alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

SHANTELL LAMONT JONES, ) 

 ) 

 PETITIONER, ) CR12-38E 

 ) CV14-170E 

 vs. ) 

 ) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

ORDER 

 AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 2016, the United States Supreme Court having 

decided Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1243 (2016) on June 23, 2016, it is hereby 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the stay in this case is lifted. 

It is further hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Government 

shall file its response to Defendant’s Amended Motion to Vacate or Correct Sentence Under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 no later than September 2, 2016 and Defendant may file a reply to the 

Government’s response no later than September 23, 2016.

 /s/ Judge Joy Conti

 Joy Flowers Conti 

 Chief United States District Court Judge 

Case 1:12-cr-00038-DWA Document 82 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 1
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 02, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 02, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0403. JERJIS THOMAS ALAJAJI v. MICHELLE ANDERSON ALAJAJI. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 16CV00596
<PAGE>

Exhibit 4.2

                     NATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT'S, INC.
                              150 Broad Hollow Road
                               Mellville, NY 11747

                                  March 3, 2003

Sommer & Schneider LLP
595 Stewart Avenue, Suite 710
Garden City, NY 11530

Gentleman:

         As compensation for legal consulting services rendered and to be
rendered by you from time to time, we confirm our agreement to issue to you an
aggregate of 25,000 shares of our common stock, $.0001 par value, as follows:

         Joel C. Schneider          12,500
         Herbert H. Sommer          12,500

         These shares will be issued to you upon the effective date of a Form
S-8 Registration Statement and the delivery to you of the documents constituting
the S-8 prospectus. Delivery of documents which we filed with the United States
Securities Exchange Commission will be by reference to such documents on the
SEC's Edgar System, to which you have ready access and to which you consent. The
shares will be delivered in certificated form, free and clear of any
restrictions on sale by you.

         We confirm that our board of directors have duly approved the issuance
of shares to you and that the above shares are issued as compensation for your
advice on matters of general corporate law, non-financial transactions,
employment agreements and related matters, which will provided by you upon our
reasonable request. This compensation shall be in addition to any other
arrangement we make with you for specific tasks.

         Please confirm that this correctly sets forth our understanding
relating to this compensation plan by signing below.


                                    NATIONAL MANAGEMENT
                                    CONSULTANTS, INC.



                                    By: ____________________________
                                        Steven A. Horowitz, President
Accepted:


-----------------------------               --------------------------------
Herbert H. Sommer, Partner                  Joel C. Schneider, Partner



                                       11
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Principal Executive Officer

and
Principal Financial Officer 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 accompanying Form 10-K of Sunrise Telecom
Incorporated for the year ended December 31, 2007, we, Paul A. Marshall, President and Chief Executive Officer and Richard D. Kent, Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Sunrise Telecom Incorporated, hereby certify to the best of our
knowledge, that:



| | (1) |  | such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | the information contained in such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Sunrise Telecom Incorporated.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |  |  |                                                                                     
|--------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|October 2, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    PAUL A.
MARSHALL                                                             
|Date            |  |  |  | PAUL A. MARSHALL President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
|                |  | 
|October 2, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    RICHARD D.
KENT                                                              
|Date            |  |  |  | RICHARD D. KENT Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PALM BEACH COUNTY and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Michael Joseph RICKLI, a minor, Edith Rickli and Dana M. Rickli, Respondents.

No. 77-1797.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 9, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1978.

José G. Rodriguez of Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney & Search, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioners.

Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A., and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED.

CROSS, DAUKSCH and MOORE, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL J. DUNCAN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 306 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                              EXHIBIT NUMBER 13(2)

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                 WITH RESPECT TO THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 20-F
                      FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004
                          OF CHINA ENTERPRISES LIMITED

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of China Enterprises Limited, a Bermuda company (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge, that:

      (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: March 14, 2006

                                                       /s/ Chow Chun Man, Jimmy
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                         CHOW CHUN MAN, JIMMY
                                                        Chief Financial Officer

      The certification set forth above is being furnished as an Exhibit solely
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed
as part of the Form 20-F or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or
the certifying officer.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28431]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 9:00 a.m.--October 22, 1997.

PLACE: 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Room 1000, Washington, DC.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTER(S) TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Docket No. 96-20--Port Restrictions and 
Requirements in the United States/Japan Trade.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Joseph C. Polking, Secretary, 
(202) 523-5725.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-28431 Filed 10-22-97; 3:06 pm]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
#### Carolynn W. WALKER, Appellant, v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellee.

No. HH-117.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 28, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1978.

*472P. Kevin Davey of Douglass, Powell & Davey, Tallahassee, for appellant.

S. William Fuller, Jr. of Howell, Howell, Liles & Braddock, Jacksonville, for appellee.

SMITH, Judge.

Leon County Deputy Sheriff Ronny Walker was killed in a collision while driving his car home after completing his duty shift. His widow appeals here from an adverse summary judgment on her claim for benefits under a group life policy insuring Walker’s life against loss incurred while “engaged in the performance of prescribed duties as a law enforcement officer.” We find that although Walker was in uniform, armed, subject to call at all hours, and charged to initiate law enforcement activities on appropriate occasions while off duty, his state of readiness to perform prescribed law enforcement duties was not equivalent to being “engaged” in their performance. *Police Comm’r of Baltimore City v. King,*219 Md.App. 127, 148 A.2d 562 (1959). See *State ex rel. Moore v. Glassco,*347 Mo. 977, 149 S.W.2d 848 (1941); *McColgan v. Bd. of Police Comm’rs,*130 Cal.App. 66, 19 P.2d 815 (1933). Compare *Dillard v. City of Los Angeles,*20 Cal.2d 599, 127 P.2d 917 (1942).

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., and MELVIN, J., concur.
Exhibit 23
**Consent of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm.**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-112215, 33-74492, 333-3398, 333-71627, 333-36222, 333-43274, 333-54652, and 333-81926) of ourreports dated March 9, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of ActelCorporation, Actel Corporation management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Actel Corporation, includedin this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 2, 2005.    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
San Jose, California
-SERVED: FEBRUARY 16, 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

.•-'•^^RTMENTOF 

)PER/V!iON 

:-B \ h P 2- 5 0 

IN THE MATTER OF 

HARRISON YACHT SALES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10EA00C6 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2010-0626 

ORDER OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

DISMISSING PROCEEDING WITH PREJUDICE 

On January 26, 2011, Complainant's Counsel submitted a letter stating that the parties 

had reached a settlement. Respondent withdrew its request for hearing, and Complainant 

withdrew its complaint.' Accordingly, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, this proceeding is 

dismissed with prejudice. 

The FAA shall send the Judge and the Docket a copy of any compromise order or final 

order assessing civil penalty. 

SO ORDERED. 

. / 

/ 

tonnie A. Yoi 

Chief Administrative Judge 

Attachment: Service List 

' The letter, received via facsimile on January 26, 2011, is not accompanied by a certificate of service, but 

is signed by Complainant's Counsel and Respondent's Representative and includes the notation "Via Facsimile," 

followed by the Judge's and FAA Hearing Docket Clerk's address and fax numbers. The rules require filing by 

personal delivery or mailing. 14 C.F.R. § 13.210(a). Parties must ensure that all submissions are properly filed with 

the Hearing Docket Clerk and serve a copy, with certificate of service, on the Judge. 
FAA Docket No. CP10EA0006 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

UPDATED SERVICE LIST 

P 

ORIGINAL* ONE COPY I 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2Wi000^ 

ONE COPY 

David Harrison, President 

Harrison Yacht Sales, Inc., Respondent 

106 Wells Cove Road 

P.O. Box 98 

Grasonville.MD 21638 

TEL: 410-827-7800 

FAX: 410-827-4830 

Jeanine C. Gotimer, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Coimsel, EAL-7 

Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3267 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable Rormie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

^ Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or l|ty^^|^itedcourier, use the followingtuldi^ss: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, isjv^jplfeuf Wright Building - Suite 2W1000, 

Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AQG-43dV 

- 2 -
#### Remigio GUTIERREZ, Appellant, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 70-468.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 22, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1971.

Alfred D. Bieley, Miami, for appellant.

McCarthy, Steel, Hector & Davis and Talbot D’Alemberte, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Kay v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Fla.App.1963, 152 So.2d 198; Standard Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Tubbs, Tex.Civ.App.1965, 389 S.W.2d 338.
Presidential Documents

55139

Federal Register

Vol. 62, No. 204

Wednesday, October 22, 1997

Title 3—

The President

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Presidential Documents

Presidential Determination No. 98–1 of October 8, 1997

Presidential Determination on the Proposed Agreement for

Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of

America and the Swiss Federal Council Concerning Peaceful

Uses of Nuclear Energy

Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the Secretary of Energy

I have considered the proposed Agreement for Cooperation Between the

Government of the United States of America and the Swiss Federal Council

Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, along with the views, recommendations, and statements of the interested agencies.

I have determined that the performance of the agreement will promote,

and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to, the common defense and

security. Pursuant to section 123 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

as amended (42 U.S.C. 2153(b)), I hereby approve the proposed agreement

and authorize you to arrange for its execution.

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register

œ–.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, October 8, 1997. [FR Doc. 97–28213

Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 4(r)

                              Annuity Investors(R)
                             LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
                          Home Office: Cincinnati, Ohio
   Variable Administrative Office: P.O. Box 5423, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201-5423

                                   ENDORSEMENT


This endorsement is part of your Contract. It replaces the Death Benefit Amount
provision. It is not a separate Contract. It changes the Contract only as stated
here. If it conflicts with the other terms of the Contract, the provisions of
this endorsement will control.

     Death Benefit Amount

     The amount of the Death Benefit will equal the greatest of:

          1)   the Account Value as of the Death Benefit Valuation Date; or

          2)   the total of all your Purchase Payment(s), reduced proportionally
               for any partial surrenders; or

          3)   the lesser of (a) the largest Account Value you had on any
               Contract Anniversary before the Death Benefit Valuation Date and
               prior to age [65], reduced proportionally for any subsequent
               partial surrenders after this value was reached, or (b) [200%] of
               the total Purchase Payment(s), reduced proportionally for partial
               surrenders.


The reduction for partial surrenders will be in the same proportion that the
Account Value was reduced on the date of the partial surrender.

The amount of the Death Benefit will be reduced by any applicable premium tax or
other tax. It will also be reduced by any outstanding loans you may have.

The amount of the Death Benefit will be allocated among the Subaccounts and
Fixed Account options as of the Death Benefit Valuation Date. This allocation
will be made in the same proportion as the value of each option bears to the
total Account Value immediately before the Death Benefit Valuation Date.


         Signed for us at our office as of the date of issue.




/s/ Mark F. Muething                    /s/ Charles R. Scheper
     SECRETARY                                 PRESIDENT
  MARK F. MUETHING                       CHARLES R. SCHEPER
#### A. A. A. CIGARETTE SERVICE, INC., Appellant, v. VENDING UNLIMITED, INC., d/b/a Ace Saxon Vending Co., Appellee.

No. 70-668.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 8, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

ROBERT GENE REGA AND JOAN MARY 

REGA

v.

COMPATI HOME HEALTHCARE, LLC, JAY 

CINCINNATTI, NEAL LARIMER, RUTHI 

HOOPER, AND FLORA BENNETT

PETITION OF: ROBERT GENE REGA

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 152 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of December, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

and Motion to Quash Appeal are DENIED.
#### Robert COLLINS, Appellant, v. Lorraine COLLINS, Appellee.

No. 69-899.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 16, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# L_2005072EN.01001401.xml

| 18.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 72/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 72/14

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 442/2005

of 17 March 2005

fixing the maximum export refund on oats in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004 of 3 September 2004 on a special intervention measure for oats in Finland and Sweden for the 2004/2005 marketing year (3),

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland or Sweden to all third countries with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland or Sweden to all third countries with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004.

| (2) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should be fixed.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

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

For tenders notified from 11 to 17 March 2005, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004, the maximum refund on exportation of oats shall be 33,95 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 March 2005.

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

Done at Brussels, 17 March 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003 (OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 16).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 285, 4.9.2004, p. 3.

3

---
No. 9698.

#### Hayes *v.*Dennis.

(Decided November 20, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Fayette County.

*Mr. Humphrey Jones,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Frank A. Chaffin,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed on authority of *Lee*v. *Smith,*42 Ohio St., 458.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
No. 9745.

#### The State, ex rel Burns et al., *v.*Dirlam.

(Decided October 2, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Richland County.

*Messrs. Cummings, McBride & Wolfe,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. W. S. Kerr*and *Mr. H. P. Davis,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed on the ground that the defendant in error acted within his discretion.

Shauck, C. J., Price^ Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.