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

EASTERN DISTRICT

KENNETH L. BEAVER,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Appellee :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 19 EAP 2019

Appeal from the Commonwealth

Court Order dated 2/28/19 at 272

MD 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: March 26, 2020

AND NOW , this 26 th day of March , 2020

, the Order of the Commonwealth Court

is AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0298 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SARAH MARIE STRONG,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of the Appellant’s motion to consolidate cases and amend the caption, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s motion to consolidate Cause Nos. DA 21 -0298, DA 21 - 0300, DA 21 - 0301, DA 21 - 0302, and DA 21 - 0303 is GRANTED, and shall be consolidated for the purposes of appeal under Cause No. DA 21 - 0298 and captioned State of Montana v. Sarah Marie Strong.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 9 2021

11/09/2021
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2014 (the Report) of Direxion Shares
ETF Trust II (the Registrant) and each of its Funds, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Patrick J. Rudnick, the Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of
my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant.



|                     |  |        |  |                                                         
|-------------------- |  | ------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 27, 2015 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Patrick J. Rudnick                                  
|                     |  | Name:  |  | Patrick J. Rudnick                                      
|                     |  | Title: |  | Principal Financial Officer Direxion Shares
ETF Trust II
----

----

I Information

Commission

----

Euro exchange rates (1)

21 January 2005

(2005/C 18/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3597 — Europcar/TUI/JV)

(2005/C 18/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 December 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----

----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3675 — Citigroup/Baltisches Haus/UAB Palink/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2005/C 18/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  Available on DG COMP website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----

----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3682 — INTEK/GIM)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2005/C 18/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  Available on DG COMP website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----

----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3707 — AXA/CAMAIEU)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2005/C 18/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  Available on DG COMP website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICKIE SLAUGHTER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

JEREMY BEAN; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 15335

D.C. No. 2:17

- cv

- 01728

- APG

- NJK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14 , 2021 * *

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS

, Circuit Judge s.

Nevada state prisoner Rickie Slaughter appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process

violations arising from a disciplinary hearing . We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review d e novo. Furnace v. Sullivan , 705 F.3d 1021, 1026

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 15335

(9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly granted s ummary judgment because Slaughter

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material as to whether prison officials failed to

afford him all of the process that he was due. See Superintendent v. Hill , 472 U.S.

445, 454 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence”

supports disciplinary decision) ; Wolff v. McDonnell

, 418 U.S. 539, 563

- 71 (1974)

( setting forth due process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings and

explaining that prison authorities have discretion not to call witnesses, “whether it

be for irrelevance, lack of necessity, or the hazards presente d in individual cases ” )

.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2015331EN.01000301.xml

| 8.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/3

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitations to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 331/04)

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Routes concerned | Strasbourg-Amsterdam
  Strasbourg-Madrid
  Strasbourg-Prague |
| Period of validity of the contract | from 9 April 2016 to 8 April 2019 |
| Deadline for the submission of applications and tenders | 10 December 2015 by 17.00 Paris time (France) |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained | Direction de la Sécurité de l’Aviation civile Nord-Est |
| Aéroport de Strasbourg-Entzheim |
| CS 60003 Entzheim |
| 67836 Tanneries Cedex |
| FRANCE |
| Tel. +33 388596464 |
| E-mail: dsac-ne.direction@aviation-civile.gouv.fr |

Member State

France

Routes concerned

Strasbourg-Amsterdam

Strasbourg-Madrid

Strasbourg-Prague

Period of validity of the contract

from 9 April 2016 to 8 April 2019

Deadline for the submission of applications and tenders

10 December 2015 by 17.00 Paris time (France)

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained

Direction de la Sécurité de l’Aviation civile Nord-Est

Aéroport de Strasbourg-Entzheim

CS 60003 Entzheim

67836 Tanneries Cedex

FRANCE

Tel. +33 388596464

E-mail: dsac-ne.direction@aviation-civile.gouv.fr

---
Abatement Order filed June 27, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00297-CR

____________

MICHAEL WAYNE BUNTING, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17-CR-3339

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel on appeal, Kenneth Florence. 

On June 24, 2019, counsel filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel because 

he accepted an offer of employment with the Jefferson County Criminal District 

Attorney’s Office. Accordingly, we enter the following order. 

We ORDER the judge of the 212th District Court to consider counsel’s 

request to withdraw. If current counsel is permitted to withdraw, the judge shall 

appoint new appellate counsel for appellant. The judge shall see that a record of 

any hearing is made and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of the 

hearing and a supplemental clerk’s record containing any orders permitting counsel 
to withdraw and appointing new counsel. Those records shall be filed with the 

clerk of this court within 30 days of the date of this order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan.
From: Joshua Burman (MPCA) [Joshua.burman@state.mn.us]

Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:10 PM

To: Rich LaShier

Subject: States’ Policies Respecting CBI Claimes for Hazardous Waste Manifests; Followup from 

MN

Dear Rich:

Minnesota is likely an interesting example, since Minnesota not only requires submittal to the state of a 

copy of all SQG & LQG manifests (and thus holds a lot of manifest data), but also has a very open data 

access law*.

*Any data held by MN government agencies which is not explicitly statutorily protected is considered 

public data unless and until the subject of the data makes a specific closure application, accompanied 

(and this is the kicker) by a legal showing how the data meets one or more of the available statutory 

protections. Customer lists do not generally meet any of the available statutory protections. In addition, 

a data requestor may remain anonymous and need not make any statement of the reason for the 

request.

Minnesota also makes key manifest data (Generator ID#, Manifest Number, Ship Date, Transporter ID#, 

TSDF ID#, Waste Name, Waste Code, Quantity) available through a publicly available search engine, at:

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1240&Itemid=2663

or

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/yhiz89f

To my knowledge, Minnesota has never had a CBI claim regarding manifest data, however, even if we 

did receive one, I do not believe it would meet the standards for protection. All manifest data, either 

individual or in aggregate, is currently considered public information in Minnesota.

Thanks:

Joshua Burman

HW/PCB Compliance

MPCA, Mankato Office
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 10518]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object to be included in the exhibition “Odyssey: Jack Whitten Sculpture, 1963-2017,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about September 6, 2018, until on or about December 2, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Elliot Chiu, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

      ( print page 42755)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.                

Marie Therese Porter Royce,

Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2018-18178 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive 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 Quarterly Report of Plato Star Acquisition Corp. 1 (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chi Wu, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.





/s/ Chi WuChi Wu

Principal Executive Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00019-CV

C. G., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY 

NO. 50416, THE HONORABLE EVAN C. STUBBS, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant C. G. filed her notice of appeal on January 5, 2022. The appellate 

record was complete on January 31, 2022, making appellant’s brief due on February 22, 2022. 

On February 22, 2022, counsel for appellant submitted a motion for extension of time to file

appellant’s brief.

The rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals 

from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days 

for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting 

extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order Gary E. Prust to file appellant’s 

brief no later than March 4, 2022. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required 

to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.
2

It is ordered on February 24, 2022.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker and Triana
| 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. |

|         |   |                                             |
|--------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|         |   |                                             |   |
|         | By:    | /s/ Valeria Stringer                        |   |
| May 19, 2011 |   | President, Director, Principal Financial Officer |   |
|         |   |                                             |   |
|         |   |                                             |
EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications



I am the Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer of JA Energy, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”). I am delivering this certificate in connection
with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter year ended February 28, 2013 and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (“Form 10-Q”).



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of JA Energy (the “Company”) certifies
to his knowledge that:



|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2013 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 that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.                                              



|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ James Lusk                                                 
|James Lusk                                                     
|Principal Executive Officer
        Principal Financial Officer
|                                                               
|Date:July 22, 2013                                             
|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1321

JTH TAX, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Liberty Tax Service,
Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN FEIN,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. F. Bradford Stillman, Magistrate Judge. (2:08-cv-00021-FBS)

Submitted: November 4, 2009 Decided: November 18, 2009

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Declan C. Leonard, Jeffrey L. Rhodes, Stephanie D. Wilson, ALBO & OBLON, L.L.P., Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher D. Davis, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Fein appeals the magistrate judge’s * order
entering judgment in JTH Tax, Incorporated’s favor on its claim
for breach of a franchise agreement, as well as its request for
a permanent injunction against Fein. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
magistrate judge’s judgment. See JTH Tax, Inc. v. Fein , No.
2:08-cv-00021-FBS (E.D. Va. entered Jan. 27, 2009; amended by
order entered Feb. 23, 2009). 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

* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
July 29, 2015

Exemption No. 11535A Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0396

Mr. Robert Patton

Littlebirds VIEW

5549 Old Plank Road Iron Station, NC 28080

Dear Mr. Patton :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter dated May 20, 2015 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Littlebirds VIEW (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to your current exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.1 01(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aeria l data collection

. You requested an amendment

to add closed

- set motion picture and television filming.

In your petition, yo u indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

. T he

unmanned aircraft authorized in the original grant are comparable in type, size, weight, speed and operating capabilities to those in this petition

.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 11535

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained

in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is2

granted an amendment to add closed

- set motion picture and television filming to its UAS operations.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 11 535 remain in effect except

as follows. Condition No. 2 has been updated to allow closed

- set motion picture and television filming

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed

- set motion picture and television filming are permitted.

T his exemption terminates on May 31, 2017 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
   Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)
  The undersigned executive officer of Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania (the “Registrant”) hereby certifies that theRegistrant’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
   Date:
December 9, 2010
/s/Dennis D. CirucciDennis D. CirucciPresident and Chief Executive Officer
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and has been provided to Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.