alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-16-0000515

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

SAMUEL K. KAEO, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

WAILUKU DIVISION

(CASE NO. 2DCW-15-0002103)

ORDER OF CORRECTION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Opinion of the court,

filed on June 29, 2021, is hereby corrected as follows: 

At page 7, line 1 from the top, "Gilboney" should be

"Giboney" so the line reads as follows: 

either spoken, written, or printed." 

Id. (quoting Giboney v.

At page 13, middle of the page, first line after the

second block quote, change "emphasis" to plural, so the line

reads as follows:

(emphases added).

At page 17, line 17 from the bottom, delete "quotation

marks and" within the parentheses, so the line reads as follows: 

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000515

06-AUG-2021

09:21 AM

Dkt. 62 OCOR
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

library quietly until the police

arrived." Id. (brackets omitted). 

At page 20, footnote 12, second line, the "E" in

"Evils" should be a lowercase "e" so the line reads as follows: 

§703-302 Choice of evils. (1) Conduct which the 

actor

At page 21, line 10 from the top, the "S" in "See"

should be a lowercase "s" so the line reads as follows:

302(1); see also HRS § 703-300 (2014)

("'Believes' means

The clerk of the court is directed to take all

necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of these

changes. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 6, 2021. 

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge
Date August 17, 2015

Petitioner

Name Joel Williams

UAS Pilot in Command (PIC)

The petitioner asserts that under § 61.113 (a) and (b) private pilots are limited to non-commercial

operations. He further indicates that the risks of operating a UAS are far less than the risk levels 

inherent in the commercial activities outlined in 14 CFR part 61, et seq., thus he requests an 

exemption from § 61.113 Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: Pilot in command.

Given that the size, weight, speed, and operating parameters of the proposed UAS operations differ 

dramatically from and result in a substantial reduction in risk to persons and property when 

compared to manned operations, an enhanced level of safety can be achieved, especially as the 

UAS will not carry pilots or passengers. Furthermore, a pilot license for full-scale aircraft does not 

provide any specific training for the proposed type of unmanned aircraft or ensure remote control 

piloting skills.

Regarding UAS operational training, the petitioner states he has been flying remote-control (R/C)

aircraft as a hobbyist for over 20 years. He holds an active membership in the American Modelers 

Association and flies regularly at multiple flying sites, having passed their respective training and

safety check requirements. His experience includes approximately 150 hours of flight time on 

various small fixed wing aircraft, nearly 20 hours with small quad-copters, as well as numerous 

hours of computer flight simulation training using Real Flight and Phoenix R/C. This training has 

developed abilities to recognize weather conditions (wind speed and direction, temperature, sun 

position and intensity) suitable for flight of various R/C aircraft and established instinctive, 

coordinated reactions necessary for the safe operation of UAS.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-60975 and 333-106616) and
Form S-8 (Nos. 2-91950, 2-93578, 33-18278, 33-29014, 33-39215, 33-56420, 33-53303,
333-51073, 333-93803, 333-93805, 333-47268 and 333-102321) of Mandalay Resort Group of our report dated March 12, 2004, relating to
the financial statements of Elgin Riverboat ResortRiverboat Casino as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003, appearing in this Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A to
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mandalay Resort Group for the year ended January 31, 2004.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Las
Vegas, Nevada
July 26, 2004

---



QuickLinks
## Appendix F. Legal Notification of Public Comment Period,

Public Comments Received , Public Hearing Documents, and

Response to Public CommentsThis page intentionally left blank for correct double

- sided printing.

### Legal Notification of Publ ic Comment PeriodThis page intentionally left blank for correct double

- sided printing.

### Publ ic Comment s ReceivedThis page intentionally left blank for correct double

- sided printing.

### Publ ic Hearing DocumentsThis page intentionally left blank for correct double

- sided printing.

### Response to Publ ic Comment sThis page intentionally left blank for correct double

- sided printing.
#### J. Louis CORRIGAN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. JAEGER, Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-16903.

D.C. No. CV-99-01133-DWH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 22, 2002.*

Decided July 29, 2002.

Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

J. Louis Corrigan, Jr. appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his rights were violated when a Las Vegas police officer and casino security guards took him into custody following a citizen’s arrest for pouring a drink on a casino patron’s head. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Frost v. Agnos,*152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

Summary judgment on Corrigan’s First Amendment claims was proper because Corrigan failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his conduct constituted speech protected by the First Amendment. *See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.,*458 U.S. 886, 916, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982) (holding that the Constitution does not protect expressive conduct characterized by violence).

Summary judgment on Corrigan’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims was proper because Corrigan failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the citizen’s arrest was made without probable cause, *see Marschall v. City of Carson,*86 Nev. 107, 464 P.2d 494, 498 (Nev.1970), or whether Officer Jaeger was entitled to qualified immunity, *see Hutchinson v. Grant,*796 F.2d 288, 290 (9th Cir.1986).

Summary judgment on Corrigan’s Eighth Amendment claim was proper be*70cause Corrigan failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any of the defendants were personally involved in the alleged deprivations. *See Jones v. Williams,*286 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2002).

Corrigan’s contention that the district court’s summary judgment violated his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial lacks merit. *See Sengupta v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc.,*804 F.2d 1072, 1077-78 n. 3 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial does not pi’eclude summary judgment where there is no genuine issue of material fact).

The district court properly dismissed Corrigan’s pendent state claims without prejudice. *See Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency of City of Los Angeles,*733 F.2d 646, 651 (9th Cir.1984).

Jaeger’s claim for attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is denied without prejudice to renewal. *See*Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.

Horseshoe Operating Company’s “Motion for Leave to Join in Brief and Arguments Put Forward by Appellee Jaeger in his Answering Brief’ is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 558 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 558

  For the relief of Retired Sergeant First Class James D. Benoit, Wan 
  Sook Benoit, and the estate of David Benoit, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 1995

   Mr. Levin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  For the relief of Retired Sergeant First Class James D. Benoit, Wan 
  Sook Benoit, and the estate of David Benoit, 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. CONSENT TO SUIT.

    Notwithstanding section 2735 of title 10, United States Code, and 
any other provision of law, the United States Claims Court shall have 
jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a claim by 
Retired Sergeant First Class James D. Benoit, Wan Sook Benoit, or the 
estate of David Benoit concerning the death of David Benoit on June 28, 
1983.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS PERIOD.

    Suit on a claim under section 1 may be instituted at any time not 
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. PRIOR SETTLEMENT.

    Settlement of a claim prior to the date of enactment of this Act 
shall not bar a claim under section 1. The damages awarded on a claim 
under section 1 shall reflect the settlement of a claim prior to the 
date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. NO INFERENCE OF LIABILITY.

    Nothing in this Act shall be construed as an inference of liability 
on the part of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-106616) and
Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-18278, 33-56420, 33-53303, 333-51073, 333-93803, 333-47268, and
333-102321) of our reports dated April 18, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Mandalay Resort Group (which report expresses
an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets")
and management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mandalay Resort Group for the year ended
January 31, 2005.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Las
Vegas, Nevada
April 18, 2005

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            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 Kronos Advanced Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 as
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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 operation of the Company.

Date: May 15, 2006                              By:      /s/ Daniel R. Dwight
                                                         -----------------------
                                                Name:    Daniel R. Dwight
                                                Title:   Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sherb & Co., LLP and
will be retained by Sherb & Co. LLP and furnished to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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.                  

###### U.S. International Development Finance Corporation

          - 2 CFR Chapter XVI

# AGENCY:

U.S. International Development Finance Corporation.

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects a U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) proposed rule published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on January 5, 2024, regarding nonprocurement suspension and debarment (S&D). This correction clarifies that contracts where DFC has a privity of contract (first-tier procurement) should be covered transactions under the nonprocurement S&D requirements.                    

# DATES:

January 22, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Agency Submitting Officer: Deborah Papadopoulos, (202) 357-3979,                         *Email: fedreg@dfc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

§ 1600.220

                    In the proposed rule, FR Doc. 2023-28838, in the issue of January 5, 2024, on page 715, in the third column, § 1600.220 is corrected by removing “None” and adding “First-tier procurements (                    *i.e.,*                     primary contracts) under a covered nonprocurement transaction are covered transactions” in its place.                

Dated: January 17, 2024.

Dev Jagadesan,

Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Development Finance Corporation.

[FR Doc. 2024-01112 Filed 1-19-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3210-02-P
Exhibit 23.0


The Board of Directors
Park Bancorp, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated January 26,
2001 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Park Bancorp, Inc. as
of December 31, 2000 and for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2000 and included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K, in
the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-33103) pertaining to the
Park Bancorp, Inc. 1997 Stock-Based Incentive Plan.




                                             Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP

Oak Brook, Illinois
March 13, 2001
EXHIBIT 23.1


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-171639, 333-159078, 333-133598, 333-107286, 333-35343, 333-33997, 333-71053, 333-52474, 333-90960, 333-126710, and 333-114140) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-168465, 333-160317, 333-152774, 333-136370, 333-122491, 333-114465, 333-52482, 333-72531, 333-59305, 333-42161, and 333-07959) of Endologix, Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2011 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.








/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Orange County, California


March 16, 2011
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4434

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DERICK A. GEIGER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 03-4622

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LORENZO MAURICE VENSON, a/k/a C. C., Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CR-01-261) Submitted: April 14, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.- 2 - Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald L. Stennett, Charleston, West Virginia; Herbert L. Hively, II, Hurricane, West Virginia, for Appellants. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Monica K. Schwartz, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Derick A. Geiger and Lorenzo Maurice Venson appeal their sentences imposed following guilty plea convictions for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base and more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Venson and Geiger contend that the district courterroneously calculated their relevant conduct because the coconspirator testimony upon which the calculation was based was unreliable. The district court’s determination of the drug quantity attributable to a defendant is a factual finding reviewed for clear error. United States v. Randall , 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999). In determining drug quantity, a district court must consider whether the government has established the amount by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Cook , 76 F.3d 596, 604 (4th Cir. 1996). “In reviewing sentences imposed under the [United States Sentencing] Guidelines, [this court] must give due regard to the opportunity of the district court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” United States v. Sampson , 140 F.3d 585, 591 (4th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Giving due deference to the district court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses, we reject Appellants’- 4 -related claim that the district court erred in finding coconspirator testimony to be credible. Sampson , 140 F.3d at 591. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in calculating the amount of narcotics attributed to both Venson and Geiger. Cook , 76 F.3d at 604; Randall , 171 F.3d at 210. We affirm both Venson’s and Geiger’s convictions and sentences. We reject Appellants’ request for 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
From: Cassidy Mike [ mailto:MICHAEL.CASSIDY@kohler.com ]

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 10:34 AM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Subject: RE: Temperatures and dioxin limits

How about 8 am CDT (9am EDT)? I’m off to India on business early Friday morning and tomorrow

is pretty full. I return on Sept 15.

My understanding is that the D/F limits would be replaced with work practice standards, such as is

proposed for the Brick M ACT, and no testing will be required. All three of our vitreous plants are

natural minor sources for HAP, and testing has shown D/F can be emitted at rates up to 30 mg/1F

kiln/year (80 ug/kiln/day). There is no feasible way to effectively control these m inute emissions.

Mike

From: Nizich, Sharon [ mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov ]

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 9:21 AM

To: Cassidy Mike

Subject: Temperatures and dioxin limits

Hello Mike

We would like to di scuss the quenching process for your tunnel kilns, and where you would do your

testing to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin limits on tunnel kilns. Can you give me a

window of time to discuss this tomorrow, up to 3:30 pm eastern? Thanks!

Sharon N izich

Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA/OAR/OAQPS

Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD)

109 TW Alexander Dr. (D243

- 04)

RTP, NC 27711

(919) 541

- 2825
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
136023 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 136023 COA: 273055 Berrien CC: 2006-400990-FC SAM LOWE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0519 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2008

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION RXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SAID FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      17,381,607
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,715,064
<PP&E>                                         647,771
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,362,835
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          357,164
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,005,619
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,362,835
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               962,258
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,510,586
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,548,328)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,548,328)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,548,328)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (501.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>