alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 44 (Monday, March 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10118-10119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4868]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11679 and <greek-i>11680]


Washington Disaster <greek-i>WA-00023

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Washington (FEMA-
1825-DR), dated 03/02/2009.
    Incident: Severe winter storm and record and near record snow.
    Incident Period: 12/12/2008 through 01/05/2009.
    Effective Date: 03/02/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/01/2009.
    Economic Injury (Eidl) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/02/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 03/02/2009, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Clallam, Clark, Columbia, Cowlitz, Garfield, Grays 
Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Klickitat, Lewis, Lincoln, Mason, 
Pacific, Pend Oreille, Skagit, Skamania, Snohomish, Spokane, Stevens, 
Thurston, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, Whatcom.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             4.500
 Available Elsewhere.........................................

[[Page 10119]]

 
Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11679B 
and for economic injury is 11680B.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-4868 Filed 3-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
No. 09-912.

#### Issam Mohamad Ghazali, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

559 U.S. 1106, 130 S. Ct. 2403,

176 L. Ed. 2d 923,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3739.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 585 F.3d 289.
STATE of North Carolina v. Carl Lynn WILLIAMS

No. 482P13-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 28, 2019

N.C. Dept. of Justice, for State of North Carolina.

Carl Lynn Williams, for Williams, Carl Lynn.

*526***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 28th of May 2019 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Cumberland County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of May 2019."
STATE of North Carolina v. Jerimiah Dywontae MORRIS

No. COA18-724

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 16, 2019

AFFIRMED. REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR IN 16 CRS 52600.
* Senior Judge Butzner did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1438
DALLAS R. HORN, Petitioner, versus ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (No. 96-681-BLA) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 19, 1997 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, * Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Dallas R. Horn, Petitioner Pro Se. Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Michelle Seyman Gerdano, Patricia May Nece, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1996). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Horn v. Island Creek Coal Co., No. 96-681-BLA (BRB Feb. 26, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
No. 09-9289.

#### Olasebikan Akinmulero, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.

559 U.S. 1077, 130 S. Ct. 2112,

176 L. Ed. 2d 739,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3298.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 347 Fed. Appx. 58.
**Exhibit31.2**

 

I, Robert C. Faix, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of 1st Colonial Bancorp, Inc.

 

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

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of 1st ColonialBancorp as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

 

4.               1st ColonialBancorp’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for 1st Colonial Bancorp and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto 1st Colonial Bancorp, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis quarterly report is being prepared.

 

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of 1st Colonial Bancorp’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of September 30, 2003, based onsuch evaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in thisquarterly report any change in 1st Colonial Bancorp’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended September 30,2003 that has

 

----

 

materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, 1st Colonial’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5.               1st ColonialBancorp’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to 1stColonial Bancorp’s auditors and the audit committee of 1st Colonial Bancorp’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)          All significant deficienciesin the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect 1st Colonial Bancorp’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in 1st Colonial Bancorp’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date  November 13, 2003

 

 
|   | /s/  Robert C. Faix   |   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert C. Faix             |
|   | Senior Vice President  and |
|   | Chief Financial Officer    |

 

----
1The HONORABLE DAVID S. DOTY, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3457

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Barry Steven Wallace, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: October 12, 2000

 Filed: October 20, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, LOKEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

While serving the supervised release portion of his sentence for possessing an

unregistered firearm, Barry Steven Wallace absconded from a community corrections

center for the second time. He admitted violating a supervised release condition, and

the district court1 revoked supervised release and imposed a twelve-month term of

imprisonment with no additional supervised release. Wallace appeals, arguing the
-2-

district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to twelve months in prison when

only ten months remained on his supervised release term. We affirm.

Wallace’s underlying conviction was for possession of an unregistered firearm,

a Class C felony. See 26 U.S.C. § 5871; 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3). Upon revocation of

supervised release, the district court may impose a prison sentence of up to two years

if the underlying offense was a Class C felony. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Having

carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion

by imposing a twelve-month revocation sentence, even though it resulted in Wallace

being imprisoned beyond the expiration of his original term of supervised release. See

United States v. Grimes, 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review); United

States v. Bewley, 27 F.3d 343, 344 (8th Cir. 1994) (district court did not err in

sentencing defendant to imprisonment term longer than remaining amount of time left

on original term of supervised release).

Accordingly, we affirm. Appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-55179 of Koger Equity, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-54617
of Koger Equity, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-20975 of Koger
Equity, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-23429 of Koger Equity,
Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-37919 of Koger Equity, Inc. on
Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-33388 of Koger Equity, Inc. on Form S-8
and Registration Statement No. 333-38712 of Koger Equity, Inc. on form S-8 of
our report dated February 23, 2001, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Koger Equity, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2000.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Jacksonville, Florida
March 26, 2001
STATE v. Gabriel A. FERRARI

277P18-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2019

Gabriel Adrian Ferrari, for Gabriel A. Ferrari.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*253The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of January 2019 by Defendant for Freedom of Information Act to Reveal the Name of the Judges:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."
No. 09-7876.

#### Maurice Holman, Petitioner v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

559 U.S. 1033, 130 S. Ct. 1946,

176 L. Ed. 2d 410,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2408.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 1134, 130 S. Ct. 1110, 175 L. Ed. 2d 922, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 386.
STATE of North Carolina v. Brittany Sue Opal BRYANT

No. 117P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

Anton M. Lebedev, Attorney at Law, for Bryant, Brittany Sue Opal.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Adam Everett, Assistant District Attorney.

Davis Cooper.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th of April 2019 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 5th of April 2019 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed in the Alternative on the 8th of April 2019 by Defendant in this matter for Writ of Prohibition, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 5th of April 2019 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the orders of District and Superior Court, Wake County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of April 2019 by Defendant for Leave of Court to Consider Defendant's Reply:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of April 2019 by Defendant to Consolidate Matters:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."
# C_2016327EN.01000201.xml

| 6.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/2

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 27 June 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39850 — Container Shipping

Rapporteur: The Netherlands

(2016/C 327/02)

| (1) | The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 27 June 2016 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 27 June 2016 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning the parties can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning the parties can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). A minority abstains.

1

| (3) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by the parties are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding on the parties. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by the parties are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding on the parties. A minority abstains.

| (4) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by the parties, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against the parties, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by the parties, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against the parties, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority abstains.

| (5) | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         1,548
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 25,988
<ALLOWANCES>                                     418
<INVENTORY>                                    5,581
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              40,227
<PP&E>                                       218,119
<DEPRECIATION>                               126,169
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               132,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         25,484
<BONDS>                                       35,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       8,759
<OTHER-SE>                                    46,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 132,378
<SALES>                                       54,557
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              54,557
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 49,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               740
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (333)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (61)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (272)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (272)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.03)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.03)<F1>
        

<FN>
(1)  EPS-Primary and EPS-Diluted have been restated to reflect the application
     of Financial Accounting Standard No. 128, "Earnings Per Share."
</FN>



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 9467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4362]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Flight Standards District Office at Honolulu, HI (HNL FSDO)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice is hereby given that on or about January 18, 2009, the 
Flight Standards District Office at Honolulu, Hawaii will be divided 
into two separate FAA offices. Services to operators operating under 
Title 14, U.S.C. Part 121 of Hawaii provided by this office will now be 
provided services by the Honolulu Certificate Management Office 
(HNLCMO) located in Honolulu, Hawaii. This information will be 
reflected in the FAA Organizational Statement the next time it is 
reissued.

    Issued in Los Angeles, CA, on February 2, 2009.
John M Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. E9-4362 Filed 3-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Exhibit 3.1

AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO  FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP  OF  PACIFIC ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.

This Amendment No. 3 (this "Amendment No. 3") to First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership of Pacific Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership"), as amended by Amendment No. 1, effective as of August 1, 2003 and
Amendment No. 2, effective as of January 27, 2004 (the "Partnership Agreement"), is entered into effective as of March 26, 2004, by
Pacific Energy GP, Inc., a Delaware corporation, as general partner of the Partnership (the "General Partner"). Capitalized terms used but not
defined herein are used as defined in the Partnership Agreement.

WHEREAS, the General Partner, the Organizational Limited Partner and the Limited Partners of the Partnership entered into that certain
First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of the Partnership dated as of July 26, 2002;

WHEREAS, the General Partner adopted Amendment No. 1 to First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of the
Partnership effective as of August 1, 2003;

WHEREAS, the General Partner adopted Amendment No. 2 to First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of the
Partnership effective as of January 26, 2004;

WHEREAS, Section 13.1(d)(i) of the Partnership Agreement provides that the General Partner may amend any provision of the
Partnership Agreement without the approval of any Partner or Assignee to reflect a change that, in the discretion of the General Partner, does not adversely affect the Limited Partners (including any
particular class of Partnership Interests as compared to other classes of Partnership Interests) in any material respect; and

WHEREAS, acting pursuant to the power and authority granted to it under Section 13.1(d)(i) of the Partnership Agreement, the
General Partner has determined that the following amendment to the Partnership Agreement does not adversely affect the Limited Partners (including any particular class of Partnership Interests as
compared to other classes of Partnership Interests) in any material respect.

NOW THEREFORE, the General Partner does hereby amend the Partnership Agreement as follows:

Section 1. Amendment.



---





Section 2.Ratification of Partnership Agreement. Except as expressly modified and amended herein, all of the terms and conditions
of the Partnership Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 3. Governing Law. This Amendment No. 3 will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Delaware.

[The Remainder Of This Page Is Intentionally Blank]

2

---



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the General Partner has executed this Amendment No. 3 as of the date first set forth above.

| |  | GENERAL PARTNER:       
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | PACIFIC ENERGY GP, INC.
| |  | By:                    

3

---



QuickLinks