alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alexander Otis MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RATIONALWIKI FOUNDATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1434

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

Alexander Otis Matthews, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Otis Matthews appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Matthews v. Rational WIKI Found.,*No. 1:14-cv-00257-LO-TCB, 2017 WL 1129974 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2017). 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*
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

GASTON, BAKER, and STEWART

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Edwin G. SAETEROSLEMA

Private First Class (E-2), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202100063

Decided: 30 August 2021

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

Military Judge: 

Terrance J. Reese

Sentence adjudged 9 December 2020 by a special court-martial convened at Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan, consisting of a military judge 

sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, 

confinement for 6 months, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Commander Kyle Calvin Kneese, JAGC, USN

For Appellee:

Brian K. Keller, Esq.
United States v. Saeteroslema, NMCCA No. 202100063

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.1

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
**Annual
      Statement of Compliance**





VIA:
      EMAIL





Citigroup
      Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.


388
      Greenwich Street, 11th Floor


New
      York,
      New York 10013





Wells
      Fargo Bank, National Association


9062
      Old
      Annapolis Road


Columbia,
      Maryland 21045





Re:
      Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of November 1, 2006
      among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., as Depositor, Wachovia
      Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer No. 1, Midland Loan Services,
      Inc., as Master Servicer No. 2, LNR Partners, Inc., as Special Servicer, and
      LaSalle Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator, relating to
      Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
      Certificates, Series 2006-C5





I,
      Barbara L. Marik, a First Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
      as Certificate Administrator hereby certify that:





(1)
      A
      review of the activities of the Certificate Administrator during the preceding
      calendar year and of the performance of the Certificate Administrator under
      the
      Agreement has been made under my supervision; and





(2)
      To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certificate Administrator
      has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
      throughout such year or a portion thereof.








Date: February
      1, 2007








LaSalle
      Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator








/s/
      Barbara L Marik


Barbara
      L. Marik


First
      Vice President
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6904

ORLANDO DAVID ALMOND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-230-3) Submitted: September 4, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orlando David Almond, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). 2 PER CURIAM: Orlando David Almond seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the magistrate judge that Almond has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. * See Almond v. Baskerville , No. CA-01-230-3 (E.D. Va. May 17, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
From: Rogers, Bob To: Srivastava, Pragati ; "Steven Stout" ; Marc Corrigan Cc: Gray, Carter ; Fritchie, Denis Subject: follow-up Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:10:48 PM

It would be an understatement to say I was pleased with how the call went today, but I have been feeling more certain over time that the proposal would be at least generally acceptable. I am not so happy about the prospect of having to reset the MVEB. I know when I started drafting this, I considered whether or not that would be necessary and concluded it was not – of course, now I can’t recall the logic I used to make that decision. I note, however, that on the recent Wisconsin case that Mr. Stout found, it appears they did not reset their budgets. I will look a little closer into that to make sure I am not missing something.

Anyhow, if the worst that happens is we have to do the budget exercise, that’s not too bad.

Bob Rogers, Manager Pollution Control Shelby County Health Department 814 Jefferson Ave. Memphis TN 38105 (901)222-9599
Eastern	Atlantic	Consulting,	LLC

37	Bucks	Mill	Road

Colts	Neck,	NJ		07722

February	19,	2016

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation

Docket	Management	System

1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	SE

Washington,	D.C.		20590

RE:		Section	333	Exemption

To	Whom	it	May Concern:

I	am	writing on	behalf	of	my	company,	Eastern	Atlantic	Consulting ,	LLC

, to	request

a n	exemption	pursuant	to Section	333 of	the	FAA	Modernization	and	Reform	Act	of

2012.		This	exemption	would	allow	us	to	operate	an	unmanned	aircraft	system

(UAS)	f or	commercial	purposes,	including	but	not	limited	to:	aerial	photography	and

videography	of	real	estate,	special	events,	and for promotional	purposes.		This

request	is	similar	to	many	previously	issued	exemptions,	including	numbers	13608,

14781,	and	14816.

The	granting	of	this	exemption	would	be	of	great	benefit	to	the	public.		We	will	be

offering	a	service	that	has	otherwise	not	been	offered,	or	has	been	offered	at	greater

risk	and	cost.		Using	an	UAS	for	aerial	photography	is	much	safer	than	using	larger

aircraft	or	a	crane	to	achieve	the	same	result.		Additionally,	the	lower	fee	will	make

it	more	affordable	and	therefore	more	accessible	to	the	general	public.

We	will	be	using	a	Blade	Chroma	CGO2 (UAS	Certificate	Number	FA37YTP9XT) with

the	following	spe cifications:

Motor

- to

- Motor Distance:	15.7	in	(400mm)

Rotor	Type:	Quadcopter

Prop	Diameter:	10.2	in	(260mm)

Approximate	Flight	Time:	30	minutes

Battery:	11.1V	3S	5400mAh	Li

- Po

Height:	9.50	in	(242mm)

Weight:	45.9	oz	(1.3	kg)

Motor	Type:	4	×	780Kv	Brushless	Outrunner

Control	Link:	2.4GHz

Video	Link:	5.8GHz

Video	Link	Range:	1,970	ft	(600m)

Satellite	Navigation	System:	GPS,	GLONASS

Completion	Level:	Ready

- to

- FlyI	am	a	private	pilot	licensed	to	fly	under	visual	flight	rul es.		I	have	been	flying	s mall

aircraft	for	20	years.		I am	familiar	with	FAA	Regulations and	will	follow	all	rules

when	operating	the	UAS

. We	would	like	to	be	able	to	operate this	UAS	at	an	altitude

under	4 00	feet,	and	at	a	speed	under	100	mph.		We	wish	t o	operate	it during

daylight	hours	within	visual	line	of	sight.		We	will	ensure	proper maintenance of	the

UAS,	and	inspect	it	before	and	after	each	flight. All	repairs	will	be	performed	by	a

facility	authorized	by	the	manufacturer

. We	will	follow	all	saf ety	bulletins	issued	by

the	manufacturer.

I	am	requesting	exemption	from	the	following	regulations:

14	CFR	61.23(a)	and	(c)

14	CFR	61.101(e)(4)	and	(5)

14	CFR	61.113(a)

14	CFR	61.315(a)

14	CFR	91.7	(a)

14	CFR	91.119(c)

14	CFR	91.121

14	CFR	151(a)(1)

14	C FR	91.405(a)

14	CFR	91.407(a)(1)

14	CFR	91.409(a)(1)	and	(2)

14	CFR	91.417(a)	and	(b)

If	you	need	any	additional	information,	please	contact	me	at	the	address	below.

Sincerely,

Michael	J.	Burke

Eastern	Atlantic	Consulting,	LLC

37	Bucks	Mill	Road

Colts	Neck,	NJ		07722

easternac@verizon.net
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago ARCE-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago Arce-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10241, No. 16-10242

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 8, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed September 5, 2017

Corey James Mantei, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Victoria Trull, Victoria Trull, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

*498Before: REINHARDT and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and BERG,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Terrence Berg, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Santiago Arce-Rodriguez appeals his conviction and sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and also appeals his sentence for violation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

A jury convicted Arce-Rodriguez of reentry after deportation. This conviction also constituted a violation of his supervised release conditions. The district court thus sentenced him both on the re-entry after deportation conviction and the supervised release violation.

1. Because detention at the border is frequently more akin to a *Terry v. Ohio*stop than a full-custody arrest, Arce-Rodriguez’s argument that his statements should be suppressed fails. 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Duiing such temporary detentions at the border, it is not necessary to provide a *Miranda*warning before asking questions reasonably related to Appellant’s immigration status. *See United States v. Cervantes-Flores,*421 F.3d 825, 829-30 (9th Cir. 2005) *overruled on other grounds by Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts,*557 U.S. 305, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009). Moreover, the remaining evidence- adduced at trial was sufficient to prove Appellant’s immigration status and all of the other elements of the offense, thus supporting the jury’s verdict.

2. The record shows that the district judge, after considering the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), imposed a sentence below the government’s recommendation of 51 months, and Arce-Rodriguez presented no grounds that would compel a below-guidelines sentence. *United States v. Stoterau,*524 F.3d 988, 1002 (9th Cir. 2008). Considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a total term of imprisonment of 36 months.1

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Arce-Rodriguez also argues that it was unfair to increase his term of incarceration based on his supervised release violation because he was deported and thus unable to benefit from the resources that the supervised release program normally affords offenders. Arce-Rodriguez cites no authority that would allow us to disturb the district court's sentence on these grounds.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6852 

AN ACT 

To designate Holcombe Rucker Park, in Harlem, New York, 

as a National Commemorative Site, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6852 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Holcombe Rucker Park 

3 National Commemorative Site Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NATIONAL COMMEMORATIVE SITE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—Holcombe Rucker Park, in Har6 lem, New York, is hereby designated as the ‘‘Holcombe 

7 Rucker Park National Commemorative Site’’ (referred to 

8 in this section as the ‘‘Commemorative Site’’). 

9 (b) ADMINISTRATION.— 

10 (1) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—The Sec11 retary of the Interior may enter into cooperative 

12 agreements with appropriate public or private enti13 ties, including the Mayor of New York City or the 

14 Mayor’s designee, for interpretive and educational 

15 purposes related to the Commemorative Site, includ16 ing installing a plaque, interpretive exhibit, or other 

17 marker, as appropriate, at the Commemorative Site, 

18 with the written consent of the owner of the Com19 memorative Site, to memorialize the achievements of 

20 Holcombe Rucker and to provide recognition of the 

21 historic role of Holcombe Rucker Park in the devel22 opment of the game of basketball and of many of its 

23 most talented players. 

24 (2) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.—The Com25 memorative Site shall not be a unit of the National 

26 Park System. 
3 

•HR 6852 EH

1 (3) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this Act— 

2 (A) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 

3 to interfere with the rights of any person with 

4 respect to private property or any local zoning 

5 ordinance or land use plan of the State of New 

6 York or any political subdivision thereof, includ7 ing prohibiting any actions that may otherwise 

8 be taken by a property owner (including any 

9 owner of the Commemorative Site) with respect 

10 to the property of the owner; 

11 (B) affects the administration of the Com12 memorative Site by New York City or the State 

13 of New York; or 

14 (C) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 

15 to acquire land or interests in land through 

16 condemnation or otherwise. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6852 

AN ACT 

To designate Holcombe Rucker Park, in Harlem, 

and for other purposes. New York, as a National Commemorative Site,
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6878 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6878

To amend the Clean Air Act to exempt nonroad engines and vehicles that 
are used for agricultural purposes from the emission standards of that 
                      Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2023

 Mrs. Spartz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Clean Air Act to exempt nonroad engines and vehicles that 
are used for agricultural purposes from the emission standards of that 
                      Act, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Farm Equipment Safety Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF NONROAD FARM ENGINES AND VEHICLES FROM CLEAN AIR 
              ACT EMISSION STANDARDS.

    Section 213 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7547) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Exemption.--The standards under this section do not apply to 
emissions from nonroad engines and nonroad vehicles that are used for 
agricultural purposes.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04409]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2021-N-0918; FDA-2018-N-1967; FDA-2009-D-0268; and 
FDA-2019-N-3077]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approvals

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is publishing 
a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, 
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a2a283b290e1b1c1c3a1c1e1b54121209541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="752527342601141313351311145b1d1d065b121a03">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a list of FDA information 
collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control 
number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information 
collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements 
for the information collections are available on the internet at 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. An Agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

        Table 1--List of Information Collections Approved By OMB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            OMB control    Date approval
           Title of collection                  No.           expires
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling Requirements for Human                0910-0572       1/31/2025
 Prescription Drug and Biological
 Products...............................
Biosimilar User Fee Program.............       0910-0718       1/31/2025
Labeling of Certain Beers Subject to the       0910-0728       1/31/2025
 Labeling Jurisdiction of the FDA.......
Obtaining Information to Understand and        0910-0883       2/28/2025
 Challenges and Opportunities
 Encountered by Compounding Outsourcing
 Facilities.............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: February 23, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-04409 Filed 3-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0593 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0593

**2001/593/EC: Council Decision of 18 June 2001 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Malta concerning the participation of the Republic of Malta in the European Environment Agency and the European environment information and observation network **

*
Official Journal L 213 , 07/08/2001 P. 0102 - 0102 *

Council Decision

of 18 June 2001

on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Malta concerning the participation of the Republic of Malta in the European Environment Agency and the European environment information and observation network

(2001/593/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 175(1), in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(1),

Whereas:

(1) The European Environment Agency and the European environment information and observation network were established by Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90(2).

(2) The Luxembourg European Council (December 1997) made participation in the Community programmes and agencies a way of stepping up the pre-accession strategy for the central and east European countries. In the case of the agencies, the European Council's conclusions provide that "the Community agencies in which applicant countries will be able to participate will be determined on a case-by-case basis".

(3) The Helsinki European Council (December 1999) reaffirmed the inclusive nature of the accession process, which now comprises 13 candidate countries within a single framework with the candidate countries participating in the accession process on an equal footing.

(4) The Council, pursuant to Article 300(1) of the Treaty, on 14 February 2000 authorised the Commission to conduct negotiations on the participation in the European Environment Agency of the countries applying for accession,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Malta concerning the participation of the Republic of Malta in the European Environment Agency and the European environment information and observation network is approved on behalf of the Community.

The text of the Agreement is set out as an Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit the notification provided for in Article 17 of the Agreement.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Luxembourg, 18 June 2001.

For the Council

The President

M. Winberg

(1) Opinion delivered 31.5.2001 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(2) OJ L 120, 11.5.1990, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 933/1999 (OJ L 117, 5.5.1999, p. 1).