alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isael PEREZ-PEREZ, a.k.a. Bemba, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-12264 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(January 19, 2018)

*673Germaine Seider, U.S. Attorney Service — Middle District of Florida, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Charles M. Britt, III, Law Office of Charles M. Britt, III, Bradenton, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. *See United States v. Bushert,*997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if made knowingly and voluntarily).
# C_2021349EN.01004501.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/45

---

Action brought on 6 July 2021 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB

(Case T-394/21)

(2021/C 349/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bayerische Landesbank (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 10 pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-389/21, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

---
#### Clarence MOTLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7484

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 23, 2018

Clarence Motley, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Motley, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Motley has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. *See Rice v. Rivera,*617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010); *United States v. Poole,*531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). The district court lacked jurisdiction over Motley’s petition, *Rice,*617 F.3d at 807, and we therefore grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment. *Motley v. United States,*No. 5:17-hc-02075-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 27 & 28, 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*

*

 The district court concluded that Motley could not proceed under both 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Motley, however, confines his appeal to the district court’s dismissal of the § 2241 petition.
#### IN RE: Eva G. SELLERS

329 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/19/2017

2016-X-2320

(Montgomery)

Affirmed in Part / Quashed in Part
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EDGAR AR AUJO-GOM EZ, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-73837 Age n c y No. A038-522-926 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2014 ** B e fore : W ALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd B YB EE, C i rc uit Judge s . Edga r Ara ujo-Gom e z , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o , pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his re que s t for a c ontinua nc e . W e dism iss the p e tition for re v i e w. 

# F IL ED DEC 16 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Ara

ujo-Gom e z sought a

c ontinua n c e of his re m ova l proc e e dings in order to file a pe t ition for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus in fe de ra l c ourt c ha lle nging thesta te c onvic tion tha

t re n de re d him re m ova

ble . Ara ujo-Gom e z ’ s ha

be a s pe t ition ha s now be e n dism isse d. Araujo v . N apolitano , No. C V12-7741-GAF (M AN), 2012 W L 4107846, a

t *2 (C .D. C a l. Se pt. 18, 2012). Ac c ordingly , his c ha lle nge to the de nia l of the c ontinua

nc e to pursuetha

t re lie f is m oot. Se e Pe d

roza-Padilla v. Gonzale

s , 486 F.3d 1362, 1364 n.2 (9th C ir. 2007); se e also United State s v . Strong , 489 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ [A] live c a se or c ontrove rsy m ust be e xta

nt a t a ll sta ge s of re vie w. Othe rwise , the c a se is m oot a nd m ust be dism isse d.” (quota

tion
m arks a nd inte rna l c i tation omitte d)). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D.

1 2
- 7 3 8 3 7 2
Exhibit 31.2
                                                                    ------------

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Brian Alleman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Simtek Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: August 11, 2006

                                               /s/ Brian Alleman
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Brian Alleman
                                               Chief Financial Officer
SMILES : O(CCCC)CCO CHEM : Ethanol, 2-butoxy- CAS Num: 000111-76-2 ChemID1: ChemID2: ChemID3: MOL FOR: C6 H14 O2 MOL WT : 118.18 Log Kow: 0.83 (User entered) Melt Pt: Wat Sol: 1E+006 mg/L (measured)

ECOSAR v1.00 Class(es) Found

------------------------------ Neutral Organics Predicted ECOSAR Class Organism Duration End Pt mg/L (ppm)

=========================== ================== ======== ====== ========== Neutral Organics : Fish 96-hr LC50 974.804 Neutral Organics : Fish 14-day LC50 967.225 Neutral Organics : Daphnid 48-hr LC50 462.385 Neutral Organics : Green Algae 96-hr EC50 132.051 Neutral Organics : Fish 30-day ChV 93.901 Neutral Organics : Daphnid ChV 44.536 Neutral Organics : Green Algae ChV 41.518 Neutral Organics : Fish (SW) 96-hr LC50 1481.247 Neutral Organics : Mysid Shrimp 96-hr LC50 2239.667 Neutral Organics : Fish (SW) ChV 72.475 Neutral Organics : Mysid Shrimp (SW) ChV 273.818 Neutral Organics : Earthworm 14-day LC50 271.684

Note: * = asterisk designates: Chemical may not be soluble enough to measure this predicted effect.

Neutral Organics:

---------------- For Fish LC50 (96-h), Daphnid LC50, Mysid: If the log Kow is greater than 5.0, or if the compound is solid and the LC50 exceeds the water solubility by 10X, no effects at saturation are predicted.

For Fish LC50 (14-day) and Earthworm LC50: If the log Kow is greater than 6.0, or if the compound is solid and the LC50 exceeds the water solubility by 10X, no effects at saturation are predicted.

For Green Algae Acute Toxicity Values: If the log Kow of the chemical is greater than 6.4, or if the compound is solid and the EC50 exceeds the water solubility by 10X, no effects at saturation are predicted for these endpoints.

For All Chronic Toxicity Values: If the log Kow of the chemical is greater than 8.0, or if the compound is solid and the ChV exceeds the water solubility by 10X, no effects at saturation are predicted for these endpoints.

ECOSAR v1.00 SAR Limitations:

---------------------------- Maximum LogKow: 5.0 (Fish 96-hr LC50; Daphnid LC50, Mysid LC50) Maximum LogKow: 6.0 (Fish 14-day LC50; Earthworm LC50) Maximum LogKow: 6.4 (Green Algae EC50) Maximum LogKow: 8.0 (ChV) Maximum Mol Wt: 1000
<PAGE>

                                 UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT
                       Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
                      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

        Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): June 27, 2002

                         ENCOMPASS SERVICES CORPORATION
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

           Texas                     1-13565                    76-0535259
(State or other jurisdiction       (Commission               (I.R.S. Employer
     of incorporation)             File Number)             Identification No.)

    8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
            Houston, Texas                                     77046
(Address of principal executive offices)                     (Zip code)

       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (713) 860-0100

<PAGE>


ITEM 5.    OTHER EVENTS.

      Encompass Services Corporation (the "Company") made the press release
attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 on June 28, 2002, announcing, among other
things, a $50 million rights offering in which two affiliates of
Apollo Management IV, L.P. ("Apollo") have committed to purchase $35 million of
the Company's securities and an amendment to the Company's credit facility. The
agreement with Apollo and the amendment to the credit facility are attached
hereto as Exhibits 99.2 and 99.3.

ITEM 7.    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS.

(c)   Exhibits.

      The following material is furnished pursuant to Item 5 as an exhibit to
this Current Report on Form 8-K.

Exhibit
Number                       Description

99.1   Press Release dated June 28, 2002.

99.2   Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of June 27, 2002.

99.3   Fifth Amendment to Credit Facility.

                                      -2-

<PAGE>

                               S I G N A T U R E

      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                 ENCOMPASS SERVICES CORPORATION

Dated: June 28, 2002             By:  /s/ Gray H. Muzzy
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                      Gray H. Muzzy
                                      Senior Vice President, General Counsel and
                                      Secretary

                                      -3-
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1990
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1990
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   125
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       125
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (125)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 Beverly Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jonathan Roylance, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350,
as added by ss. 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.








April
      25, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Jonathan
      RoylanceJonathan
      RoylancePresident,
      Chief Executive Officer,Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
      Director (Principal Executive, Financial, and Accounting
      Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oshay Terrell JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6484

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 28, 2018

Decided: March 12, 2018

*277Oshay Terrell Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

PER CURIAM:

Oshay Terrell Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We granted a partial certificate of appealability and ordered the Government to respond on the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, Jones’ claim that he rejected a favorable plea offer based on his trial counsel’s allegedly erroneous advice. We now affirm in part and dismiss in part.

In its response brief, the Government contends that Jones abandoned the claim on which we granted a certificate of ap-pealability. We agree. Jones requested that the district court strike the claim, and Jones thereafter failed to present any further argument on the claim in the district court, Jones’ assertion that he was, in fact, requesting that the district court strike the Government’s arguments on the claim is not credible. Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the district court’s order dismissing this claim. *See United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey,*792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th Cir. 2015).

We have independently reviewed the record as to Jones’ remaining claims and conclude that Jones is not entitled to a certificate of appealability on those claims. *See*28 U.S.G. § 2258(c)(2) (2012); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability as to those claims and dismiss that portion of 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 IN PART-, AFFIRMED IN PART*
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 6538 Dir ID: 2015 - NM - 031 - AD
From: Steffan Johnson/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/12/2012 03:42 PM

Subject: Request for split sample from method 0061 test

- Owens

Corning, Kansas City

Susan,

I spoke with Scott Postma in Region 7 earlier today and he would like to

have the Owens Corning test contractor split the sample from the method

0061 hexavalent chrome testing being conducted at that facility.

This would involve the tester providing Scott with a single, 40 ml,

sample of the KOH solution (hexavalent chrome fraction) from the

combined KOH sample (all impingers).

The test crew and Owens Corning rep on site were acceptable to this,

however Rick Cooper from Owens asked that we make a formal re quest to

Rick Pettis, via email.

Please let me know if you have any questions about this.

Thank you,

Stef

Steffan Johnson

EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

Measurement Policy Group

109 T.W. Alexander Drive D

- 243

- 05

Research Triangle Park, NC 27713

Phone: 919 541 4790

email: johnson.steffan@epa.gov
1200 G Street NW

Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005

September 24, 2014

Scott Baker Sr. Business Solutions Analyst scott.baker@pjm.com

(610) 666-2235

VIA EMAIL U.S. Department of Energy

Email: expartecommunications@hq.doe.gov

RE: Ex Parte Communication, Docket EERE-2012- BT

- STD -0022

To whom it may concern,

On September 21, 2014, representatives from PJM, NRECA, and Ogilvy Government

Relations (Parties) met with Department of Energy staff concerning the proposed rulemaking referenced in the subject line above pertaining to residential storage water heaters.

In the meeting, Parties expressed concerns over the extraordinary delay in a final rulemaking in this docket, especially given the pending April 2015 deadline, at which point residential electric storage water heaters greater than 55 gallons must use heat pump technology as the primary heating source. Throughout this lengthy rulemaking, a diverse set of stakeholders have largely agreed that the DOE o verlooked grid- interactive water heating technology in its final energy conversation standard pertaining to residential water heaters in 2010 (Final Rule) and have worked in concert to develop constructive feedback on how the DOE can address this oversight through a waiver process . These stakeholders , including small business manufacturers, have gone to great lengths to achieve consensus on terms for establishing a waiver for grid interactive water heaters. The primary purpose of this meeting was to identify reasons for such delay and determine the timeline of a rulemaking.

Pertaining to the timeline, DOE staff was able to clarify for the Parties the process of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review of final rulemakings, indicating that OMB

initial ly screens proposed final rulemakings before determining whether the rulemaking will undergo further, and public, review. Parties suggested that this matter is perhaps in this initial screening phase of the process, as the OMB has not publicly posted this rulemaking to its webpage, but DOE staff could not confirm or deny.

In closing, DOE staff represented the unfores een complexity of this issue and circumstances that have delayed the issuance of a final ruling on the waiver. The Parties sincerely thank DOE staff the meeting and look forward to a final ruling soon.

Sincerely,

/s/ Scott Baker

610.666.8980 | www.pjm.com1200 G Street NW

Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005

Attachment: Comments of NRECA, ACEEE, and NRDC on Steffes Corporation Application for Exception to the Office of Hearings and Appeals

Attendees:

Name O rganization Ashley Armstrong Department of Energy

Scott Baker PJM Interconnection Julie Barkemeyer NRECA

Dan Cohen Department of Energy

Keith Dennis NRECA

Conrad Lass Ogilvy Government Relations Jonathan Levy Department of Energy

610.666.8980 | www.pjm.com