alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
July 23, 2015

Mr. Michael Martino

114 Fordham Road Valatie, NY 12184

Dear Mr. Martino :

This is in response to your June 1, 2015

, letter sent to the docket ( No. FAA

- 201 5

- 2034 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR)

. You requested to conduct aerial videograp hy, photography

, and cinematography using an unmanned aerial system

.

The information you submitted did not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81. On

June 12

, 2015 , the FAA sent you a letter stating that we were unable to process your request

withou t further information. Specifically, we asked you t o provide the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of the relief you seek.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any a dditional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

On July 23

, 2015 , the FAA received additional information. The FAA has reviewed the information and finds that you did not provide the sections from which you seek relief and why granting the request would be in the public interest.

Because your petition lacks sufficient information to proceed, the FAA has close d your exemption request. Should you wish to provide the additional information please resubmit your petition for exe mption to the public docket.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu

Director

, Office of Rulemaking
CALIFORNIA WASTE SOLUTIONS

Page 37.1.161
Page 37.1.162
Page 37.1.163
Page 37.1.164
Page 37.1.165

CEMEX LOCAL 1414

Page 37.1.167

Page 37.1.169

CEMEX LOCAL 1546 

Acct #04-13421600-02

Page 37.1.171

 

Page 37.1.173


CEMEX LOCAL 1546 

ACCT NO 04-13421700-02

Page 37.1.176
Page 37.1.177
Page 37.1.178

 
Page 37.1.179
Page 37.1.180
**Exhibit 15.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-166315) pertaining to VimpelCom Ltd.’s Amended and Restated VimpelCom 2000 Stock Option Plan and the VimpelCom 2010 Stock Option Plan of ourreport dated March 18, 2010, except for Note 23, as to which the date is January 21, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2009 and for the two years then ended of OJSC“Vimpel-Communications” included in VimpelCom Ltd.’s Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2010. 

/s/ERNST & YOUNG LLC 

Moscow, Russia 

June 30, 2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED QUINCY MURRELL , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 21

- 2757 LT C ase No. 2018

- CA

- 003502 -MF WELLS FARGO BANK, N .A., AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF T HE HOLDERS O F THE HA RBORVIEW MORTGAGE L OAN TR UST MORTGAGE LOAN PASS

- THROUGH CERTIFICATES, S ERIES 2 006

- 12 ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed June 7, 2022 Non f inal A ppeal f rom t he Circ uit C ourt for Osceola County , Margaret H

. S chreiber , J udge. Andrew B

. G reenlee, of Andrew B. Greenlee, P .A. , Sanford, and Ant hony N. Legen dre, I I, of Law Offices o f Legendre & Legendre, P LLC , Maitland , for Appellant. All i son Morat, of Bitman O'Brien & Morat, P LLC, Lake Mary, f or A ppellee. PER CUR IAM. A FFIRMED.

W ALLIS , TRAVER and WOZNIAK , JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7839

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-02-24; CA-05-129-4) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 23, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Smith, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. See alsoUnited States v. Morris , 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
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 Congoleum Corporation (the “Company”) on Form  10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Howard N. Feist III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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





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











May 7, 2010





/s/ Howard N. Feist III


Howard N. Feist III


Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Congoleum Corporation and will be retained by Congoleum Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### MY RAK PAINT & BODY SHOP, INC., Appellant, v. Andrew Robert COLLIER, Appellee.

No. 77-1216.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 4, 1978.

My Rak Paint & Body Shop, Inc., pro se.

Andrew Robert Collier, pro se.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This matter comes to us as an appeal from an Order dismissing an appeal in the Circuit Court. That appeal was from a Judgment in the County Court. We take this as a Petition for Writ of Certiorari and deny the same.

DENIED.

CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur.
**President**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Michael G. Clark, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of NY Tax Free Money Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds, on Form N-CSR; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSR (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or §15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| March 2, 2009 | /s/Michael G. Clark                                   |
|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|          | Michael G. Clark                                      |
|          | President                                             |
|          | NY Tax Free Money Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds |

 

 

 

 

 

**Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Paul Schubert, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of NY Tax Free Money Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds, on Form N-CSR; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSR (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or § 15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| March 2, 2009 | /s/Paul Schubert                                      |
|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|          | Paul Schubert                                         |
|          | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer                 |
|          | NY Tax Free Money Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds |
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

FORM OF AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYEE CONFIDENTIALITY, INVENTION ASSIGNMENT AND NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT

 THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYEE CONFIDENTIALITY, INVENTION ASSIGNMENT AND NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT
(this “Amendment”), dated as of ______________, 2018 (the “Amendment Date”), is entered into by and between Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) and ____________
(“Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to that certain Employee Confidentiality, Invention
Assignment and Non-Compete Agreement, made effective as of _____________ (the “Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive each desire to amend the terms of the Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants and promises in this Amendment, the parties hereto hereby amend the
Agreement as follows, effective as of the date hereof, in the following particulars: 
 1.     The last sentence of the
first paragraph of Section 7 is hereby amended to read as follows: 
 “Therefore, Employee agrees that during the period of Employee’s
employment with the Company and for a period of two (2) years thereafter, Employee shall not, directly or indirectly, through any other person, firm, corporation or other entity (whether as an officer, director, employee, partner, consultant,
holder of equity or debt investment, lender or in any other manner or capacity):” 
 2.     The first sentence of
subsection (a) of Section 7 is hereby amended to read as follows: 
 “(a) develop, sell, market, offer to sell products and/or
services anywhere in the world that (i) target Her-2 positive metastatic breast cancer or Her-2 positive metastatic colorectal cancer, or (ii) have the same or
similar technological approach or technology platform (e.g., same receptors, same mechanism of action, etc.) and have the same potential indication(s) as any product being developed, offered or sold by the Company on the date of the termination of
Employee’s employment with the Company for any reason, provided that the foregoing shall not be violated by Employee’s activities with an entity where the portion of the competitive business involved is less than fifteen percent (15%) of
the total expenditures of the portion of the entity that is under Employee’s supervision.” 
 3.     In all
other respects, the provisions of this Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed, and they shall continue in full force and effect. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the day first above written. 
  

							
	CASCADIAN THERAPEUTICS, INC.	 		 	EXECUTIVE
				
	By:	 	  
	 		 	  

	Its:
#### PIZZA PALACE OF MIAMI, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Clifford RUSSELL, S. W. Raulerson, and Bernard Schoninger, a co-partnership doing business as Palm Springs Investment Co., (not inc.), Appellees.

No. 70-395.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 21, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7029

KENNETH TURNER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

CRAVEN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE, Sheriff,

Jail Medical Personnel; DURHAM COUNTY JAIL,

medical personnel, Sheriff; GUILFORD COUNTY

JAIL, medical personnel, Sheriff; LARRY

UNKNOWN, Craven County Jail, medical

personnel; BARBARA UNKNOWN, Craven County

Jail, medical personnel; TRISH CALLISON, RN,

 Defendants - Appellees,

 and

RUTH DAVIS; SUSAN AGUIRRE; D. PICKETT, RN,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CA-01-572-5-F)

Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 27, 2004

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.
- 2 -

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart, SUMRELL,

SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, PA, New Bern, North Carolina;

Steven Price Weaver, Richard David Yeoman, TUGGLE, DUGGINS &

MESCHAN, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina; Curtis Oscar Massey, II,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Turner appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his claims filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various

local entities and individuals for deliberate indifference to

medical needs. The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)(2000). The

magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“MRR”) in

which he recommended dismissing the claims against all but three

individual defendants so that service of process could be

perfected. The district court adopted the MRR to the extent that

it recommended dismissing Turner’s claims. The district court

further ordered that Turner’s claims against the remaining three

defendants be dismissed.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). We conclude Turner has waived

appellate review of the MRR’s recommendation to dismiss because he

did not file specific objections to this recommendation after

receiving proper notice. 

With regard to the district court’s dismissal of the claims

against the three remaining individual defendants, we have reviewed
- 4 -

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

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Turner v. Craven

County Comm’rs Office, No. CA-01-572-5-F (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2003).

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
254 La. 756

#### SEALY REALTY COMPANY, Inc. v. Joe BRANGATO.

No. 49947.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 1, 1969.

In re: Sealy Realty Company, Inc., applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 222 So.2d 620.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### Christopher E. CLAWSON and Dennis M. Cochrane, Petitioners, v. Paul BAKER, Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 40740.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 3, 1971.

Bernard Berman, Miami, for petitioners.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

*224ADKINS, Justice.

This is an original proceeding in mandamus wherein Petitioners, charged with a crime, seek an alternative writ commanding the Respondent Judge to either dismiss a criminal case or show cause why he has not done so.

Petitioners were arrested and released on bond on June 24, 1970. This was during a term of court which began on June 9, 1970, and will be referred to herein as “Term One.” On July 1, 1970, during Term One, Petitioners filed a written demand for speedy trial.

A new term (herein referred to as Term Two) began August 11, 1970, and on this date the second demand for speedy trial was filed.

Another term (herein referred to as Term Three) began on October 13, 1970, and a demand for speedy trial was filed on October 14, 1970.

The next term (herein referred to as Term Four) began December 8, 1970, and a demand for speedy trial was filed on December 9, 1970. On December 14, 1970, during Term Four, Petitioners moved ore tenus for discharge under Fla.Stat. § 915.-01(2), F.S.A. This motion for discharge was denied by the Respondent trial Judge upon the ground that the statute was unconstitutional.

Petitioners filed the written demands for trial as required by the provisions of the statute. However, the statute requires, under such circumstances, that Petitioners be brought to trial “at or before the third full term after the date” they are first committed. Term One could not be considered as a “full term” after Petitioners were committed, so they were not entitled to discharge until after the expiration of Term Four. The first “full term” was Term Two, as described above, the second “full term” was Term Three, and the third “full term” was the fourth term or the term beginning December 8, 1970.

It should be noted that in State ex rel. Leon v. Baker, 238 So.2d 281 (Fla.1970), the Defendant filed a demand the last day of the term in which he was arrested, the first day of the next, or second, term, the last day of the third term, and sought his release on the last day of fourth term. In the case *sub judice,*the fourth term had not expired at the time Petitioners sought their release.

The Petitioners having prematurely sought their release, the Respondent Judge did not commit error in denying their motion for discharge.

The constitutionality of the statute was, therefore, not before the Judge and his order denying the motion for discharge should not be considered as an adjudication that the statute is unconstitutional.

The petition for alternative writ of mandamus is denied and these proceedings are dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TYRONE CAMPBELL

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 466

[ April 9, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Martin S. Fein , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 09

- 12147CF10A

.

Tyrone Campbell, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE

, C.J., D AMOORGIAN and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James E. ROBINSON.

No. 61221.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 28, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 31, 1978.

*865A. J. Boudreaux, Staff Appeals Counsel 24th Judicial Dist. Indigent Defender Bd., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mam-oulides, Dist. Atty., K. L. Sanders, Asst. Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Director, Research and Appeals Division, Gretna, for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant James E. Robinson was charged by bill of information with the March 30,1974 aggravated battery of Diane Johnson in violation of La. R.S. 14:34. On June 4, 1974, defendant was tried before a jury of five persons and found guilty as charged. Subsequently the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve five (5) years at hard labor in the custody of the Department of Corrections with credit for time served. The defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence to this Court.

We have reviewed defendant’s three assignments of error and find them to be without merit. The only assignment of error requiring comment is that relative to the constitutionality of defendant’s trial before a jury composed of only five persons. In *Ballew v. Georgia,*435 U.S. 223, 98 S.Ct. 1029, 55 L.Ed.2d 234 (1978), the United States Supreme Court held that “the purpose and functioning of the jury in a criminal trial is seriously impaired, and to a constitutional degree, by a reduction in size to below six members” and struck down the conviction of a defendant who was tried before a five-person jury pursuant to Georgia law. While under this newly developed constitutional rule trial before a jury composed of only five persons is impermissible we have determined, after review of the decisions by the United States Supreme Court in this area, that the rule should *not*be applied retroactively to convictions obtained by juries impanelled prior to the date of the *Ballew*decision. *See. Hankerson*v. *North Carolina,*432 U.S. 233, 97 S.Ct. 2339, 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977); *Daniel v. Louisiana,*420 U.S. 31, 95 S.Ct. 704, 42 L.Ed.2d 790 (1975); *DeStefano v. Woods,*392 U.S. 631, 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d 1308 (1968). Thus, since at the time of the commission of the instant offense and the trial in connection therewith, Louisiana law authorized trial before a jury composed of five persons when the offense charged was La. R.S. 14:34, aggravated battery, La.Const., Art. 1, § 9 (1921); La.Const., Art. 7, § 41 (1921); La.C.Cr.P. art. 782 (1966),1 defendant’s conviction by that jury is valid.

Accordingly, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

1

. The law in Louisiana now provides that persons charged with relative felonies shall be tried before a jury of six persons, five of whom must concur to render a verdict. La.Const., Art. 1, § 17 (1974); La.C.Cr.P. art. 782 as amended by Acts 1975, 1st Ex. Session, No. 16, § 1.