alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (1) | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                  |   |                                                |   |
|-----------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: August 11, 2011 | By:    | /s/  Lifen Zheng                |   |
|                  |   | Lifen Zheng                                         |   |
|                  |   | Principal Financial OfficerLansdowne Security, Inc. |   |

----
ATTACHMENT B 

List of 

Written Public Commen Letters Received 
#'. 

I (Written public comments are available in hard copies only. A listing of all written public 

comments is provided below. Copies of written comments are available upon re quest.) 

List of Public Comment Letters Received 

Date: April 23,1998 

Name: Frank R. Caponi 

Title: Supervising Engineer 

Affiliation: County Sanitation ~istricts of L.A. 

1955 Workman Mill Road 

Whittier, CA 90601 

Date: April 15, 1998 

Name: Ronald R. Wilkniss 

Title: South Coast Issues Coordinator 

Affiliation: Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) 

505 No. Brand Blvd. Suite 1400 

Glendale, CA 9 1203 

- 

( 

Date: April 15, 1998 

Name: Christopher H. Norton 

Title: Governmental Affairs Manage 

Affiliation: Southern California Gas Co. 

555 W. Fifth St. 

Los Angeles. CA 900 13 

Date: April 15, 1998 

Name: Michele A. Gabelich 

Title: Supervisor, Air Regulatory 

Affiliation: Chevron Products Company 

324 W. El Segundo Blvd. 

El Segundo , CA 90245 

Date: April 7, 1998 

Name: Pat Harrity 

Title: Project Manager 

". - Affiliation: Energy and Environmental Research Corp. 

( 800 1 Irvine Blvd. 

Irvine, CA 926 1 8 
Date: June 10,1998 

Name: J. M. Stammen, P.E. 

Title: President 

Affiliation: Stamrnen & Associates 

771 Stanton Ave. Suite 1 

Buena Park, CA 90620 

Date: April 8, 1998 

Name: Lisa J. Carlson 

Title: Regulatory Specialist 

Affiliation: County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 

10844 Bills Ave. 

Fountain Valley, CA 92728
**Exhibit10.12**

 

## **SUMMARY OFCOMPENSATION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS**

##  

Prior to June 1, 2004, the annual compensation of each director who wasnot an employee of the Company or a subsidiary (a “Non-employee Director”)consisted of (1) an annual retainer of $10,000, up to half of which could bepaid in unrestricted shares of Common Stock and (2) a grant of non-qualifiedstock options to purchase 3,000 shares of Common Stock.  The shares of Common Stock and options forCommon Stock were issued pursuant to the Edge Petroleum Corporation IncentivePlan.

 

Effective beginning June 1, 2004, the annual compensation forNon-employee Directors was revised to eliminate the stock option grantcomponent and increase the annual retainer, all or a portion of which may bepaid in shares of Common Stock.  If theBoard elects to pay all or some of the retainer in shares of Common Stock, allor a portion of those shares may be subject to restriction, in the discretionof the Board.  The Edge PetroleumCorporation Incentive Plan was amended and restated effective June 1, 2004accordingly (as amended and restated, the “Incentive Plan”).  Under the Incentive Plan, the Board has thediscretion to reinstate the annual option grant.  In accordance with the new annualcompensation arrangement, in 2004 Non-Employee Directors were paid an annualretainer equal to the sum of (1) $10,000 (paid in cash) and (2) the value of2,400 shares of Common Stock (paid in kind). The shares vest ratably over three years beginning on the firstanniversary of the grant date.  The fairmarket value of the shares on the June 1, 2004 award date was $32,640 perdirector.  No option awards were made toNon-Employee Directors in 2004.

 

In addition, each Non-employee Director is to receive a $1,000 cashpayment for in-person attendance at a meeting of the Board of Directors ($400if such attendance is telephonic) and $750 ($1,200 in the case of a chairman ofa Committee even if such attendance is telephonic) for each meeting of aCommittee of the Board of Directors attended ($400 if telephonic).  All directors are reimbursed for out-of-pocketexpenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board or Board committees andfor other expenses incurred in their capacity as directors.

 

At its February 2005 meeting, the Corporate Governance/NominatingCommittee reviewed the director’s compensation and determined that suchcompensation should be increased in light of the increased duties,responsibilities and complexities of Board service.  The committee deferred taking any action toincrease director compensation, however, until after reviewing certaincompetitive information and surveys of director compensation of the Company’speers and competitors.  Increases, ifany, in director compensation will be finally reviewed and approved by theCorporate Governance/Nominating Committee at a meeting later in 2005 submittedto the full Board for approval and reported in the proxy statement for the 2006annual meeting.

 

----
# C_2015074EN.01000802.xml

| 3.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/8

---

Addendum to the call for proposals under the annual work programme for grants in the field of the trans-European transport infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020

(Official Journal of the European Union C 308 of 11 September 2014)

(2015/C 74/07)

The European Commission, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport is announcing an addendum to the call for proposals under the annual work programme 2014 for grants in the field of the trans-European transport infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020, as published in the Official Journal (2014/C 308/06).

The addendum to the call for proposals is available on:

http://inea.ec.europa.eu/en/cef/cef_transport/apply_for_funding/cef_transport_call_for_proposals_2014.htm

---
Brake Energy/Traction Work Weighted 

Using Proposed Weighting for A to B 

Certification

Engine 

Rated 

Power 

Brake 

Energy/ 

Positive 

Brake 

Energy/ 

Positive 

Distance 

Based 

Pre-trans 

Distance 

Based 

Cummins 

Braking 

Energy/eFT

Power P Positive 

(kW)

Positive 

Work

Positive 

Work 

Weighted

Based 

Weighting Based 

Weighting

P Positive 

Engine 

Work

339 0.52 0.39 0.48 0.46 0.49

201 0.49 0.36 0.30 0.28 0.35

149 0.42 0.32 0.21 0.19 0.22
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at December 31, 1996 and the Statement of Operations for the 
year ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by 
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
              
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                 0
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       0
<PP&E>                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  0
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           0
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       0
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       (8,500)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (8,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           (8,500)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0

        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

HIRAM RICHARDSON,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 162 EM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2016, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are DISMISSED. See 

Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (explaining that hybrid representation is 

not permitted). The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to forward the filings to counsel of 

record. 

It is noted that Petitioner’s PCRA petition has been pending before the Court of 

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County for more than two years. 

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the President 

Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.
May 19,
2009





Board of
Directors


Carthew
Bay Technologies Inc.


Brookfield
Place, 181 Bay Street


Suite
2500, Toronto, ON


M5J
AT7





Dear
Sirs:





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
20-F (No. 000-31481) of Carthew Bay Technologies Inc. of our report dated April
15, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2008 which appears in this Form 20-F.





Yours
very truly,


MSCM
LLP





/s/
MSCM LLP
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41467

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DANIEL GONZALEZ-BAUTISTA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CR-267-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Gonzalez-Bautista pleaded guilty to illegal reentry having been 

previously removed subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony. He 

was sentenced to 84 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised 

release. Gonzalez-Bautista argues for the first time on appeal that the district 

court plainly erred by characterizing his prior Texas conviction for aggravated 

assault on a public servant as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 1, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41467 Document: 00513780407 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2016
No. 15-41467

2

§ 1101(a)(43)(F) for the purposes of convicting and sentencing him under 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Relying primarily on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 

2551 (2015), Gonzalez-Bautista argues that the definition of a crime of violence 

in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which is incorporated by reference into § 1101(a)(43)(F)’s 

definition of an aggravated felony, is unconstitutionally vague on its face. He 

further contends that this court cannot apply § 16(b) in this case without 

violating due process.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance, urging that Gonzalez-Bautista’s arguments are foreclosed by our 

recent decision in United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 

2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). The 

Government is correct that Gonzalez-Longoria forecloses Gonzalez-Bautista’s 

facial vagueness challenge to § 16(b) as well as his challenge to our application 

of § 16(b) on due process grounds. See Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d at 672-78.

Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the 

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternate motion 

for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

 Case: 15-41467 Document: 00513780407 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2016
================================================================================

                                                                    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 Lansdowne Security, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
I, David Roff, 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:

1.    the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


     Dated: Aug 11, 2010


     /s/ "David Roff"


     David Roff
     Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

AMENDMENT OF RULES 400 1

, 4002, 4004, 4007, 4008, 4012 AND

4014 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA

RULES OF JUDICIAL

ADMINISTRATION :

:

:

:

:

:

:

: NO. 498

JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

D OCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25 th day of May , 201 8

, it is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rule s 4001, 4002, 4004, 4007, 4008, 4012

and 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration are amended in the

attached form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall

be effective July 1, 201 8.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and in brackets.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6325

DAMORIUS D. GAINES, a/k/a Damorius Dontavis Gaines, a/k/a Damorius 

Dontavious Gaines,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN JACKSON,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:23-cv-00411-HMH)

Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 29, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damorius D. Gaines, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6325 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Damorius D. Gaines seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be 

denied and advised Gaines that failure to file timely, specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Gaines has forfeited appellate review 

by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving 

proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6325 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
# C_2016110EN.01000101.xml

| 24.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/1

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.7969 — GIP/CPPIB/Asciano Businesses)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 110/01)

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

On 26 February 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration between GIP, CPPIB and Asciano Businesses. On 18 March 2016, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.

---
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 Homeland Security

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Docket No. DHS-2015-0011]

# AGENCY:

Office of Policy, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice of charter renewal for Homeland Security Advisory Council.

# SUMMARY:

The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that the renewal of the charter of the Homeland Security Advisory Council is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the Department of Homeland Security's performance of its duties. This determination follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.

# DATES:

The committee's charter is effective March 6, 2015 and expires March 6, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mike Miron, Director, Homeland Security Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Homeland Security by phone at (202) 447-3135, or by email to                         *hsac@dhs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Homeland Security Advisory Council provides organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific, and actionable advice and recommendations for the consideration of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters related to homeland security. The Homeland Security Advisory Council is comprised of leaders of local law enforcement, first responders, state and local government, the private sector, and academia.

Dated: March 23, 2015.

Sarah Morgenthau,

Executive Director, Homeland Security Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 2015-07094 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 9110-9M-P
# C_2015407EN.01000201.xml

| 8.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 407/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 407/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7791 — Aviva/PSP/Property Portfolio JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 407/03)

On 2 December 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above-notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7791. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7791. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2016049EN.01000201.xml

| 9.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7796 — Linamar/Montupet)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 49/03)

On 10 December 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7796. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7796. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---