alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SERVED: JUNE 

### 11,2012**~------- ----~** **--~-~** 

### --------- ! i

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF 

### ENTERTAINMENT FUSION GROUP FAA DOCKETNo. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS FAA-2011-1290
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

----- 

# 'n I

### 7 i '" I ? r· 

### I 1' 

### 0 'II :c·1·., , • r.l : "< (."

....**~;,.;** f '-

On December 7, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Complainant") filed a Complaint. On October 31, 2011, Entertainment Fusion Group (hereinafter "Respondent") had requested a hearing. Byletter dated June 1, 2012, Respondent filed a Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing, citing settlement ofthe matter. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney maywithdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the consent ofthe administrative lawjudge. Ifan agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart withprejudice." WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearinghaving been read and considered, it is ORDERED that:2


### 1. Respondent's Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing is hereby GRANTED; and 2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. SO ORDERED.

Attachments

- Service List

# ~cU 

# c**(~9-~~--** 

# ox 'Chard C. Goodwin Administrative LawJudgeSERVICE 

### LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building-Suite 2W1000 1
Gordon Turner, Respondent's Counsel The Law Offices ofGordon Turner 3325 Wilshire Boulevard, St1ite 1350 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: 213-487-9190 Fax: 213-487-9484 ONE COPY

Kyle E. Lomazow, Complainant's Counsel Atton1ey, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind A venue Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847 FPC(: 425-227-1007 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTranspoFtation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 STAFF Assistant FPC(: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2011-1290 (Civil PenaltyAction)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAMES ROBERT ELLIOT, 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-13-00034-CR

Appeal from the

432nd District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC#1274489D)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the written judgment of 

conviction should be modified to conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement imposing a 

sentence of thirty years’ confinement. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court as 

modified. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

Rivera, J., not participating
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0114n.06 Filed: February 14, 2006 No. 05-3317 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JOHN WYSONG, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. BRUCE RAMAGE, Officer and JAIMEE COULTER, Patrolman, Defendants-Appellants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

BEFORE: MARTIN, NORRIS, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Defendants Bruce Ramage and Jaimee Coulter appeal an order of the district court denying them qualified immunity ina lawsuit brought against them by plaintiff John Wysong, who contends that they used excessive force during his arrest. Having had the benefit of oral argument a nd having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in denying defendants qualified immunity. Because the reasoning which supports the denial of qualified immunity has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detaile d written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. According, the ruling of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Opinions and Orders dated January 18, 2005 and February 24, 2005.No. 05-3317 Wysong v. City of Heath

- 2 -
#### Patricia LEVIEGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VODAFONE US INC., d/b/a Vodafone Americas, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2413

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

*759Monique Antonia Miles, OLD TOWNE ASSOCIATES, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Emily Crandall Harlan, NIXON PEABODY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Patricia Leviege appeals the district court’s orders granting Vodafone US Inc.’s (Vodafone) motion to dismiss Leviege’s employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims against Vodafone, and denying Leviege’s Fed. R. Civ, P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. We have considered the parties’ arguments and have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Leviege v. Vodafone US Inc.,*No. 1:16-cv-00374-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2016 & Nov. 9, 2016). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge Roger P. Croteau & Associates, Ltd. Akerman LLP/Las Vegas Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Euro Group of Companies, Inc. (formerly ICT Technologies, Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




(1)    The Report of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act; 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  May 17, 2011
By:
/s/   Vasilios KoutsobinasVasilios KoutsobinasChief Executive Officer
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 865

Entitled the ‘‘Securities Act Amendment of 1995’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

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

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

Entitled the ‘‘Securities Act Amendment of 1995’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. LOSS CAUSATION.

4 Section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15

5 U.S.C. 771) is amended by inserting before the period at

6 the end the following: ‘‘Provided, That such remedy of re7 scission shall not be available if the defendant proves that

8 any depreciation in value of such security represents other

9 than depreciation in value of such security resulting from

10 such part of the prospectus, with respect to which his li11 ability is asserted, not being true or omitting to state a

12 material fact required to be stated therein or necessary
2

•S 865 IS

1 to make the statements therein not misleading, in which

2 case the person purchasing such security shall recover as

3 damages only so much of the depreciation in value of such

4 security as such defendant shall fail to prove to have re5 sulted from a cause other than his misrepresentation or

6 omission in such prospectus.’’.

Æ
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A2143. SANDERS v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.

Upon consideration, the APPELLANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW

APPEAL is hereby GRANTED. 

In the appellant’s motion, she requested that this Court “waive any costs

associated due to his [sic] indigent status.” Under our rules, “Appellant and

appellant's counsel are liable for costs when the case is docketed.” Court of Appeals

Rule 5. This case was docketed on July 15, 2015. No payment has been received, and

the record does not contain a sufficient affidavit of indigency, as would excuse

payment. Court of Appeals Rules 2 (a), 5. Accordingly this request is DENIED.

According to Sanders’ notice of appeal, she appealed from a judgment entered

on May 22, 2015. The only such judgment in the record was entered against her

counsel of record Grady A. Roberts, III, and Roberts Law, LLC, jointly and severally,

pursuant to this Court’s May 15, 2015 order, as a penalty for the filing a frivolous

application, Case No. A15D0379; judgment was not entered against Sanders. To the

extent Roberts and Roberts Law, LLC, sought to appeal the May 22, 2015 judgment

against them, such appeal is hereby DISMISSED for failure to pay costs or file a

sufficient affidavit of indigency, as required.

September 03, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/03/2015
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

GA FINANCIAL, INC.


   In connection with the Quarterly Report of GA Financial, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M.
Kish, 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 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
      as of and for the period covered by the Report.



/s/ John M. Kish
----------------
John M. Kish
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002
#### Nguyen Van NGUYEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-17674 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(July 7, 2017)

W. Matthew Dodge, Stephanie A. Kearns, Kendal Silas, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Petitioner-Appellant

Jane Elizabeth McBath, Nekia Shantel Hackworth, Francey Hakes, John Andrew Horn, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, Todd C. Alley, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent-Appel-lee

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Nguyen Van Nguyen appeals the dismissal of his motion to vacate as untimely. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Nguyen argued that, in the wake of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. — , 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), his three prior convictions for robbery did not qualify as predicate offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The district court ruled that Nguyen “was sentenced under the ACCA ‘elements test’ ” and, because he did “not [make] a *Johnson*claim,” his motion was untimely as not filed within one year after his conviction became final. *See*28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(1). We affirm that Nguyen’s motion was untimely, but for a reason different than that relied on by the district court.

The district court did not err by dismissing Nguyen’s motion as untimely. Nguyen failed to file his motion within one year after the Supreme Court ruled in *Johnson*that the residual clause of the Act is unconstitutionally vague, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Nguyen had until June 27, 2016, to move for relief based on *John*
      *990
      *son, see*Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3)(A), but he waited until July 11, 2016, two weeks after the one-year limitation period expired, to file his motion. Because the parties briefed the issue of timeliness and Nguyen replied to the argument that he missed the deadline, we may affirm on the ground advocated by the government. *See Wood v. Milyard,*566 U.S. 463, 132 S.Ct. 1826, 1834, 182 L.Ed.2d 733 (2012).

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Nguyen’s motion to vacate.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05091]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 7, 2022, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Cable Television 
Laboratories, Inc. (``CableLabs'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Society of Cable Telecommunications 
Engineers, Inc., Exton, PA has been added as a party to this venture. 
And, the objective of the venture has been updated as follows: ``The 
objective of CableLabs is to gather, assess, and disseminate technical 
information of strategic importance to the cable television industry; 
to identify, plan, engage in, and fund the development of new 
technologies for the benefit of the industry, directly or in 
partnership with others; to transfer such technologies to the industry 
through reports, standards, specifications, industry conferences, 
training, online courses, software, seminars, workshops, licenses, 
loans of personnel, and other appropriate means; and to generally 
undertake research and development activity in furtherance of each of 
the foregoing.''
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and CableLabs intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On August 8, 1988, CableLabs filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on September 7, 1988 (53 FR 34593).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 13, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 9, 2021 (86 FR 62205).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05091 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0000521 22-OCT-2013 02:47 PM

SCWC-12-0000521 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

IN THE INTEREST OF TM

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-12-0000521; FC-S NO. 10-002K) ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.) The Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on September 12, 2013 by Petitioner/Mother-Appellant Alexandra Rigaud is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, October 22, 2013. Benjamin E. Lowenthal, for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack Mary Anne Magnier, Nolan Chock, for respondent
#### Wetmore v. Monona County.

!• Statute of Limitations: when it begins to run: warrant on special fund. The statute of limitations does not begin to run against a warrant payable out of the swamp land fund of a county not otherwise appropriated, until the fund out of which it is made payable comes into existence.

*Appeal from Monona District Court.*

Saturday, October *22.*

Action upon a swamp-land warrant executed in 1866. The defendant demurred to the petition, on the ground that plaintiff’s cause of action appeared to be barred by the statute of limitations. The demurrer was sustained. The plaintiff electing to stand upon his petition, judgment was rendered against him for costs. He appeals. ■

*H. E.*Long, for appellant.

*H. Chrisman*and *J. E. Sellecle,*for appellee.

Adams, Ch. J.

The warrant sued on is in these words: “ $324. State of Iowa, Monona Co.

“The treasurer of said county will pay to J. E. Morrison *89or bearer the sum of three hundred and twenty-four dollars out of any swamp-land money not otherwise appropriated.

“ Given under my hand and the seal of said county, at my office in Onawa, this 29th day of December, 1886.

[Seal.] “ Timothy Elliott, County Clerk.”

The plaintiff averred that at no time since the execution and delivery of the warrant was there any swamp-land money in the defendant’s treasury, not otherwise appropriated, until January 1, 1878.

The question raised by the demurrer to the petition is as to whether the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued earlier than January 1, 1878. In our opinion' it did not. The warrant was made payable out of' a special fund, and the defendant was not liable to an action on the warrant until the fund out of which it was made payable came into existence. "We think that the demurrer was improperly sustained.

Reversed.
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (1)    | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                                                   |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | (2)    | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company      for the periods presented. |

|                          |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:      December 29, 2008 |   |
|                          |   |
| /s/      Gary Cebula          |   |
| Gary      Cebula              |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer  |   |
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12477-12478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04582]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4488-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]


New Jersey; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4488-DR), dated March 25, 2020, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on February 16, 2022.

[[Page 12478]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, David 
Warrington, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating 
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Chad M. Gorman as Federal 
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-04582 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P