alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T LE TI CI A PER EZ GO NZALEZ , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74041 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 355- 205 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r14, 2010 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dT H O M A S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L e t i c i aP e r e z G onz a l e z , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons pr o s e f or r e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h e rm o tio n to r e ope n. O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of 

# FI LED JAN 04 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74041 2 d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f

am o tio n to r e o p e n , I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 889, 894 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n dwe d e n yi n p arta n dd i s m i s s i n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g P e r e z G o n z a le z ’s m o tio n to r e ope n on the gr ound tha ts he f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e pr i m af a c i e e l i gi bi l i tyf

orthe r e lie f s h e s o u g h t. Se e O rdo n ezv . I NS , 34 5 F . 3d 77 7, 78 5 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). W e ar e notpe r s ua de d tha tP e r e z G onz a l e z ’ s r e m ova l w oul d r e s ul ti n a d ep ri v at i o n o f h er d au g h t er’ s co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h t s. See U rban o de M

alalua n v. I NS , 5 7 7 F .2 d5 8 9 , 5 9 4 (9 th C ir. 1 9 7 8 ) ( re jectin g th e c o n ten ti o n th at a p ar en t’ s

“ de port a t i on or de rw oul d a m ountt o ade f a c t o de port a t i on of

the c hi l d a nd thus vi ol at e the const i tut i on alri gh t s of the chi l d”). W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rP e r e z G onz a l e z ’ s c ont e nt i ons r e gar di ng c ha nge d c i r c um s t anc e s i n M e xi c o, a s w e l la s he rc ont e nt i on tha tthe i m m i gr a t i on j u d g e sh o u l dh av e reo p en edp ro ceed i n g s su a sp o n t e, b ecau se sh e fai l edt o ex h au st these cl ai m s bef

ore the B IA . Se e B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 3 5 8 F .3 d6 7 4 , 6 7 7 - 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . F i nal l y, w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B IA ’ s F ebruary13 , 20 08 , order b e c au s e th e in s tan t p e titio n f o rr e v ie w is n o t tim e lya s to th a t o r d e r . See Si ng h v. I NS , 31 5 F . 3d 11 86 , 11 88 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
# C_2020178EN.01000101.xml

| 28.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9793 – Permira/Sneakers Maker)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 178/01)

On 18 May 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9793. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9793. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00741- CR
Anthony Dw ayne Holm es, Jr., A ppellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 752 59, TH E H ONO RAB LE JO HN GAUNTT, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

I n an open plea to the court, appellant Anthony Dway ne Holmes, J r. pled g uilty and judicially confe ssed to ag g rava ted ro b b er y . See Tex. Penal Code § 29.03(a) (2). After hear ing

ev i d ence , the trial court assessed punishment at confine ment for twelve y ear s in the Texa s Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice. See id. § 12.32. Appellant’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

o r nia by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrating why there are no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); G a r n e r v . S ta te , 3 0 0 S. W. 3 d 7 6 3 , 7 6 6 ( T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) ; s e e a ls o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U

. S. 7 5 , 81–82 (1988).Appellant’s counsel has cer tified to this Court that he sent copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and file a pro se response , and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the rec ord

. S ee K ell y v. State , 4 3 6 S

. W .3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. T o d at e, appellant ha s not filed a pro se response or re quested a n extension of tim e to file a response . We have conducte d an independe nt revie w of the rec ord—including the rec ord of the plea proce eding and the punishment hear i n g as we l l as appellate counsel’s brief—a nd find no
reve rsible err or. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S

. W

. 3 d at 7 66; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We a g ree with c ounsel that the rec ord prese nts

no arg uably meritorious g rounds for revie w and the appea l is frivolous. C o u n s el ’s m o tion to withdraw is g rante d. The trial c ourt’s judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and G oodwin Affir med Filed: Apr il 7, 2017 Do Not Publish

2
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - (-)science_education(1)
              - science_science(2)
              - products_publications(4)
              - multimedia_video(4)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - multimedia_video-149196(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(4)
              - arizona(1)
              - california(2)
              - colorado(2)
              - florida(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - (-)mississippi(1)
              - montana(1)
              - new york(2)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - south dakota(15)
              - utah(2)

## By Year

Education        October 15, 2018        Earth As Art 3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6551

SERGIO EMMANUEL HAYES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vi rginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1257-AM) Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 21, 2004 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sergio Emmanuel Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., 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).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Sergio Emmanuel Hayes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hayes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 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
Exhibit 99.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Partners Trust Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:

(a)	the Form 10-K of the Company for the Year Ended December 31, 2002, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

/s/ John A. Zawadzki 

John A. Zawadzki 

President and Chief Executive Officer

March 6, 2003
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - connect_locations(1)

## By Location

              - colorado(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(118)
              - 2023(50)
              - 2022(65)
              - 2021(33)
              - (-)2020(4)
              - 2019(13)

partnerLamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

locationJohn Wesley Powell Center for Earth System Analysis and Synthesis

partnerCommittee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) Working Group on Calibration & Validation

partnerCommittee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) Infrared and Visible Optical Sensors Subgroup
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - (-)science_science(2)
              - products_publications(7)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)

## By Location

              - alabama(3)
              - alaska(6)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(3)
              - arkansas(4)
              - california(44)
              - colorado(9)
              - florida(5)
              - georgia(5)
              - hawaii(3)
              - idaho(8)
              - kansas(2)
              - louisiana(3)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - mississippi(2)
              - montana(7)
              - nebraska(2)
              - nevada(3)
              - new jersey(4)
              - new mexico(6)
              - new york(3)
              - north carolina(3)
              - north dakota(6)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(4)
              - pennsylvania(2)
              - (-)puerto rico(2)
              - south carolina(2)
              - south dakota(4)
              - tennessee(2)
              - texas(3)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(3)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(12)
              - wyoming(7)

## By Year

Project        February 6, 2024        Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI) - Characterizing Wetland Habitat and Hydrology

Research        November 26, 2016        Drought Conditions in Puerto Rico
In the INTEREST OF O.R.T., a child.

T.S.V. and R.E.V., Appellants, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-4216

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Dear Sir or Madam, 

The requested relief from the applicable portions of 14 C.F.R. Part 137 you mentioned were already 

submitted in the original exemption submitted on March 11, 2016 on pages 5, 16, 24 and 25, Docket 

No. FAA–2016–4932. We are well aware of the requirements of persons seeking either a private or 

commercial agricultural aircraft operation and have advised our clients accordingly of the procedures 

and regulations. 

Further, there are no part 107 regulations to seek relief from, as this aircraft with full payload 

exceeds the 55lb limit and thus falls under Tier 3 operations requiring a Section 333 approval as 

previously noted in my September 12, 2016 email. Page 7 of the original exemption describes the 

weight characteristics of the system and delineates some of the safety features. Other key 

operational capabilities are also listed on pages 4 and 5.

The only verbiage within the original exemption that is no longer applicable is the 200 foot vice 400 

foot limitation, because the exemption has been in queue for so long, that the 200 foot limitation no 

longer applies under Section 333 exemptions or under Part 107.

The original Petition for Exemption taken for action by the FAA on March 11, 2016 already contains

the requested relief of applicable portions of part 137 as well as why granting the request is in the 

public interest, and “the reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or 

how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rules 

under 14 C.F.R. § 11.81.

Because the 200 foot AGL limitation no longer applies, the amendment is being submitted to change 

that particular portion. 

 As an owner of a UAS consulting company that takes pride in providing professional services to our 

clients with emphasis on safe integration, it is unsatisfactory that it has been over 6 months since this 

petition has been submitted, and the response to my inquiry requests information that was already 

submitted in the original Petition. 

Kelly Neubecker, CEO

UASolutions Group, Inc.
Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

STEPHANIE LYNN LEDOUX, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

GRANT 

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until December 21, 2022, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant's opening brief. 

--r 

L
George William NORWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2167

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 5, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Early Warnings and Alerts

Filters

              - science_science(12)
              - products_data(2)
              - products_publications(25)
              - multimedia_audio(4)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(3)
              - (-)multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_video(28)
              - multimedia_video-149194(25)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - (-)news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_news-149250(4)
              - connect_social_media(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

## By Year

State News Release        January 23, 2018        ShakeAlert: The Path to West Coast Earthquake Early Warning: How a Few Seconds Can Save Lives and Property — Public Lecture

Interviews        July 6, 2010        Science for a Dangerous Planet
# C_2020196EN.01004501.xml

| 11.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 196/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 196/45

---

Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU

Request made by a Contracting Entity

(2020/C 196/10)

On 3 December 2019, the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 4 December 2019.

This request is made by ENEL Green Power and concerns activities relating to the generation and wholesale of electricity from renewable sources in Italy.

Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU provides that ‘contracts intended to enable an activity mentioned in Articles 8 to 14 to be carried out shall not be subject to this Directive if the Member State or the contracting entities having introduced the request pursuant to Article 35 can demonstrate that, in the Member State in which it is performed, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted; nor shall design contests that are organised for the pursuit of such an activity in that geographic area be subject to this Directive’. The assessment of direct exposure to competition that can be carried out in the context of Directive 2014/25/EU is without prejudice to the full-fledged application of competition law.

The Commission is allowed a period of 105 working days to take a decision on this request, commencing on the working day referred to above. The initial period therefore expired on 29 April 2020.

Pursuant to Annex IV, point 2, of Directive 2014/25/EU, the Commission may require the Member State or the contracting entity concerned or the competent independent national authority or any other competent national authority to provide all necessary information or to supplement or clarify information given within an appropriate time limit. On 6 February 2020, the Commission asked the Italian authorities to provide additional information by 20 February at the latest. The reply of the Italian authorities was received on 6 March 2020.

In the light of the current context and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemics, the Applicant and the Commission agreed that the Commission Decision should be adopted by 15 July 2020.

According to Article 35(5) of Directive 2014/25/EU, further requests concerning the same activity in Italy submitted before the expiry of the period opened in respect of this request shall not be considered as new procedures and shall be treated in the context of this request.

---

(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).

---
EXHIBIT 99.1

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

Officers Certificate

---

March 4, 2011

MERRILL LYNCH DEPOSITOR, INC.One Bryant Park

  3rd Floor  Structured Credit Trading

  New York, NY
10036

PREFERREDPLUS, PPLUS
TRUST AND INDEXPLUS CERTIFICATE

The undersigned, Maryann Joseph,
Vice President of The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly The Bank of New York), a New York corporation (the Trustee), hereby
certifies in such capacity that, based on her  knowledge, the Trustee has complied, in all
material respects, with all conditions and covenants applicable to the Trustee under the
Standard Terms for Trust Agreements dated February 20, 1998 between Merrill Lynch
Depositor, Inc. as depositor (the Depositor) and the Trustee, as successor to United
States Trust Company of New York, as trustee and securities intermediary (the Securities
Intermediary), in each case as amended by a series supplement between the Depositor, the
Trustee and the Securities Intermediary for each trust series listed in the attached
schedule.

| | Very truly yours,                                                                                               
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                                                                 
| | The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly

        The Bank of New York), as Trustee                                
| |                                                                                                                 
| | By: /s/ Maryann Joseph                                                                                          
| | Name: Maryann Joseph
                                                               
      Title: Vice President

---

SCHEDULE

INDEXPLUS Trust Series 2003-1 
  PPLUS
Trust Series CMT-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series CSF-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series
DCNA-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series FMC-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series GSC-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series GSC-2 
  PPLUS Trust Series GSG-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series GSG-2 
  PPLUS Trust Series
JPM-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series LMG-3 
  PPLUS Trust Series SPR-1 
  PPLUS
Trust Series TWC-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series VAL-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series ALL-1

  PreferredPLUS Trust Series CCR-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series CTR-1

  PreferredPLUS Trust Series CZN-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series ELP-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust
Series FAR-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series FRD-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series GEC-1

  PreferredPLUS Trust Series LMG-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust
Series LMG-2 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series QWS-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series QWS-2 
  PreferredPLUS Trust
Series UPC-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series VER-1

| |  | 
| |  | 

---
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. David Allen RALSTON, Respondent.

Case No. 2D18-1543

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 19, 2018

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeffrey H. Siegal, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Petitioner.

Keith W. Upson of The Upson Law Group, P.L., Naples, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Denied.

NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.