alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

FEB 22 2001

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ROWANA K. RIGGS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THE BOEING COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-3178

(D.C. No. 99-CV-2090-CM)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL, KELLY, and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Rowana K. Riggs, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s

grant of summary judgment to defendant, the Boeing Company, on her claim
-2-

alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.

§§ 12101-12213. The parties are familiar with the facts and the procedural

history of this case, and we will not repeat them here. On appeal, Ms. Riggs

claims the district court erred in finding that her mild carpal tunnel syndrome did

not rise to the level of a “disability” under the ADA and in failing to consider all

of her claims and evidence.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo , applying the same

standard as the district court. Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dep't of Mental Health

& Substance Abuse Servs. , 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. ), cert. denied , 528

U.S. 815 (1999). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if

any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

As required, “we view the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Simms, 165 F.3d at 1326. 

Having carefully reviewed the record in that light, we find no error, and we affirm

for substantially the reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum and

Order dated May 19, 2000.
-3-

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHARLES EDWARD BROOKS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 434 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Unpublished Memorandum and

Order of the Superior Court at No. 365 WDA 2015 entered on October 22,
2015, affirming the Judgment of Sentence of the Fayette County Court of

Common Pleas at No. CP

- 26

- CR

0000386

- 2014 entered on February 17,

2015

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of January , 201 8

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED

, LIMITED TO the issue s set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all

remaining issues. The issue s

, as stated by Petitioner, are :

1. Is it unconstitutional to require [ Petitioner] to register for a lifetime when said registration requirement exceeds the statutory maximum penalty for [Petitioner’s] offense?

2. Is the Adam Walsh Statute unconstitutional in requiring the [Petitioner] to register for a lifetime?

The judgment of sentence is VACATED , and the matter is REMANDED to the

Superior Court for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Muniz

, 164 A.3d 1189

(Pa. 201 7 )

.
Br kway McMillan 

NRO-APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY 

2 6 FEB 1965 

Dear Bob: 

The DDR&E letter of January 29, 1965, to you, stated 

that the Air Force would provide to NASA by March 1, the 

essential features of experiments and the earth-orbit 

vehicle characteristics required for the Manned Orbiting 

Laboratory Program. This data will be forwarded to NASA 

shortly. 

I am sure you will agree to the need for strict, sound 

security procedures to protect the various military objectives 

and capabilities for manned and unmanned operations of the 

MOL Program. The Department of Defense is now restricting 

dissemination of all military experiment and payload data on 

a rigidly controlled "Special Access" basis to insure that 

only those individuals who have a valid need-to-know are 

provided access. 

I would propose that NASA institute similar policy and 

procedures for protection of this information. The attached 

proposed directive, intended for issuance by NASA, contains 

all the essential elements of the Department of Defense 

security directives. I plan to identify to you any experimentation, which is non-military in nature, and therefore 

would not be subject to such security policy. 

I would appreciate your concurrence or comments to this 

approach as soon as possible so as not to inhibit the flow of 

essential information. I have requested Brigadier General 

Harry L. Evans to render such assistance as may be required 

to your organization. 

Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr. 

Associate Administrator 

National Aeronautics & Space Administration 

Washington, D. C.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report, dated August 3, 1998, included in Little Switzerland,
Inc.'s Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended May 30, 1998, into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 33-46654 (filed on March
25, 1992), Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 33-46656 (filed on March 25,
1992) and Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 33-73056 (filed on December 17,
1993).


                                                       /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

                                                       ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
September 25, 1998
| |             
| | ------------
| | 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 Corautus Genetics Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard E. Otto, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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.

|                        |                                  
|----------------------- | ---------------------------------
|Date:   August 14, 2003 | /s/ RICHARD E. OTTO              
|                        |                                  
|                        | Name:   Richard E. Otto          
|                        | Title:    Chief Executive Officer



---

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 Corautus Genetics Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert T. Atwood, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

|                         |                                  
|------------------------ | ---------------------------------
|Date:    August 14, 2003 | /s/ ROBERT T. ATWOOD             
|                         |                                  
|                         | Name:   Robert T. Atwood         
|                         | Title:    Chief Financial Officer
# CE2004078EN.01065801.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/658 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/658

---

(2004/C 78 E/0700)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3846/03

by Maj Theorin (PSE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Women and conflict

Subject:

The report on participation of women in peaceful conflict resolution adopted by Parliament in November 2000 (A5-0308/2000) describes how women are in all conflicts exposed to rape and other attacks but very seldom allowed to participate in the peace process. The UN report entitled Women, War and Peace' from 2002 covering the same subject as the above report proposes measures for empowering women.

What action is the Commission prepared to take to increase women's participation in the entire peace process?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

(29 January 2004)

It is indeed necessary to take practical steps to ensure the full participation of women and the integration of the gender perspective in peace and security issues.

Within its areas of responsibility the Commission will continue to work to effectively address the gender aspects of crisis management and conflict prevention. The Commission's ‘twin track approach’ to gender mainstreaming ensures not only the integration of gender issues at the policy level, but also the support of specific gender programmes and projects. Moreover, all EU assistance includes the gender dimension as an assessment criteria. It should be noted that the Commission's approach to gender mainstreaming is subject to regular review and debate with the Member States.

Examples of practical steps the Commission has taken include support for specific actions — such as in Angola, where it has promoted the establishment of stronger links amongst women's groups, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and others; or in Cyprus, where it has supported inter-community initiatives launched by women; or in Afghanistan, where it has rehabilitated women's meeting places, such as hammams; or in Chechnya, where it has funded mother and child healthcare.

Additionally, the inclusion of a gender module in the core component of the Community's pilot courses for civilian crisis management is a concrete step toward sensitising policy makers on the importance of including a gender perspective in peace building missions. To date 260 experts have been trained by training institutions located in nine different Member States.

---
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Effective date:*                         February 25, 2015.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 18, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 112 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2015-32, CP2015-42.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Requirements.

[FR Doc. 2015-03802 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**Exhibit
        32.2**
  WRITTEN
        STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY
        ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  The
        undersigned, Roy Swan, is the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
        Officer of Carver Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”).
  This
        statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company
        of the
        Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2007 (the
“Report”).
  By
        execution of this statement, I certify that:
  a)
              the
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
                  78o(d)); and
  b)
              the
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                  the Company
                  as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
                  Report.
   June
                  29, 2007
              /s/
                  Roy  SwanDated
              Roy
                  Swan
 
  This
        certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
        purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
        amended.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, 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 the Company and will be retained by
        the
        Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon request.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1274/2006

of 24 August 2006         

fixing the rates of the refunds applicable to certain milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 15 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 and in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999, and exported in the form of goods listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 August 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 24 August 2006.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN            

Vice-President

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 172, 5.7.2005, p. 24.

(3)OJ L 308, 25.11.2005, p. 1. Regulation amended by Regulation (EC) No 2107/2005 (OJ L 337, 22.12.2005, p. 20).

----

ANNEX

Rates of the refunds applicable from 25 August 2006 to certain milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty (1)

----

(1)  The rates set out in this Annex are not applicable to exports to Bulgaria, with effect from 1 October 2004, to Romania with effect from 1 December 2005, and to the goods listed in Tables I and II to Protocol No 2 the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972 exported to the Swiss Confederation or to the Principality of Liechtenstein with effect from 1 February 2005.

----
# CE2004084EN.01009002.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/90

---

(2004/C 84 E/0110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3715/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Siena

Subject:

With reference to question E-0972/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Siena (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

1

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

1

---
Exhibit 21.1
MRV COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Subsidiaries of MRV                            Subsidiary Name (1) Jurisdiction of Organization Alca AB SwedenCharlotte’s Networks, Inc. DelawareCreative Electronic Systems SA SwitzerlandEDSLan SpA ItalyInterdata FranceLuminentOIC, Inc. DelawareMRVCommunications – Boston Division, Inc. MassachusettsMRV Communications GmbH GermanyMRV International, Ltd. IsraelTecnonet SpA ItalyTurnKey Communciations AG Switzerland 
*(1)**In accordance with Instruction (ii) toExhibit (21) to the Exhibit Table in Item 601 ofRegulation S-K, Registrant has omitted from the above table two domestic and 20 foreign subsidiaries in the network communicationsbusiness: one domestic and two foreign subsidiaries in the opticalcomponents business: and one foreign subsidiary in the development stageenterprise business.*
92
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,874
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,976
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,433
<PP&E>                                          27,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,252)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,686
<BONDS>                                            462
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,824
<SALES>                                         31,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,327
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,810
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,304)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        75
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,379)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,379)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# CE2004088EN.01064901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/649 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/649

---

(2004/C 88 E/0666)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3401/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 November 2003)

Subject:   The Loizidou case

Subject:

The length of time which has elapsed since the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) passed judgment in the above case, during which Turkey has failed to comply with the Court's ruling, is an affront to the authority of the Court.

Turkey has now set two main conditions for implementing the ruling, viz.

| — | that the Loizidou case does not set a precedent for other cases already pending in the ECHR and that those cases should first go before the Compensation Committee recently set up by the illegal Denktash regime, and |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Loizidou case does not set a precedent for other cases already pending in the ECHR and that those cases should first go before the Compensation Committee recently set up by the illegal Denktash regime, and

| — | that the part of the judgment ruling that Turkey allow Ms Loizidou to enjoy her property in peace should not be implemented and that only compensation should be paid. |
| --- | --- |

—

that the part of the judgment ruling that Turkey allow Ms Loizidou to enjoy her property in peace should not be implemented and that only compensation should be paid.

In view of the fact that provision is made under the terms of the enhanced political dialogue between the EU and Turkey for respect for the judgments of the ECHR and that implementation of the Court's judgment in the Loizidou case has in effect been pending since 1996, what steps will the Commission take to persuade Turkey to implement the ECHR's judgment without repercussion or unacceptable compromise?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

(5 December 2003)

The Commission has been closely following the case of Loizidou against Turkey to which the Honourable Member refers. As the Commission highlighted in its 2003 Regular Report (1), despite Turkey's undertaking in June 2003 to pay by October 2003 the just satisfaction awarded to Mrs Loizidou by the European Court of Human Rights, no payment has yet been made.

1

Resolution of this matter is clearly a priority of the Council of Europe Minister's Deputies, who have been considering this case frequently in the course of their recent weekly meetings. The Council of Europe has continued to strongly urge Turkey to pay, without condition, the just satisfaction awarded by the Court.

One of the priorities outlined in the Accession Partnership for Turkey is respect for the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights. As such, the Commission will continue to closely monitor those judgements that have not been executed by Turkey, including this case.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 676 final.

1

---