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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6486

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

REGINALD EUGENE HAYDEN, a/k/a Bubba,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CR-94-78, CA-97-409-R)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Eugene Hayden, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Hayden, Nos. CR-94-78; CA-97-409-R (W.D.

Va. February 27, 1998). 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12340]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Docket No. AB-410 (Sub-No. 2)]


Austin Railroad Co., d/b/a Austin & Northwestern Railroad--
Discontinuance of Service--Between Smoot and Giddings, in Travis, 
Bastrop, and Lee Counties, TX

    The Commission has found that the public convenience and necessity 
permit Austin Railroad Co., d/b/a Austin & Northwestern Railroad 
(AUNW), to discontinue service over 53.5 miles of rail line extending 
between Smoot at milepost 53.5 and Giddings at milepost 0.0, in Travis, 
Bastrop, and Lee Counties, TX, subject to the employee protective 
conditions imposed in Oregon Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen, 
360 I.C.C. 91 (1979).
    A certificate will be issued authorizing discontinuance of service 
unless within 15 days after this publication the Commission finds that: 
(1) a financially responsible person has offered financial assistance 
(through subsidy) to enable the rail service to continue; and (2) it is 
likely that the assistance would fully compensate AUNW.
    Any offers of financial assistance must be filed with: (1) the 
Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate Commerce 
Commission, 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20423; and 
(2) AUNW's representative, Michael W. Blaszak, Austin & Northwestern 
Railroad, 211 South Leitch Avenue, LaGrange, IL 60525-2162, no later 
than 10 days from the date of publication of this notice. The following 
notation must be typed in bold face on the lower left-hand corner of 
the envelope containing the offer: ``Office of Proceedings, AB-OFA.'' 
Any offer previously made must be remade within the 10-day period.
    Information and procedures regarding financial assistance for 
continued rail service are contained in 49 U.S.C. 10905 and 49 CFR 
1152.27.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 927-5610. [TDD for 
the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]

    Decided: May 12, 1995.

    By the Commission, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Owen, and 
Commissioners Simmons and McDonald.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12340 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24879-24880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11523]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AGENCY

Agency for International Development


Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for 
Review

    The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) submitted the 
following public information collection requirements to OMB for review 
and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). Comments regarding these information collections should be 
addressed to the OMB reviewer listed at the end of the entry. Comments 
may also be addressed to, and copies of the submissions obtained from 
the Records [[Page 24880]] Management Officer, Renee Poehls, (202) 736-
4743, M/AS/ISS Room 930B, N.S., Washington, D.C. 20523.
Date Submitted: April 11, 1995
Submitting Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development
OMB Number: OMB 0412-0546
Form Number: AID 1550-12
Type of Submission: Renewal
Title: Request for shipment of commodities for Foreign Distribution 
(Foreign Government)
Purpose: An USAID Title III form is needed by which the specific needs 
of the recipient country can be communicated to U.S. Department of 
Agriculture by USAID. The form will be used to request food commodities 
for approved P.L. 480 Title III country programs overseas and to 
furnish procurement instruction and other pertinent information 
necessary to ship these commodities to destination ports.
Annual Reporting Burden:

    Respondents: 13
    Annual responses: 55
    Annual burden hours: 60

Reviewer: Jeffery Hill (202) 395-7340, Office of Management and Budget, 
Room 3201, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.

    Dated: May 1, 1995.
Genease E. Pettigrew,
Chief, Information Support Services Division Office of Administrative 
Service Bureau of Management.
[FR Doc. 95-11523 Filed 5-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Modern Technology Corp (the “Company”) for the quarterended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), Anthony Welch, as Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Robert Churchr, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, eachhereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his and her knowledge,respectively, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                     | By:    | /s/ ANTHONY WELCH                       |
|--------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| Dated: February 17, 2005 |   | Anthony Welch   Chief Executive Officer |
|                     |   |                                    |
|                     |   |                                    |
|                     | By:    | /s/ Robert Church                       |
| Dated: February 17, 2005 |   | Robert Church   Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hasbeen provided to Modern Technology Corp. and will be retained by Modern Technology Corp. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT SHERESE ABRAMS, Petitioner

v. PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 499 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 12th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
##### 



S/M
Real Estate Fund VII, Ltd. 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 S/M Real Estate Fund VII, Ltd. (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Richard E. Hoffmann, Chief Executive Officer of the general partner of the
Partnership, 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 Partnership. Date: May 10, 2004
    
    
    
    /s/ Richard E.HoffmannName:
    
    Richard E. HoffmannTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer, Director, President and Treasurer of
SM7 Apartment Investors Inc., a general partner
 15
Russell ADAMS, petitioner, v. MONTENAY POWER CORPORATION, et al.

No. 13-5323.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12466]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[T.D. 95-43]


Retraction of Revocation Notice

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: General notice.

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

SUMMARY: The following Customs broker license number was erroneously 
included in a list of revoked Customs brokers licenses in the Friday, 
April 28, 1995, Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 82.

Regina M. Farnin--11771
License 11771, issued in the Los Angeles Customs district, remains a 
valid license.

    Dated: May 16, 1995.
Philip Metzger,
Director, Trade Compliance.
[FR Doc. 95-12466 Filed 5-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
Carlos LOPEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6744.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1496 

To return general aviation to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2005 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself, Mr. MICA, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. COSTELLO, 

and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To return general aviation to Ronald Reagan Washington 

National Airport. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Return of General 

5 Aviation to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport 

6 Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 1496 IH 

1 SEC. 2. AIR CHARTER AND GENERAL AVIATION OPER2 ATIONS AT RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON 

3 NATIONAL AIRPORT. 

4 Notwithstanding any law, regulation, or agency policy 

5 or directive that has the effect of generally prohibiting 

6 general aviation aircraft from landing at Ronald Reagan 

7 Washington National Airport, not later than 180 days 

8 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

9 Transportation, acting through the Federal Aviation Ad10 ministration, in consultation with the Secretary of Home11 land Security, shall permit the resumption of non12 scheduled, commercial air carrier air charter and general 

13 aviation operations at Ronald Reagan Washington Na14 tional Airport. 

Æ
做错一步就会使食物致 做错一步就会使食物致命

维护众人健康。 请将生肉、家禽或海食食物分开存放。
amend1serp.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

ASHLAND INC. SUPPLEMENTAL

EARLY RETIREMENT PLAN FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

Generally Effective as of January 1, 2005







WHEREAS, Ashland Inc. and its authorized delegates reserved the right to amend
the Ashland Inc. Supplemental Early Retirement Plan for Certain Employees (Plan);

WHEREAS, Ashland Inc. and its authorized delegates desire to make an amendment
conforming certain actuarial assumptions contained herein with those in a related plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of October 1, 2008, as
follows:

1.           Effective as of October 1, 2008, the definition of Service is restated as follows:


	
2.17
	
“Service” - means the number of years and fractional years of employment by Ashland of an Employee, measured from the first day of the month coincident with or next succeeding his or her initial date of employment up to and including the earlier
of such Employee’s termination from employment or Effective Retirement Date.  For purposes of this Section 2.17, Service shall include an Employee’s employment with a subsidiary or an affiliate of Ashland determined in accordance with rules from time to time adopted or approved by the Board, or its delegate; provided, however, that Service for purposes of computing the amount of the benefit payable under the Plan shall not include any period of employment with a corporation or other business
entity before such corporation or other business entity became an affiliate of Ashland Inc, as determined by the Board or its delegate.  Service shall be calculated based on the rules for calculating Periods of Service under the Ashland Inc. and Affiliates Pension Plan, except as the determination of Service is modified for purposes of this Plan or under any other document that either directly or indirectly references the calculation of Service for purposes of the Plan.
EX-33.4
(logo) First American
Real Estate Tax Service


LUCY PRZYBYLA
PRESIDENT
ESCROW SERVICING
PRODUCTS


REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE

First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L.P. (an indirect subsidiary of
The First American Corporation and "the Asserting Party") is responsible for
assessing compliance as of December 31, 2007, and for the period from January 1,
2007 through December 31, 2007 ("the Reporting Period") with the servicing
criteria set forth in Title 17, Sections 229.1122(d)(1)(iv), (d)(2)(v),
(d)(2)(vi), (d)(2)(vii), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii) and (d)(4)(xiii) of the Code of
Federal Regulations applicable to the Asserting Party ("the Applicable Servicing
Criteria"). The transactions covered by this report include all loans for
residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the
Asserting Party served as the residential and commercial tax service provider
("the Platform").

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has
complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of
December 31, 2007, and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform
taken as a whole.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm,
has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2007, and for the Reporting
Period as set forth in this assertion.


FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS OF TEXAS, L.P.
By: First American Real Estate Solutions LLC
    General Partner


/s/ Lucy A. Przybyla
Lucy A. Przybyla
Senior Vice President
February 12, 2008


1 First American Way, Westlake, TX 76262

817.699.6511 * 800.229.8426 * FAX 817.699.6513

lprzybyla@firstam.com * www.firstam.com
1























































CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND 

HEARING ON PLAINTIFF WAYMO 

LLC’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED 

DISCOVERY

Having considered Plaintiff Waymo LLC’s (“Waymo”) Administrative Motion to Shorten 

Time for Briefing and Hearing on Waymo’s Motion for Expedited Discovery (“Administrative 

Motion”), the Court GRANTS Waymo’s Administrative Motion and ORDERS the briefing and 

hearing on Waymo’s Motion for Expedited Discovery be scheduled as follows:

(1) Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking LLC 

(collectively “Defendants”) shall file any opposition to Waymo’s Motion for Expedited Discovery no 

later than March 17, 2017. 

(2) Waymo shall file its reply in support of its Motion for Expedited Discovery no later 

than March 20, 2017. 

(3) At 8:00 a.m. on March 30, 2017, Waymo’s Motion for Expedited Discovery shall be 

heard in the courtroom of the Honorable William H. Alsup at the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of California, Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San 

Francisco, California (94102).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________, 2017

HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP

United States District Court Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1041

VICTOR OSAYANDE,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A70-887-141)

Submitted: November 16, 2005 Decided: December 29, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond D. Kline, Alexandria, Virginia, for Petitioner. Gretchen

C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina;

Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North

Carolina, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Victor Osayande petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, the

immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In his petition for review, Osayande challenges the

immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his

eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination

denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the

evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable

factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have

reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Osayande fails to

show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we

cannot grant the relief that he seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the denial of Osayande’s request

for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for

withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the

facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is

ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of

removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378

F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Osayande fails to show that

he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for

withholding of removal. 
- 3 -

We also find that substantial evidence supports the

finding that Osayande fails to meet the standard for relief under

the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an

applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he

or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of

removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). We find that Osayande

failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### Lilly E. MATHURIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ann SKRIVANECK, Mrs. Russell E. Blaisdell, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-7918.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 17, 2004.

Lilly E. Mathurin, Spring Valley, New York, for Appellant, pro se. William B. Jaffe (Michelle Aronowitz, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief), for Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General for the State of New York, for Appellees.

Present: LEVAL, KATZMANN, Circuit Judges, and MURTHA,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable J. Garvan Murtha, from the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IF HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Lilly E. Mathurin, *pro se,*appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Berman, J.), granting the defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment. The parties’ familiarity with the facts is assumed.

This Court reviews orders granting summary judgment *de novo*and determines whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazzola,*175 F.3d 255, 258 (2d Cir.1999). This Court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all factual inferences in favor of the nonmovant. The inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts revealed in materials such as affidavits, exhibits, interrogatory answers, and depositions must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. *See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing*Assoc., 182 F.3d 157,159 (2d Cir.1999). Mathurin, who had proceeded *pro se*below, was properly apprised of her obligations under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) to oppose a motion for summary judgment. *See Vital v. Interfaith Medical Ctr.,*168 F.3d *785615, 620 (2d Cir.1999). An independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that there are no errors in either the district court’s or the magistrate judge’s thorough analysis and decision. *See Mathurin v. Skrivaneck,*2003 WL 21523977, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11396 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2003) (order); *Mathurin v. Skrivaneck,*2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10200 (June 10, 2003) (report and recommendation).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00404-RL-JEM   document 1   filed 11/13/13   page 1 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00404-RL-JEM   document 1   filed 11/13/13   page 2 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00404-RL-JEM   document 1   filed 11/13/13   page 3 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00404-RL-JEM   document 1   filed 11/13/13   page 4 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00404-RL-JEM   document 1   filed 11/13/13   page 5 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00404-RL-JEM   document 1   filed 11/13/13   page 6 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00404-RL-JEM   document 1   filed 11/13/13   page 7 of 7