alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Novel Construction Company ) ) Under Contract No. W91B4L-12-C-0242 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61005

Mr. Nasir Ahmady

Corporate Officer Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney MAJ Christopher M. Coy, JA

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL On 18 January 2017, appellant filed a notice ofappeal with the Board, docketed as ASBCA No. 61005. Among the attachments accompanying its notice ofappeal, an undated document deemed by appellant as its claim letter sought payment under the contract. On 16 February 2017, the government moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, alleging that appellant did not submit a claim to the contracting officerprior to filing the appeal and a claim was later received by a contracting officer in February 2017. By order dated 2 March 2017, the Board directed appellant to eitherprovide documentation that it submitted a claim to a contracting officerpriorto the filing ofits 18 January notice ofappeal, or confirm that it desires to receive a final decision on its claim submitted in February 2017. In an email on the same date, appellant communicatedthat it had submitted a claim letter to a contracting officer and requested a status ofthe final decision. The Board treated this correspondence as appellant's concurrence with the government'sjurisdictional motion in ASBCA No. 61005. By order dated 8 March 2017, the Board informed the parties that it intendedto dismiss this appeal unless eitherparty objected within 14 days ofthe date ofthe Order. The Board received no objection from eitherparty.Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdictionwithout prejudice to the filing ofa timely appeal from the denial, or deemed denial, ofthe claimreceivedby the contracting officer in February 2017. Dated: 27 March 2017

Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 61005, Appeal ofNovel Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
JBI AERIAL INSPECTIONS 

Phantom2 Vision + Supplement Rev 1:1 

The Phantom2 Vision + is designed for professional aerial photography and cinematography. It is a user friendly 

ready assembled, ready to fly setup. It is safe, stabilized and easy to fly. 

Quadcopter	 	 4 blade configuration 

Frame size:	 	 350mm 

UAV Take off weight: Approximately 1.5kg 

Hover time:	 	 25 minutes 

Working temp:	 	 0C - 40C (camera limit)

Max Speed:	 	 35mph 

Hover Accuracy:	 Vertical; 0.8m; Horizontal; 2.5m 

Safety Features: 

* Auto return-to-home / one key go-home. If the UAV loses connection with the flight controller during 

flight, the systems failsafe protection will climb to 100’ in order to clear obstacles, then return to the 

takeoff point and safely land.

* The Phantom2 can also be setup with a switch to automatically activate this fail-safe return home 

feature. 

* Automatic no fly zones around airports 

* Maximum 400’ Altitude can be predetermined and set in the UAV software. 

* Onscreen real time flight parameters can display radar positioning, flight parameters, return to home. 

* If the GPS signal is lost it will alert the pilot. 

* Low voltage protection, If the battery falls below a first stage voltage level, a visual and audible 

warning is given to the pilot. If the battery voltage falls below a second predetermined level, the UAV will 

return to a predetermined point and safely land. 

* Ground station: The Phantom2 sends realtime flight information to the pilot via an iPad or iPhone link. 

It gives accurate flight timings, real time alarms, GPS lat/lon, heading and distance from home point, 

	 	 height, velocity, horizontal attitude, number of GPS satellites in view. 

* The maximum flight distance can be predetermined so as not to be exceeded by the pilot. 

* LED Flight Indicator Status, the UAV flashes different color LEDs indicating the status of the UAV, self 

test status, battery level, GPS signal, Errors.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-503 

LT Case No. 2018-CF-012187

_____________________________

REGINALD D. DAVIS, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

_____________________________

3.850 appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

Meredith Charbula, Judge. 

Reginald D. Davis, East Palatka, pro se. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Zachary Lawton, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

October 31, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

WALLIS, EISNAUGLE, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 4338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01132]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-1312]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Maridose, 
LLC

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Maridose, LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or 
objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before 
March 25, 2024. Such persons may also file a written request for a 
hearing on the application on or before March 25, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all 
comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into 
the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier 
comments. Please go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the 
online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon 
submission of your comment, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number. 
Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously 
available for public view on https://www.regulations.gov. If you have 
received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully 
submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on December 5, 2023, Maridose, LLC, 74 Orion Street, 
Unit 7, Brunswick, Maine 04011, applied to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled 
substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled substance             code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marihuana Extract.......................    7350  I
Marihuana...............................    7360  I
Tetrahydrocannabinols...................    7370  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled 
substances to supply the Drug Enforcement Administration-registered 
researchers for their approval studies. No other activities for these 
drug codes are authorized for this registration.

Claude Redd,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-01132 Filed 1-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<Page>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following registration
statements of our report dated March 10, 2006, relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedules of Lincoln Benefit Life Company,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lincoln Benefit Life Company for
the year ended December 31, 2005.

<Table>
<Caption>
         FORM S-3 REGISTRATION STATEMENT NOS.   FORM N-4 REGISTRATION STATEMENT NOS.
         ------------------------------------   ------------------------------------
         <S>                                    <C>
                   333-66452                              333-50545
                   333-59765                              333-50737
                   333-59769                              333-61146
                   333-88045                              333-82427
                   333-111553                             033-66786
                                                          333-109688
                                                          333-66452
</Table>


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 13, 2006
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7151

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LUIS CRISTOBAL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-83; CA-03-6) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luis Cristobal, Appellant Pro Se. N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Luis Cristobal seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (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 Cristobal has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss 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
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1834 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1834

To reauthorize the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act 
                    of 1992, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 1996

   Mr. McCain (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Simon, and Mr. Domenici) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act 
                    of 1992, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 502(h) of the Indian Environmental General Assistance 
Program Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4368b(h)) is amended by striking 
``$15,000,000'' and inserting ``such sums as may be necessary''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Manuel BROWN, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12051.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 17, 1954.

James H. Mathers & James C. Mathers, Coalgate, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

This is an attempted appeal by;the plaintiff in error, Manuel Brown, defendant below, from a purported judgment and sentence entered against him in the co.unty court of Coal county, Oklahoma, wherein it appears that he was convicted of, driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, Title 47, ,§ 93, O.S. 1951, wherein he alleged that he' was assessed a fine and jail sentence. This attempted appeal was filed herein on February 1, 1954, and a brief in support thereof on April 12, 1954, to which the State óf Oklahoma made response in a motion' tó dismiss filed on January 14, 1954. In said motion to dismiss1 it was alleged that this court was without jurisdiction by reason of .the, fact that there was no judgment and..sentence contained in the case-made by which the purported appeal was attempted to be-perfected.

To this motion the plaintiff, in error, Manuel Brown, has filed no response. An examination of the case-made discloses that’ it does not contain any judgment or sentence.

It has been repeatedly held that, where an appeal is taken from an alleged judgment of conviction and the transcript of the record or case-made contains no copy of the judgment of the trial court, this court does not acquire jurisdiction of the appeal, and such appeal will be dismissed. Buffalohide v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 15, 76 P.2d 914; Thorn*782ton v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 394, 193 P.2d 609, 610; State v. Smith, Okl.Cr., 268 P.2d 587. For said reasons the attempted appeal herein is accordingly dismissed.

POWELL, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.
<PAGE>


          [KPMG Netherlands, N.V. - an Affiliate of KPMG International]

                                                                    Exhibit 23.3




                                 April 13, 2000


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

         Re:  TRIMOL GROUP, INC.

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We have read Item 8 of Trimol Group, Inc.'s Form 10-KSB for its fiscal
year ended December 31, 1999 and are in agreement with the statements contained
therein regarding the undersigned.


                                  Sincerely,

                                  By: /s/ KPMG Netherlands, N.V.
                                     ---------------------------
http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccomdisp.php?listname=sjv08&...

1 of 1 7/7/2008 4:23 PM

BELOW IS THE COMMENT YOU SELECTED TO DISPLAY. 

COMMENT 8 FOR SJV 2008 PM2.5 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SJV08) - NON-REG.

First Name: Alvin

Last Name: Valeriano

Email Address: Non-web submitted comment

Phone Number: 

Affiliation: 

Subject: ISSRC & CVAQ

Comment:

please see attached

included an EPA-Defined General Linear Progress Chart

Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/sjv08/11-alvin_valeriano.pdf

Original File Name: Alvin Valeriano.pdf 

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2008-05-27 15:31:27

If you have any questions or comments please contact COTB at (916) 322-5594.

Board Comments Home

COMMENT LOG DISPLAY

The Board is one of six boards, departments, and offices under

the umbrella of the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Cal/EPA | ARB | CIWMB | DPR | DTSC | OEHHA | SWRCB
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

JILL MARS ON, No. 84374 

Appellant, 

vs. 

SAMUEL MARSON, 

Respondent. FILED 

APR 2 9 2022 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

CLERK4.1PREME COURT 

OEM igfl eCLER "Vr 

ORDER DISMISSING APPPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal from an order denying appellant's motion 

to enforce or show cause regarding contempt for respondent's alleged failure 

to pay alimony. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Dixie 

Grossman, Judge. 

Review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to 

NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the order designated 

in the notice of appeal is not substantively appealable. See NRAP 3A(b). 

This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is 

authorized by statute or court rule. Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 

Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court may only consider 

appeals authorized by statute or court rule"). No statute or court rule 

provides for an appeal from an order regarding the failure to pay alimony. 

Further, a contempt order is not independently appealable. See Pengilly v. 
Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'ri. 116 Nev. 646, 649, 5 P.3d 569, 671 

(2000). This court lacks jurisdiction and therefore 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. 

Silver 

• 

J. 

Cadish 

Pickm 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Dixie Grossman, District Judge 

Jill Marson 

Allison W. Joffee 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

2
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1748

To permit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to reorganize the Veterans

Health Administration notwithstanding the notice and wait requirements

of section 510 of title 38, United States Code, and to amend title

38, United States Code, to facilitate the reorganization of the headquarters of the Veterans Health Administration.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 13, 1996

Mr. SIMPSON (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To permit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to reorganize

the Veterans Health Administration notwithstanding the

notice and wait requirements of section 510 of title 38,

United States Code, and to amend title 38, United States

Code, to facilitate the reorganization of the headquarters

of the Veterans Health Administration.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in

4 this Act an amendment is expressed in terms of an amend5 ment to a section or other provision, the reference shall
2

S 1748 IS

1 be considered to made to a section or other provision of

2 title 38, United States Code.

3 SEC. 2. (a) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may

4 proceed with the reorganization described in subsection (b)

5 of this section without regard to section 510 of title 38,

6 United States Code.

7 (b) The administrative reorganization referred to in

8 subsection (a) is the reorganization of the Veterans Health

9 Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs as

10 that reorganization and related activity are described in

11 a letter dated March 17, 1995, and the detailed plan and

12 justification enclosed therewith, submitted by the Sec13 retary to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Sen14 ate and the House of Representatives pursuant to section

15 510 of title 38, United States Code.

16 SEC. 3. Section 7305 is amended to read as follows:

17 ‘‘The Veterans Health Administration shall include the

18 Office of the Under Secretary for Health and such profes19 sional and auxiliary services as the Secretary may find to

20 be necessary to carry out the functions of the Administra21 tion.’’.

22 SEC. 4. Section 7306 is amended—

23 (1) in subsection (a)—

24 (A) by striking ‘‘and who shall be a quali25 fied doctor of medicine’’ in paragraph (2);
3

S 1748 IS

1 (B) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and

2 redesignating paragraphs (7), (8), and (9) as

3 paragraphs (5), (6), and (7).

4 (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as fol5 lows:

6 ‘‘(b) Of the Assistant Under Secretaries for Health

7 appointed under subsection (a)(3), not more than two may

8 be persons qualified in the administration of health serv9 ices who are not doctors of medicine, dental surgery, or

10 dental medicines.’’.

Æ
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Craig Moss, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1084 C.D. 2019

:

Pennsylvania Board :

of Probation and Parole, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

NOW, June 15, 2020

, upon consideration of P etitioner’s

application for re argument, the application is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-25-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1996
<CASH>                                          63,247
<SECURITIES>                                    17,910
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,951
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,330)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               141,524
<PP&E>                                          16,462
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,015)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,540
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           181
<OTHER-SE>                                     154,191
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,372
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               288,882
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  202,019
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,524
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,540
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,279
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,219
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,216
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,003
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,003
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>