Court, 163 F.3d 530, 541 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc)

(statute of limitations was equitably tolled because record disclosed defendant had been

having serious mental problems for many years), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1060 (1999).

We thus affirm the dismissal of Collins's § 2254 petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 183.360 Semiconductor rectifier systems. ( a ) Each semiconductor rectifier system must have an adequate heat removal system that prevents overheating.
( b ) Where a semiconductor rectifier system is used in a propulsion system or in other vital systems it must: ( 1 ) Have a current limiting circuit;
( 2 ) Have external overcurrent protection; and
( 3 ) Meet Sections 35.84.2 and 35.84.4 of the ABS Steel Vessel Rules (incorporated by reference; see 46 CFR 175.600) or other standard specified by the Commandant.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 997, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65210, Oct. 31, 2008]
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 15 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 16 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 17 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 18 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 19 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 20 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 21 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 22 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
Case: 08-4340 Document: 00316587265 Page: 23 Date Filed: 02/19/2009
# C_2011269EN.01003501.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/35

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — International Values Series of the DFA Investment Trust Company v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

(Case C-344/11)

2011/C 269/70

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: International Values Series of the DFA Investment Trust Company

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)?

| 2. | If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital?

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.112-1 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for approval of interior finishes (bulkheads and ceiling finishes) for SOLAS vessels as required by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). Products approved under these requirements may be used in place of products required to be approved as meeting the requirements of § 164.012.
#### § 131.101-131.109 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.1828 Spaces containing cargo vapor: Entry. ( a ) No person may enter a cargo handling space without the permission of the master or without following a safety procedure established by the master.
( b ) Before allowing anyone to enter a cargo handling space, the master shall ensure that: ( 1 ) The space is free of toxic vapors and has an oxygen concentration of at least 19.5 percent oxygen by volume; or
( 2 ) Those entering the space wear protective equipment with breathing apparatus and an officer closely supervises the entire operation in the space.
§ 108.239 Fuel transfer equipment. ( a ) Each nozzle must be a “deadman” type.
( b ) Each hose must have a storage reel.
( c ) Each hose must have a static grounding device.
( d ) Each electric fuel transfer pump must have a control with a fuel transfer pump operation indicator light at the pump.
( e ) There must be a fuel pump shut off at each of the access routes required by § 108.235(f).
( f ) Each fuel transfer pump and each hose reel must have a means to contain fuel spills or leaks.
( g ) Each hose must meet chapter 3 “Aircraft Fueling Hose” of National Fire Protection Association Standard for Aircraft Fuel Servicing (N.F.P.A. No. 407-1975).
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of EvolutionPetroleum Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Sterling H. McDonald, Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tomy knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

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

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed thiscertification as of the 24th day of September, 2008.

 
|        | /s/ STERLING H. MCDONALD                   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Sterling H. McDonald                       |
|   | Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Evolution Petroleum Corporation andwill be retained by Evolution Petroleum Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certificate is being furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to this Form 10-Kand shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 of Thinkpath, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kelly
Hankinson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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



November 11, 2003                          By: /s/ Kelly Hankinson
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Name: Kelly Hankinson
                                           Title: Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>
# C_2013129EN.01003001.xml

| 4.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/30

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Brune v Commission

(Case F-94/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Open competition - Annulment of a decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list - Implementation of a judgment - Principle of legality - Plea of illegality directed against the decision to reopen the competition procedure)

2013/C 129/55

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Markus Brune (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: H. Mannes, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul EPSO’s decision to reopen the procedure for open competition EPSO/AD/26/05 and to invite the applicant to participate again in the oral test and to annul the decision to exclude him from that competition following his absence from that test.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Brune to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Brune to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011, p. 30.

1

---
§ 176.635 Preliminary examination requirements. ( a ) If you exclusively use divers to examine the underwater hull plating, you must arrange to have a preliminary examination conducted by a third party examiner, with the assistance of qualified divers. The purpose of the preliminary examination is to assess the overall condition of the vessel's hull and identify any specific concerns to be addressed during the underwater hull examination.
( b ) The preliminary examination is required only upon the vessel's entry or reentry into the AHE program.
( c ) If you use an underwater remotely operated vehicle (ROV) as the predominate means to examine your vessel's hull plating, a preliminary examination and the participation of a third party examiner will not be necessary.
[USCG-2000-6858, 67 FR 21085, Apr. 29, 2002]
• FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Ole; SIRIl I N.W.

WA5tfINGION,O.C.20463

I'

0'

e

•

--.

•I

REPORT OF THE AUDIT DIVISION

ON THE

COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT JAMIE WHITTEN

I. Background

A. Overview

This report is based upon an audit of the Committee

to Re-[lect Jamie Whitten (lithe Committee") undertaken by the

Audit Division of the Federal Election Commission in accordance

-with the Commission's audit policy to determine whether there

has been compliance with the provisions of the Federal Election

Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (lithe Act"). The audit was

conducted pursuant to Section 438(a)(8) of Title 2, United States

Code, which directs the Commission to make from time to time

audits and field investigations with respect to reports and

statements filed under the provisions of the Act.

The Committee registered with the Federal Election

Commission on April 5, 1976, in support of Congressman Jamie

Whitten, Candidate for the Office of U.S. Representative from

the 1st Congressional District of Mississippi. The Committee

maintained its headquarters in Charleston, Mississippi.

The audit covered the period April 1, 1976, the

inception date of the Committee, throu~h December 31, 1976, the

final coverage date of the termination report filed by the

Committee. The Committee reported a beginning cash balance at

April 1, 1976 of $-0-, receipts for the period of 51,525, total

expenditures for the period of $1,525 and a closing cash balance

at December 31, 1976 of $-0-.

This audit report is based on documents and working

papers supporting each of its factual statements. They form

part of the record upon which the Commission based its decisions

on the matters in this report and were available to Commissioners

and appropriate staff for review .

_.- .~-- --.~.-......"-IIIIII]IIlIIIa"'--...".
• I

o

c·

C

~&

C

-2-

B. Key Personnel

The principal officers of the Committee were

Mr. Riley l. Sheley, Chairman and Mr. E. P. Mullen, Treasurer

during the period of audit.

C. Scope

The audit included such tests as verification of r~ported receipts and expenditures and individual transactions;

review of required supporting documentation; analysis of

Committee debts and obligations; and, such other audit procedures

as deemed necessary under the circumstances.

II. Auditor's Statement

It is the opinion of the Audit staff, based upon examination of the reports and statements filed and the records pre- sented, that the reports and statements of the Committee to

Re-Elect Jamie Whitten fairly present the financial activities

of the Committee for the period covered by the audit. No

material problems in complying with the Federal Election

Campaign Act were discovered during the course of the audit.

.......__._---_._-------------------_...-_.........-.----....
......'t.-04lV"'-~.....-.~

0° °0 (> 0 0 0

'0

o cI

0 0

" (JC 0"

0 0

,......--~--~''""'"'v--~.........-w-..-..~_~_~ __"' 00

o 0 Q()

o 0

o

,,'b 0

,-...--~-~-....,._~

:&1

o 0

> 0'

°0

0

0

'0

0 0

0

0

"0

"'0 0Q 0

00

o '6

'"" 0

0

~EC

l) DOCUMENT

SEPARATOR

o 0

0 0

o 0

o G'

O~j./ 0 0

o 0°

o
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Patrick J. Goodman,  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer of CE
Casecnan Water and Energy Company,  Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, that to
the best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual  period ended
     December 31, 2003 (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 result of operations of the Company.


Dated:  February 9, 2004




                             /s/ Patrick J. Goodman
                             ----------------------
                               Patrick J. Goodman
                Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                            (chief financial officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOURTHERN DIVISION

MORRIS WITHERSPOON,

 

Petitioner, Civil No. 2:14-cv-12758

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

V. United States District Judge

DR. KILARU, ET. AL.,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

On October 7, 2014, the Court dismissed this civil rights action because Plaintiff failed to

comply with the Court’s deficiency order requiring him to provide enough copies of his complaint

to allow service on all the listed Defendants. Plaintiff now asserts that he attempted to comply with

the order, but the additional copies were lost in the mail. He asks for reissuance of the deficiency

order. For the reasons that follow, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.

U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. 

A motion for reconsideration should be granted if the movant demonstrates a palpable defect by

which the court and the parties have been misled and that a different disposition of the case must

result from a correction thereof. Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 340 F. Supp. 2d 773, 774 (E.D. Mich. 2004); 

Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550-51 (E.D. Mich. 1999). A motion for reconsideration which

merely presents "the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable

implication," shall be denied. Ward, 340 F. Supp. 2d at 774.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be granted because the Court accepts his

1

2:14-cv-12758-VAR-DRG Doc # 12 Filed 01/05/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 88
assertion that he attempted to comply with the Court’s deficiency order, but for reasons beyond his

control his filing was lost. Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for

reconsideration [Dkt. No. 9] is GRANTED. The Court will reissue its deficiency order requiring

Plaintiff to provide seven additional copies of his claim within thirty days of the issuance of the new

deficiency order.

 /s/ Gershwin A. Drain 

Honorable Gershwin A. Drain, in the absence of

the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Court 

Dated: 1/5/15

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

and Morris Witherspoon by electronic means or

U.S. Mail on January 5, 2015.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

2

2:14-cv-12758-VAR-DRG Doc # 12 Filed 01/05/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 89
§ 169.553 Pyrotechnic distress signals. ( a ) All pyrotechnic distress signals must be of an approved type.
( b ) Replacement must be made no later than the first inspection for certification or reinspection after the date of expiration.
( c ) Except as otherwise provided in this section, each vessel must carry the following pyrotechnic distress signals: ( 1 ) 6 hand red flare distress signals, and 6 hand orange smoke distress signals; or,
( 2 ) 12 hand held rocket propelled parachute red flare distress signals.
( d ) [Reserved]
( e ) All pyrotechnic distress signals must be carried near the helm or in a location considered suitable by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
( f ) All pyrotechnic distress signals must be stowed in a portable watertight container.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-26517, 333-34652 and 333-51133 on Form S-3, No. 333-46407 on Form S-4 and
Nos. 333-14863, 333-61723, 333-49091, 333-49922, 333-61724 and 333-59084 on Form
S-8 of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (a Bermuda company) of our reports with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and the consolidated financial
statement schedule of Loral Space & Communications Ltd., appearing in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. for the year ended
December 31, 2000.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
San Jose, California
September 7, 2001
#### § 15.835 Staff officers.

Staff officers, when carried, must be registered as specified in part 11 of this chapter.

[CGD 81-059, 52 FR 38652, Oct. 16, 1987, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11263, Mar. 16, 2009]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2021]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Closed Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency National 
Defense Intelligence College.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of Subsection (d) of Section 10 of 
Public Law 92-463, as amended by Section 5 of Public Law 94-409, notice 
is hereby given that a closed meeting of the DIA National Defense 
Intelligence College Board of Visitors has been scheduled as follows:

DATES: Tuesday, 5 June 2007, 0800 to 1700; and Wednesday, 6 June 2007, 
0800 to 1200.

ADDRESSES: National Defense Intelligence College, Washington, DC 20340-
5100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. A. Denis Clift, President, DIA 
National Defense Intelligence College, Washington, DC 20340-5100 (202/
231-3344).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The entire meeting is devoted to the 
discussion of classified information as defined in Section 552b(c)(1), 
Title 5 of the U.S. Code and therefore will be closed. The Board will 
discuss several current critical intelligence issues and advise the 
Director, DIA, as to the successful accomplishment of the mission 
assigned to the National Defense Intelligence College.

    Dated: April 19, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 07-2021 Filed 4-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M