alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7776

DANNY RAY WATSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT NURSE; MEDICAL DEPARTMENT NURSE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00973-TSE-BRP)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: March 10, 2008

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danny Ray Watson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Danny Ray Watson appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Watson v. Medical Dep’t Nurse, No. 1:07-cv00973-TSE-BRP (E.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2007). We also deny Watson’s

motion for appointment of counsel. 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
Domain Name Usage Agreement







Party A: Xianzhen Lin


Party B: Xi’an Qujiang Sunity Technology Limited.








	
1.

	
Party A agrees to lease the domain name www.633.com to Party B for it use at no cost until Dec 31, 2012. Party B is not limited to use the domain name. However Party B is responsible for being compliance with the P.R.C. laws and regulations.








	
2.

	
The fee to use the domain name of 633 will be renegotiated after the free lease period expire.








	
3.

	
Party A could not take back the use right of the domain name without the consent of Party B. Otherwise Party A shall compensate Party B for the loss incurred to Party B.








	
4.

	
This agreement is shall be provided in duplicate, with each party holding one copy and the two copies having the same legal validity.













	
Party A:

	
Xianzhen Lin


	
Signing or chop:


	
Signing date:

	
Nov. 2011


	  	  
	
Party B:

	
Xi’an Qujiang Sunity Technology Limited.


	
Signing or chop:


	
Signing date:

	
Nov. 2011
# L_2004360EN.01003201.xml

| 7.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 360/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 360/32

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2004/837/CFSP

of 6 December 2004

concerning the implementation of Joint Action 2002/210/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Joint Action 2002/210/CFSP of 11 March 2002 on the European Union Police Mission (1), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof, in conjunction with the second indent of Article 23(2) of the Treaty on European Union,

| | |
| --- | --- |

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1.   An amount of EUR 17 410 000 covering operational running costs of EUPM in 2005 shall be financed in common from the general budget of the European Union.

2.   The management of the expenditure financed by the general budget of the European Union specified in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the procedures and rules of the Community applying to budget matters with the exception that any pre-financing shall not remain the property of the Community.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

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

Done at Brussels, 6 December 2004.

For the Council

The President

H. HOOGERVORST

---

(1)  
  OJ L 70, 13.3.2002, p. 1. Joint Action as last amended by Joint Action 2003/188/CFSP (OJ L 73, 19.3.2003, p. 9).

1

---
# L_2005305DE.01004601.xml

| 24.11.2005 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 305/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2005

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 305/46

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2004/17/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 31. März 2004 zur Koordinierung der Zuschlagserteilung durch Auftraggeber im Bereich der Wasser-, Energie- und Verkehrsversorgung sowie der Postdienste

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 134 vom 30. April 2004
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 134 vom 30. April 2004

Seite 23, Artikel 27, Buchstabe b

anstatt:

| „b) | der Kommission unter den Bedingungen, die diese in der Entscheidung 93/327/EWG der Kommission vom 13. Mai 1993 zur Festlegung der Voraussetzungen, unter denen die öffentlichen Auftraggeber, die geografisch abgegrenzte Gebiete zum Zwecke der Suche oder Förderung von Erdöl, Gas, Kohle oder anderen Festbrennstoffen nutzen, der Kommission Auskunft über die von ihnen vergebenen Aufträge zu erteilen haben (1) festgelegt hat.“ |
| --- | --- |

„b)

der Kommission unter den Bedingungen, die diese in der Entscheidung 93/327/EWG der Kommission vom 13. Mai 1993 zur Festlegung der Voraussetzungen, unter denen die öffentlichen Auftraggeber, die geografisch abgegrenzte Gebiete zum Zwecke der Suche oder Förderung von Erdöl, Gas, Kohle oder anderen Festbrennstoffen nutzen, der Kommission Auskunft über die von ihnen vergebenen Aufträge zu erteilen haben (1) festgelegt hat.“

1

muss es heißen:

| „b) | der Kommission Auskunft erteilt unter den Bedingungen, die diese in der Entscheidung 93/327/EWG der Kommission vom 13. Mai 1993 zur Festlegung der Voraussetzungen, unter denen die öffentlichen Auftraggeber, die geografisch abgegrenzte Gebiete zum Zwecke der Suche oder Förderung von Erdöl, Gas, Kohle oder anderen Festbrennstoffen nutzen, der Kommission Auskunft über die von ihnen vergebenen Aufträge zu erteilen haben (1) festgelegt hat.“ |
| --- | --- |

„b)

der Kommission Auskunft erteilt unter den Bedingungen, die diese in der Entscheidung 93/327/EWG der Kommission vom 13. Mai 1993 zur Festlegung der Voraussetzungen, unter denen die öffentlichen Auftraggeber, die geografisch abgegrenzte Gebiete zum Zwecke der Suche oder Förderung von Erdöl, Gas, Kohle oder anderen Festbrennstoffen nutzen, der Kommission Auskunft über die von ihnen vergebenen Aufträge zu erteilen haben (1) festgelegt hat.“

1

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 2262** 

In re: MALCOLM MUHAMMAD Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus ( 1:14

- cv - 00662

- LO

- TRJ)

Submitted : March 9, 2015 Decided: April 2, 2015

Before KING, WYNN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Malcolm Muhammad, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Malcolm Muhammad petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging unreasonable delay by the district court in acting on Muhammad’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court’s docket sheet reflects that the court issued an order on November 25, 2014, conditionally filing the complaint, conditionally granting Muhammad leave to proceed in forma pauperis , and directing him to submit his complaint on a proper form. In light of the court’s recent action, we hold that there has been no unreasonable delay, and we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 decisi onal process.

PETITION DENIED
Form of Amendment to Restricted Stock Agreement



 Exhibit 10.319 
 AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT (this
“Amendment”) is made as of January     , 2008, by and between LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), and              (“Participant”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Participant are parties to that certain Restricted Stock Award Grant Notice and Restricted Stock Award Agreement dated as of
            , 2007 (the “Original Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Participant desire to amend the Original Agreement as set forth herein; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of
Directors of the Company has approved the adoption of this Amendment. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Original Agreement is
hereby amended as follows: 
 1. The Vesting Schedule set forth in the Restricted Stock Award Grant Notice set forth in the Original Agreement
is hereby amended to read as follows: 
  

			
	Vesting Schedule:	  	One-third (1/3) of the Shares shall vest on the date that is three days following the Company’s public release of its audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2007, one third (1/3) of the Shares shall vest on February 15, 2009, and one third (1/3) of the Shares shall vest on February 15, 2010, subject to Participant’s continuous service with the Company through
each such date.

 2. Except as expressly provided for in this Amendment, no other term or provision of the Original
Agreement is amended or modified in any respect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first
set forth above. 
  

											
	COMPANY:	 		 	PARTICIPANT:
			
	 LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED
 a
Delaware corporation
	 		 	
					
	By: 	 	 	 		 	 	 	 
		 	Name: 	 	 	 		 	[Name of Participant]
		 	Title:
----

----

|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, 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      at the date and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: March      14, 2008 |   |   | /s/      Tang Chien Chang              |
|--------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |   |   | Tang      Chien ChangChief      Executive Officer                                                       |
p.1 

OAR Box 1190 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

12) IV-B-12 

Docket Number: 

A-90-28 

Printed 5/5/2008 9:13:50 AM Sheet 12 of 106 
P.2 

March 27, 1996 

Summary of Meeting Between Ford Motor Co and EPA 

Participants: Ford - John Trajnowski, Tom Falahee, Jeanette Clute, Paul Baltusis; EPA - David 

Dickinson, Todd Sherwood, Clifford Tyree 

Meeting was requested by Ford to present information as to why it feels it cannot fully 

coipply with California's OBD II requirements. Ford presented both general or "public" 

information and also information it had previously shown to CARB and which Ford wanted EPA 

to treat as confidential. EPA informed Ford that all information would be considered but that 

EPA could only rely upon information actually in the docket within its waiver decision. 

Ford explained its ability to either fulfill or potentially not fulfill the various misfire event 

monitoring requirements depending upon the number of cylinders being monitored and what 

range of RPM monitoring is required. Ford stated that specific engine model capability was 

confidential but that it was worried about model availability and/or deficiencies. Ford did not 

provide any specific cost figures but said it would be very expensive and stated that CARB was 

prone to compare one manufacturer's ability to another manufacturer to determine what is 

achievable. 

Ford also stated that CARB has not given enough lead time for the LEV catalyst 

monitoring requirements because ofthe necessity of both learning where to place monitors and 

then packaging. Ford stated that because of vehicle to vehicle variability more lead time was 

needed and therefore phase-in should be delayed and lessened. 

Ford also expressed concern about combustibility problems with model year 2000 evap 

leak detection and suggested that more than one deficiency should be allowed.
Exhibit 13.1

Annual Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the SOx Act of 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Santander UK plc (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2017 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: 7 March, 2018 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Nathan Bostock     
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Nathan Bostock         
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |  | 
|Dated: 7 March, 2018 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Antonio Roman      
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Antonio Roman          
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 324 

To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act to extend to 

the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 10, 2011 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. MIKULSKI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act 

to extend to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National 

Historical Park Commission. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HIS4 TORICAL PARK COMMISSION. 

5 Section 6(g) of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal De6 velopment Act (16 U.S.C. 410y–4(g)) is amended by strik7 ing ‘‘40’’ and inserting ‘‘50’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Re: Q on the 6/10ths rule

Phyllis Fox to: Joe Kordzi 09/30/2010 02:15 PM

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

I still get about 0.51.

For Sooner, the Option 1 case that was costed remains at 6,015 lb/hr.

Your new case, 0.51 to 0.06 lb/MMBtu, the SO2 removed is (5611

MMBtu/hr)(0.055 lb/MMBtu) = 308.6 lb/hr. (I used 0.055 instead of

0.06 to build in a safety factor. They actually used 91.5% in their

calcs, I assume building in a safety factor (511 lb/hr/5611 MMBtu/hr =

0.091 lb/MMBtu). Thus, the SO2 removed for your case is (2,605 - 309)

= 2,296 lb/hr and the size factor is (2,296/6,015)^0.69 = 0.5145.

For Muskogee, your case's SO2 reductions (5480 MMBtu/hr)(0.055) =

301.4 lb/hr. The SO2 reductions: 2778 - 301 = 2477 lb/hr. The size

factor: (2477/6442)^0.69 = 0.5171.

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:21 AM, <Kordzi.Joe@epamail.epa.gov> wrote:

> Hi Phyllis,

>

> When you calculate the size factor of 0.51 to go from option 1 to option 2,

> you do the following as described by footnote 20:

>

> For Sooner, from 12/28/09 S&L FollowUp Report, pdf 76 - 77, high sulfur case

> (Option 1), the scrubber inlet SO2 ("ID Fan Outlet") is 6,015 lb/hr and the

> outlet ("Stack Inlet") is 511 lb/hr. Thus, 6,015 - 511 = 5,504 lb/hr of SO2

> is removed. For Sooner, low sulfur case (Option 2), the scrubber inlet SO2

> is 2,605 lb/hr and the outlet is 513 lb/hr. Thus, 2,605 - 513 = 2,092 lb/hr

> of SO2 is removed. The size factor is: (2,092/5,504)0.69 = 0.51.

>

> If I wanted to go from option 1 to a smaller scrubber that didn't clean to

> 0.10, but cleaned to 0.06 to calculate costs for purposes of the Unfundated

> Mandate Review Act (new Option 3), should I calculate the size factor like

> this?

>

> For Sooner Option 3, the scrubber outlet is calculated as:

>

> 0.51 lbs/MMBtu = 0.06 lbs/MMBtu

> 2,605 lbs/hr x

>

> x = 306 lbs/hr

>

> Thus, 2,605 - 306 lbs/hr = 2,299 lbs/hr SO2 is removed. The size factor is

> (2,299/5,504) = 0.42. Assumed the same for Muskogee.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Joe

>

> " ... and miles to go before I sleep."

> -- Robert Frost

>

>
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  A NTHONY D. D AVIS ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 01-1090



# 

C ITY OF J ACKSONVILLE ,

Defendant-Appellee. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

James C. Fox, Senior District Judge.

(CA-99-236-7-F)
Submitted: December 10, 2001
Decided: December 28, 2001
Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELAnthony D. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Wenzl Brown, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION

PER CURIAM: Anthony D. Davis appeals from the district court’s order grantingsummary judgment in favor of Appellee, and dismissing his employment discrimination action alleging violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e (West 1994 & Supp. 2001), on the ground that the summary judgment motion wasunopposed. Our review of the record discloses that this appeal is subject to dismissal as moot. Following the filing of a notice of appeal, by counsel, from the underlying judgment, Davis filed in the district court a pro se Fed. R.Civ. P. 60(b) motion in which he claimed attorney malpractice in failing to respond to the motion for summary judgment, and the district court’s entry of an adverse order without consideration of evidence he could submit. The district court granted the Rule 60(b) motion, and ordered Davis to request from this court a limited remand of the action in light of the district court’s grant of the Rule 60(b) motion and pursuant to Fobian v. Storage Technology Corp. , 164 F.3d 887, 891-92 (4th Cir. 1999). By order of April 24, 2001, we granted the limited remand, and the district court considered fully the evidence Davis submitted in opposition to Appellee’s summary judgment motion.* Because the basis for Davis’s notice of appeal was remedied when we granted the limited remand and the district court granted Davis’s Rule 60(b) motion and considered the opposition evidence Davis filed, Davis’s ground for appeal was rendered moot. We therefore dismiss this appeal. 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

*Davis filed a second notice of appeal to the district court’s adverse finding following full consideration of the claims, which has been assigned appeal No. 01-2230, and which currently is pending with this court in mediation. 2 D AVIS v. C ITY OF J ACKSONVILLE
EX-32.2

EXHIBIT 32

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 Fairchild International Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Byron Cox, Secretary, Treasurer (the Principal Financial 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.

/s/ Byron Cox
________________________________
Byron Cox, Secretary, Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer)

November 14, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3132 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3132

           To suspend temporarily the duty on flubendiamide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 10, 2012

  Mrs. Hagan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on flubendiamide.

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

SECTION 1. FLUBENDIAMIDE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      3-Iodo-N'-(2-mesyl- Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        1,1-                                                               31/2015.......
                        dimethylethyl)-N-
                        {4-[1,2,2,2-
                        tetrafluoro-1-
                        (trifluoromethyl)
                        ethyl]-o-
                        tolyl}phthalamide
                        (flubendiamide)
                        (CAS No. 272451-
                        65-7) (provided
                        for in subheading
                        3808.91.25)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Amended Annual Report of Cardero Resource Corp. (the Company) on Form 40-F/A for the year ended October 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael W. Kinley, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



3.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

4.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  April 13, 2006



/s/ Michael W. Kinley

Michael W. Kinley
  Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 23.2

 

CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-36282 on Form S-8 of Rome Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated February 17, 2004 with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Rome Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the year then ended, which report has been incorporated by reference in the December 31, 2004  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Rome Bancorp, Inc.

 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Syracuse, New York

March 28, 2005
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

37 38 39 

### ★ ▲
▲
▲ ▲


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 05/30 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL