alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

LEROY SPANN,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF

PROBATION AND PAROLE AND PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE,

Appellees :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 71 MAP 2016

Appeal from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court at No. 728 MD
2012 dated June 9, 2016

O RDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: August 16, 2017

AND NOW , this 16 th day of August , 2017, the Commonwealth Court ’s ruling

dated June 9, 2016 is affirmed in part and reversed in part:

(1) that portion of the ruling granting the Suggestion of Mootness filed by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole is hereby AFFIRMED; and

(2) that portion of the ruling granting the Prelimina ry Objections filed by the Pennsylvania State Police and denying the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Appellant Leroy Spann is hereby REVERSED. See

Commonwealth v. Muniz , ___ A.3d ___, 47 MAP 2016 (Pa. July 19, 2017).

The case is hereby remanded to the Commonwealth Court for the entry of an

appropriate order granting mandamus relief

.

Chief Justice Saylor and Justice Mundy file concurring statement s

.
Comerica
      Bank




Five
      Palo
      Alto Square. Ste. 800


3000
      El
      Camino Real


Palo
      Alto, CA 94306


Technology
      & Life Sciences




May
      11,
      2006




Ravi
      Brar


Chief
      Financial Officer


Pac-West
      Telecomm, Inc.


1776
      W.
      March Lane, Suite 250


Stockton,
      Ca 95207




Re:
      Pac-West Telecomm, Inc.




Dear
      Ravi:




Reference
      is made to that certain Loan and Security Agreement between Pac-West Telecomm,
      Inc. ("Borrower")
      and Comerica Bank ("Bank") dated as of November 9, 2005, as amended by that
      certain First Amendment to the Loan and Security Agreement, dated as of November
      30,2005, as further amended by that certain Second Amendment to the Loan and
      Security Agreement, dated as of February 17, 2006 (collectively, and together
      with any agreements referred to therein, the "Agreement"). All initially capitalized
      terms used but not defined in this letter shall have the meanings assigned
      to
      such terms in the Agreement.




Borrower
      has been notified that on or after April 1, 2006 certain Defaults or Events
      of
      Default have occurred
      and continue to exist as a result ofa violation of the following provision(s)
      of
      the Agreement:




"Section
      6.7: (a) Adjusted
      Quick Ratio. A
      ratio
      of Cash plus eighty percent (80%) of net trade Accounts
      receivable net ninety (90) days from invoice date, excluding contra accounts,
      to
      Current Liabilities plus (to the extent not already included therein) all
      Indebtedness to Bank less Deferred Revenue of at least (i) .80 to 1.00 from
      the
      Closing Date through December 30,2006; and (ii) .90 to 1.00 thereafter; measured
      monthly."




"Section
      6.7: (d) Total
      Liabilities to Effective Tangible Net Worth. A
      ratio
      of Total Liabilities less Subordinated Debt to Effective Tangible Net Worth
      of
      not more than 1.00:1.00, measured monthly."




Borrower
      has requested and Bank hereby agrees to waive the above referenced default
      for
      the periods from April 1, 2006 through and including May 31, 2006.




This
      waiver is limited to the violations and the periods described above. This waiver
      does not constitute a waiver, amendment, or forbearance of any other Default
      or
      Event of Default that may now exist or may occur
      after the period stated herein with respect to these violations or any other
      term, condition, or covenant contained in the Agreement. Except as specifically
      set forth herein, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement remain
      unchanged and in full force and effect.




Sincerely,
      Comerica




By:
      /s/
      John Benetti




John
      Benetti


Corporate
      Banking Officer




~
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.006-1 Applicable specifications. ( a ) There are no other specifications applicable to this subpart.
( b ) [Reserved]
§ 35.10-3 Display of plans—TB/ALL. Barges with sleeping accommodations for more than six persons and all self-propelled vessels shall have permanently exhibited for the guidance of the officer in charge of the vessel the following plans: ( a ) General arrangement plans showing for each deck the fire control stations, the various sections enclosed by fire-resisting bulkheads, together with particulars of the fire alarms, detecting systems, the sprinkle installation (if any), the fire extinguishing appliances, means of access to different compartments, decks, etc., and the ventilating systems including particulars of the master fan controls, the positions of dampers, the location of the remote means of stopping fans, and identification numbers of the ventilating fans serving each section. If cargo compartments are “specially suited for vehicles,” they shall be so indicated on the plan. Alternatively, at the discretion of the Commandant, the aforementioned details may be set out in any other medium, such as a booklet or on computer software, provided that the aforementioned details are available to each officer and a copy is retained on board at all times and is accessible during emergencies. For vessels constructed on or after September 30, 1997 or for existing vessels which have their plans redrawn, the symbols used to identify the aforementioned details shall be in accordance with IMO Assembly resolution A.654(16). These identical symbols can also be found in ASTM Adjunct F 1626 (incorporated by reference, see § 35.01-3).
( b ) Plans showing clearly for each deck the boundaries of the watertight compartments, the openings therein with the means of closure and position of any controls thereof, and the arrangements for the correction of any list due to flooding.
( c ) The information contained in the plans shall be kept up-to-date, and any changes shall be recorded as soon as possible.
[CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51199, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended by USCG-2000-7790, 65 FR 58459, Sept. 29, 2000; USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58280, Sept. 29, 2014]
Exhibit 32

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Relating to a Periodic Report
Containing Financial Statements

Each of, William J. Reuter, Chief Executive Officer, and Drew K. Hostetter, Chief Financial Officer, of
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, based on his knowledge:

(1) The Companys periodic
report containing financial statements on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: As of May 7, 2009



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |  |  |  | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
|                        |  | 
|/s/ William J. Reuter   |  |  |  | /s/ Drew K. Hostetter  
|William J. Reuter       |  |  |  | Drew K. Hostetter
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.1**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

December 23, 2011

 

Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

i.                  that this annual  report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

ii.               that information contained in the annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations  of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/   Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr.  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Charles   T. Chrietzberg, Jr.      |
|   | Chief   Executive Officer and President |

 

----
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 25, 2010 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-3136 v. (D. Kansas) CHARLES LALIBERTE, Defendant - Appellant. (D.C. Nos. 6:10-CV-01059-WEB and 6:07-CR-10022-WEB-4)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before HARTZ , ANDERSON , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges.
Charles Laliberte entered a conditional plea of guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal we affirmed the denial. See United States v. Laliberte , 308 F. App’x 295 (10th Cir. 2009). Mr. Laliberte then filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside his conviction. The motion was denied by the district court, and Mr. Laliberte now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal that denial. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (requiring COA to appeal denial of application). We deny a COA and dismiss the appeal. Mr. Laliberte’s application for a COA and opening brief in this appeal is rambling and incoherent. But it is clear that the gist of it relates to the search that he challenged on his prior appeal. Although he contends that his attorney-2- rendered ineffective assistance, his pleading in this court does not mention any specific lapse by his attorney. Rather, his arguments address the merits of his suppression motion. To obtain a COA in a § 2255 proceeding, the movant must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires “a demonstration that . . . includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the applicant must show that the district court’s resolution of the constitutional claim was either “debatable or wrong.” Id. Under that standard, Mr. Laliberte is not entitled to a COA. His argument in this court is no more than a challenge to our ruling on his prior appeal. But we will not consider an issue raised under § 2255 that we have resolved on a prior appeal. See United States v. Prichard , 875 F.2d 789, 791 (10th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (“Absent an intervening change in the law of a circuit, issues disposed of on direct appeal generally will not be considered on a collateral attack by a motion pursuant to § 2255.”). No reasonable jurist could debate that the district court erred in denying Mr. Laliberte’s motion under § 2255.-3- We DENY the application for COA and dismiss the appeal. We also DENY all pending motions. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge
§ 169.683 Overcurrent protection, general. ( a ) Overcurrent protection must be provided for each ungrounded conductor for the purpose of opening the electric circuit if the current reaches a value that causes an excessive or dangerous temperature in the conductor or conductor insulation.
( b ) Disconnect means must be provided on the supply side of and adjacent to all fuses for the purpose of deenergizing the fuses for inspection and maintenance purposes. All disconnect means must open all ungrounded conductors of the circuit simultaneously.
( c ) Each conductor, including a generator lead and shore power cable, must be protected in accordance with its current-carrying capacity.
( d ) If the allowable current-carrying capacity of a conductor does not correspond to a standard size fuse, the next larger size or rating may be used but not exceeding 150 percent of the allowable current-carrying capacity of the conductor.
( e ) Plug (screw in type) fuses and fuseholders must not be used in circuits exceeding 125 volts between conductors. The screw shell of plug type fuseholders must be connected to the load of the circuit. Edison base fuses may not be used.
( f ) If the allowable current-carrying capacity of the conductor does not correspond to a standard rating of circuit breakers, the next larger rating not exceeding 150 percent of the allowable current-carrying capacity of the conductor may be used.
( g ) Lighting branch circuits must be protected against overcurrent either by fuses or circuit breakers rated at not more than 20 amperes.
( h ) Each circuit breaker must be of the manually reset type designed for— ( 1 ) Inverse time delay;
( 2 ) Instantaneous short circuit protection; and
( 3 ) Repeated opening of the circuit in which it is to be used without damage to the circuit breaker.
( i ) Circuit breakers must indicate whether they are in the open or closed position.
( j ) Devices such as instruments, pilot lights, ground detector lights, potential transformers, etc. must be supplied by circuits protected by overcurrent devices.
( k ) Each generator must be protected with an overcurrent device set at a value not exceeding 15 percent above the full-load rating for continuous rated machines or the overload rating for special rated machines.
§ 178.230 Stability letter or Certificate of Inspection stability details. ( a ) When the cognizant OCMI or the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center determines, in accordance with § 178.210, that a vessel must have stability details indicated on its Certificate of Inspection or a stability letter, the owner or operator must submit the information listed in paragraph (b) of this section: ( 1 ) If § 178.210(c) is applicable, to the OCMI for approval; or
( 2 ) If § 178.210(b) is applicable, to the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center for approval.
( b ) If § 178.210(b) of this part applies, the applicable information described in subpart C of part 170 of this title, and the calculations used to determine that information, must be submitted in addition to the applicable information listed in paragraph (b) of this section. ( 1 ) Allowable weight and number of passengers and crew on each deck;
( 2 ) Deepest waterline drafts or freeboard;
( 3 ) Location of watertight bulkheads and openings in watertight bulkheads;
( 4 ) Explanation of the vessel's subdivision and specific identification of the vessel's subdivision bulkheads;
( 5 ) Location of openings through watertight bulkheads, such as watertight doors, which must be closed to limit flooding in an emergency;
( 6 ) Location, type and amount of fixed ballast;
( 7 ) Location and details of foam flotation material; and
( 8 ) Maximum weight of portable equipment permitted on the vessel including diving equipment.
( c ) If § 178.210(c) of this part applies, the allowable weight and number of passengers and crew on each deck, and the necessary calculations used to determine that information, must be submitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 966, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78087, Dec. 14, 2010]
# C_2011269EN.01003504.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 — Generali Investments Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of AMB Generali Aktien Euroland v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

(Case C-347/11)

2011/C 269/73

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generali Investments Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of AMB Generali Aktien Euroland

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?

---
#### § 32.20-1 Equipment installations on vessels during World War II—TB/ALL.

Boilers, pressure vessels, machinery, piping, electrical and other installations, including lifesaving, firefighting and other safety equipment, installed on vessels during the Unlimited National Emergency declared by the President on May 27, 1941, and prior to the termination of title V of the Second War Powers Act, as extended (sec. 501, 56 Stat. 180, 50 U.S.C. 635), which do not fully meet the detailed requirements of the regulations in this chapter, may be continued in service if found to be satisfactory by the Commandant for the purpose intended. In each instance prior to final action by the Commandant, the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, shall notify Headquarters of the facts in the case, together with recommendations relative to suitability for retention.
§ 28.30 Applicability; preemptive effect. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part is applicable to all United States flag vessels not inspected under this chapter that are commercial fishing, fish processing, or fish tender vessels. This includes vessels documented under the provisions of subchapter G of this chapter and vessels numbered by a State or the Coast Guard under the provisions of 33 CFR subchapter S. Certain regulations in this part apply only to limited categories of vessels. Specific applicability statements are provided at the beginning of those regulations.
( b ) This part does not apply to a small boat or auxiliary craft that is deployed from a fishing industry vessel for the purpose of handling fishing gear.
( c ) The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State or local regulations in the same field.
[CGD 88-079, 56 FR 40393, Aug. 14, 1991; 56 FR 49822, Oct. 1, 1991, as amended by USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58344, Sept. 30, 2004; USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 68089, Nov. 23, 2004; USCG-2006-24797, 77 FR 33872, June 7, 2012]
# C_2012025EN.01003103.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/31

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Woningstichting Maasdriel, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-543/11)

(2012/C 25/56)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Woningstichting Maasdriel

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(k) of the VAT Directive 2006, (1) in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) of that directive, be interpreted as precluding in all cases the exemption from VAT of the supply of land which has not been built on which has come into existence by the demolition of existing buildings thereon, demolition which was carried out with a view to the construction of new buildings?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2492 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2492

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
discharges of student loans the repayment of which is income contingent 
                            or income based.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2009

 Mr. Levin (for himself, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. George Miller of California, 
  Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Hinojosa, and Mr. Davis of Illinois) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
discharges of student loans the repayment of which is income contingent 
                            or income based.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTAIN STUDENT LOANS THE REPAYMENT OF WHICH IS INCOME 
              CONTINGENT OR INCOME BASED.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 108(f) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``any student loan if'' and 
all that follows and inserting ``any student loan if--
            ``(A) such discharge was pursuant to a provision of such 
        loan under which all or part of the indebtedness of the 
        individual would be discharged if the individual worked for a 
        certain period of time in certain professions for any of a 
        broad class of employers, or
            ``(B) such discharge was pursuant to subsections (d)(1)(D) 
        and (e)(7) of section 455, or section 493C(b)(7), of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 (relating to income contingent and income 
        based repayment, respectively).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to discharges of loans after June 30, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
[LOGO]
DOV PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.

                                                 EXHIBIT 10.1



January 21, 2005


Dr. Arnold Lippa
Chief Executive Officer
DOV Pharmaceutical, Inc.
433 Hackensack Avenue
Hackensack, NJ 07601

Re:     Extension of Employment Agreement

Dear Dr. Lippa:

      This will confirm the extension effective December 10, 2004 (its stated
termination date) of your employment agreement pending further and continued
consideration by the committee of your overall compensation in light among other
factors of new executive hiring contemplated. We would expect to present
proposed terms and conclude a new agreement with you this quarter. All terms and
conditions of your extended agreement shall remain in full force and effect,
except for the increase of your base compensation by 10% to $402,325, the
minimum amount specified in the extended agreement, and the increase of your car
allowance by $200 to $1600 per month. Neither of these extended terms nor any
others including financial necessarily define those for the new agreement.


Sincerely,


/s/ Dr. Zola Horovitz
----------------------------------------
Dr. Zola Horovitz
Chair, Compensation Committee


/s/ Dr. Arnold Lippa
----------------------------------------
Dr. Arnold Lippa
Chief Executive Officer

Date: January 25, 2005