alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2946
CHRISTOPHER BINDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WASHINGTON GAS - D ISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DIVISION, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge. (CA-95-319) Submitted: February 6, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Binder, Appellant Pro Se. L. Edward Funk, WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his claims under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1961-1968 (West 1984 & Supp. 1995), the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 (1988), and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Binder v. Washington Gas , No. CA-95-319 (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 1995). We dispense withoral 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
Exhibit 23.1











Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








GraphOn Corporation


Santa Cruz, California








We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-156229, 333-145284, 333-119402, 333-107336, 333-40174, and 333-88255) of GraphOn Corporation of our report dated March 31, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appear in this Form 10-K








/s/ Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP


Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP


Sacramento, California


March 31, 2011
HIPOLITO MATA,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5894

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

Hipolito Mata, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Jamie Braun, Assistant Attorney General, and 

Kenneth Steely, General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee Department of 

Corrections.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 99.17

News
Release
April 7, 2000

Trading Symbols:TRBD (EASDAQ)

TURBODYNE FILES PRELIMINARY PROXY

Carpinteria, CAApril 7, 2000Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. (EASDAQ:TRBD)
today filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Market Authority of the European Association of Securities Dealers' Automated Quotation (EASDAQ) a preliminary proxy statement which is
available on our website and through the SEC Edgar filing system.

Turbodyne
Technologies Inc., a California based high technology company, specializes in the development of charging technology for internal combustion engines plus the development and
manufacturing of high-tech assemblies for electrically assisted turbochargers and superchargers. Turbodyne Technologies Inc.'s headquarters is located in Carpinteria, CA; the European business
location is Frankfurt, Germany.

Contacts:

Corporate
Communications, Peter Weichselbraun (800) 566-1130
VP Group FinanceInvestor Relations, Ken Fitzpatrick (800) 566-1130
European Investor Relations, Markus Kumbrink +49-69-975-44-665

---

QuickLinks
# C_2016175EN.01000101.xml

| 17.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 175/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 165, 10.5.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 156, 2.5.2016

OJ C 145, 25.4.2016

OJ C 136, 18.4.2016

OJ C 118, 4.4.2016

OJ C 111, 29.3.2016

OJ C 106, 21.3.2016

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
# C_2016047EN.01000101.xml

| 6.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7870 — Fondo Strategico Italiano/Eni/Saipem)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 47/01)

On 11 January 2016, 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 Italian 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 32016M7870. 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 32016M7870. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
I 

• 

REF ID:A68342 ~---~~~~~~~----~--~-~~~ ·~--~~~----~~----~~--

~I&HCH 

PROCUREMENT SF.CT!OH 

GECRElJ 

- c \---

WHAT COliTRACTS n'ILL BE CUT BACK AS OF V.£ DAY? 

7 April 1945 

l. Iniormal. discussion id.th C?.pt.. CaaaidT, and pErU.Sal or Procurement 

Seeti.on recoros indicate that ti> CUT BA.CK Oii CR'!PTOORAPHIC B'.2UI111EHT CON'mAC'l'S 

WILL BE ~UIRED AB OF 'IJE DAY. ~ 

a. ':fture f.ol~<.T.TS ti li~t or the major contracts for Cr;yptograPliC equipment - 1dr in efte& ~t I \ 

SIGABA (Contmpl;lted) smIVI 

SIGLASE 

SmTUPo 

8IGJODO (Cont.er.pl.a tad) 

smJIP 

SIGRIR 

smNOJo 

I 

QUANTITY 

'100 

10.50 

10 

25 

'lO 

500 

'°° 5000 

) 

(300,-1945, 200,-1946) 

(l.945) 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 01-10-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

\" \ ' 

. ....., 

... . 

' . 

-, 

I 

r
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

      ( print page 15793)    
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to (FOA) DD15-004, Stillbirth Risk Factor Pilot Project Centers for Birth Defects Research and Prevention (CBDRPs).

*Time and Date:*                         11:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., April 21, 2015 (Closed).                    

*Place:*                         Teleconference.                    

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                    

*Matters for Discussion:*                         The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Stillbirth Risk Factor Pilot Project Centers for Birth Defects Research and Prevention (CBDRPs)”, FOA DD15-004.                    

*Contact Person for More Information:*                         M. Chris Langub, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F-80, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-3585,                         *EEO6@cdc.gov.*

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Catherine Ramadei,

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2015-06850 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
**Exhibit 31.1**
**Certifications**
     I, Marshall L. Stewart, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Ocean West Holding Corporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;
     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
         Date: May 23, 2005 /s/ Marshall L. Stewart   Marshall L. Stewart   President and Chief Executive Officer  
15
#### In the Matter of the Application of Merle P. Galusha and Others, Petitioners, for an Order against William J. Picard and Others, Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County,

December 29, 1937.

*Floyd J. Reinhart,*for the petitioners.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General \F. R. Chant, Assistant Attorney-General,*of counsel], for the respondents.

Bergan, J.

Where a review of the determination of a public officer or board is sought in pursuance of article 78 of the Civil Practice Act (as added by Laws of 1937, chap. 526), partially upon the sufficiency of the evidence taken to sustain the determination, and partially upon questions of law arising independently of the sufficiency of the evidence, the entire proceeding to review should be transferred to the Appellate Division. Thus at one time all of the questions raised may be determined.

Here the petitioners allege that in refusing to approve the certificate of incorporation of the Amsterdam Textile Workers Union *540No. 1, Inc., upon the ground that the approval of the certificate *“*would be contrary to sound public policy,” the State Board of Standards and Appeals acted in excess of its jurisdiction, and that it was without power under the statute to reach its conclusion upon that ground. It is also alleged in the petition that the determination of the respondents violated the rights of the petitioners. If these questions only were raised, the duty would fall upon the Special Term to determine them or to hear and determine any issue of fact arising upon the pleadings in respect of these questions. (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 1295,1296, subds. 3, 5.)

But it is further alleged in the petition that there was no competent evidence to authorize the respondents to make the determination and that the finding was against the weight of the evidence. These questions are solely within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296, subds. 6, 7.)

Accordingly, where some of the questions raised upon the proceeding to review are within the jurisdiction of the Special Term in the first instance and some are within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division in the first instance an orderly and consistent procedure requires the transfer of the proceeding to the Appellate Division. This seems to be the intention of the statute. It is where *“*only ” one or more of the first five issues enumerated in section 1296 is raised that the “ court to which the application for relief is made shall itself dispose of the cause on the merits.” Where one of the “ other two issues is raised ” (Subds. 6, 7) the proceeding must be transferred to the Appellate Division and this clearly means that such transfer must be made irrespective of the other issues raised.

The proceeding is transferred to the Appellate Division, Third Department.

Submit order.
**New Requirement Description Increased Cost Per**  **Facility Increased Costs For** 

**Industry Release Prevention**  Walk Through Inspections $3,600.00 $803,365,200.00 Over-Fill Prevention Equipment Tests $135.00 $30,126,195.00 Spill Prevention Equipment Tests $750.00 $167,367,750.00 Interstitial Integrity Tests $350.00 $78,104,950.00 Testing Repairs to Spill & Over-Fill Prevention Equipment and Interstices $175.00 Eliminate Flow Restrictors in Vent Lines for all New Tanks and When Over-fill Devices are Replaced $600.00 **Release Detection** Operability Tests for Release Detection Methods $300.00 $66,947,100.00 Add SIR/CITLD to Regulations with Performance Criteria Response to Interstitial Monitoring Alarms $350.00

Eliminate groundwater and vapor monitoring as release detection methods Remove deferral for emergency generator tanks **Other** Require notification of ownership change $100.00

Closure of lined tanks that cannot be repaired according to a code of practice Requirements for determining compatibility Remove deferrals for airport hydrant fuel distribution systems and UST systems with field-constructed tanks**EPA ct-related Provisions** Operator training $500.00 $111,578,500.00 Secondary containment Under Dispenser Containment for all New Dispensers

**Annual Costs $6,160.00** **$1,374,647,120.00 One Time Costs**  **$600.00**

* The costs are based on Conventional UST Systems consisting of three USTs per system. Industry costs assumes 223,157 facilities.**Comments**

* The costs are based on Conventional UST Systems consisting of three USTs per system. Industry costs assumes 223,157 facilities.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RYAN MCKENZIE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2681

[November 1, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barbara McCarthy, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 11-8888 CF10A.

Ryan McKenzie, Florida City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2016151EN.01000101.xml

| 28.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7850 — EDF/CGN/NNB Group of Companies)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 151/01)

On 10 March 2016, 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 32016M7850. 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 32016M7850. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2894 

To require the imposition of sanctions with respect to Nord Stream 2 AG 

pursuant to the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 

Mr. CRUZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the imposition of sanctions with respect to Nord 

Stream 2 AG pursuant to the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO 

4 NORD STREAM 2 AG. 

5 Not later than 30 days after the date of the enact6 ment of this Act, the President shall impose the sanctions 

7 described in subsection (b) of section 10 of the Sov8 ereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of 

9 Ukraine Act of 2014 (22 U.S.C. 8909), as added by sec10 tion 228 of the Countering America’s Adversaries 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2894 IS

1 Through Sanctions Act (Public Law 115–44; 131 Stat. 

2 911), with respect to Nord Stream 2 AG. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.11
 
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY
 
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and
appoints George L. Lippe, Robert E. Sulentic and William P. Leiser the true and
lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for
him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or
officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware
corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1998, and to sign any or all amendments to such
Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting
unto said attorney or attorneys-in-fact, each of them with or without the
others, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all
intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorney or attorneys-in-fact or any of them or their
substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
                                       /s/ Harlan R. Crow
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                           Harlan R. Crow
Order entered December 1, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00598-CV

MARC HEALEY, Appellant

V.

NATASHA HALL AND ROYCE HALL, III, D/B/A NO LIMIT RETRIEVERS, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 92099CC2

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee Natasha Hall’s “motion to substitute party.” We GRANT

appellee’s motion to the extent we DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to change the style of this 

appeal to “Marc Healey v. Natasha Romero f/k/a Natasha Hall and Royce Hall, III, d/b/a No 

Limit Retrievers.”

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE