alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

BENNETT HAYWOOD BURKE

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Number: 2023-0434

MISLE Activity ID: 7797763

WITHDRAWAL FROM DOCKET

The Coast Guard initiated an administrative proceeding by filing a Complaint on November 28, 

2023, seeking revocation of Respondent’s Merchant Mariner Credential.

On Jan 11, 2024, the Coast Guard filed a Notice of Withdrawal from docket as:

Respondent signed a Voluntary Surrender Agreement in accordance with 46 CFR 5.203.

This matter is removed from the docket and closed without prejudice effective this date. The 

Coast Guard reserves the right to file a new Complaint in this matter.

Done and Dated January 16, 2024 at, 

Baltimore, MD

____________________________

Lauren M Meus

Hearing Docket Clerk

U.S. Coast Guard

By Direction of the Chief Administrative Law Judge
Exhibit 31.2
 
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF
 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Calvin E. Jenness, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blount International, Inc.;  2.
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  a.
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b.
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c.
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors:  a.
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and      
 b.
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.  
 Date: November 12, 2004
 
 /s/ Calvin E. Jenness
 Calvin E. Jenness
 Senior Vice President and
 Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Rita Morris McKeeman, Plaintiff,
v. United States, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED AUG 

## 20 20m Clerk, U.S. District 3. Bankruptcy Courtsfor the District of Columbia 

# 10 1412

This matter is before the Court on its initial review ofplaintiffs 

### pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed 

### informapauperis. The Court will grant the 

### informapauperis application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements ofRule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. 

### Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. 

### Jarrell v. 

### Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(1) a short and plain statement ofthe grounds for the court'sjurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); 

### seeAshcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); 

### Ciralsky v. 

### CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice ofthe claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of

### resjudicata applies. 

### Brown v. 

### Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).

### Plaintiffis a District ofColumbia resident suing the United States. The complaint, consisting mostly ofdisjointed phrases, fails to provide any notice ofa claim. A separate Order ofdismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: August

# fL, 2010

2
**EXHIBIT      32**

**CERTIFICATE      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND **

**PRINCIPAL      FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE **

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

|  | 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 results of operations of the                  Company. |
|--|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                                                                   |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Alan                    Doyle                                                                                                                                                 |   |   |   |
|                                                                                                                                                                                        |   |   |   |
| Alan                      DoylePresident                      (Chief Executive Officer),Treasurer                      (Principal Financial Officer)July                      14, 2006 |   |   |        |

----
#### Hirsh *v.*Van der Perren.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.*

June 6, 1890.)

Arrest in Civil Action.

Affidavits averring that defendant had admitted that he had obtained the delivery to him by plaintiff of a bill of lading by expressly promising to collect as the agent of plaintiff the money due for the goods represented by the bill, and pay it to plaintiff at once, and that he had collected the money, and personally appropriated it, are sufficient to justify an order of arrest.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Morris M. Hirsh, as sole survivor, etc., against Ferdinand van der Perren. Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate an order of arrest.

Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Brady and Daniels, JJ.

*Theo. H. Friend,*for appellant. *Felix Jellinik,*for respondent.

Brady, J.

The complaint alleges that the claim set up is for moneys received by the defendant as agent for the plaintiff in a fiduciary capacity, and the affidavits show that such allegation was properly made. The defendant requested the plaintiff’s agent, having possession of the same, to deliver to him a bill of lading, which was done upon the express.promise and agreement that he would, as the agent of the plaintiff, collect the money due from the vendees of the merchandise represented by it, and pay over the same to the plaintiff immediately. This appears from a statement of these facts on information and belief, but to which is added a declaration by the affiant that the defendant admitted it to be true. And further it appears by an affidavit of another deponent that the defendant admitted his collection of the money, and his personal appropriation of it. There are no arguments within the whole realm of ingenuity that can overwhelm these elements. They contain all that is necessary to justify an order of arrest, and need only be stated to make that proposition unquestionable. The order appealed from must therefore be affirmed, with $10 costs, and the disbursements of the appeal. All concur.
#### In the Matter of Kenneth Davenport, Petitioner, v City of Mount Vernon et al., Respondents.

[946 NYS2d 214]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Fire Commissioner of the City of Mount Vernon dated October 20, 2010, which adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer dated October 4, 2010, made after a hearing, and affirmed the denial of the petitioner’s application for supplemental benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a (2).

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The determination of the Fire Commissioner of the City of *839Mount Vernon (hereinafter the Commissioner), which adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer, and affirmed the denial of the petitioner’s application for supplemental benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a (2), was supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Ridge Rd. Fire Dist. v Schiano,*16 NY3d 494, 499 [2011]; *300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]; *Matter of Collins v Codd,*38 NY2d 269, 270 [1976]). The record, among other things, contains evidence consisting of the reports of three orthopedic surgeons, each of whom concluded that the petitioner’s condition was not caused by an accident that allegedly occurred on November 16, 1994. The Commissioner had the authority to evaluate conflicting medical evidence, and was free to credit evidence based on reports of one set of physicians over that of another set of physicians *(see Matter of D’Onofrio v City of Mount Vernon,*226 AD2d 719, 720 [1996]; *Matter of Flynn v Zaleski,*212 AD2d 706 [1995]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32

Certification

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 FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc., (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                              
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: November 2, 2006 |  | /s/ Jon A. DeLuca            
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                        | 
|Dated: November 2, 2006 |  | /s/ Charles S. Wiesenhart Jr.
|                        |  | Chief Accounting Officer     

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7461

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RYAN O’NEIL LANSDOWNE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (1:00-cr-00185-TSE-1; 1:11-cv-00112-TSE)

Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Ryan O’Neil Lansdowne, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph 

Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ryan O’Neil Lansdowne seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders (1) denying his motion for reduction of sentence 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion; and (2) denying his 

motion for reconsideration. 

We have reviewed the district court’s denial of 

Lansdowne’s § 3582(c)(2) motion and his request for 

reconsideration and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s orders in part for the reasons 

stated by the district court. United States v. Lansdowne, Nos. 

1:00-cr-00185-TSE-1; 1:11-cv-00112-TSE (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 4, 

2011 & entered Aug. 5, 2011; filed Nov. 8, 2011 & entered Nov. 

9, 2011).

To the extent that the district court’s orders address 

Lansdowne’s request for § 2255 relief, the orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 

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) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 
3

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Lansdowne has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny Lansdowne’s motion for a certificate of appealability 

and dismiss the appeal in part. 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 IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART
Exhibit 99.1


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 The Thaxton Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, James D. Thaxton., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(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/    JAMES D. THAXTONJames D. Thaxton Chief
Executive Officer


August 13, 2002





This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 32



Certification



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 FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc., (the
Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 14, 2004 |  | /s/ Michael S. Liss    
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                    | 
|Dated: May 14, 2004 |  | /s/ Jon A. DeLuca      
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### POLLOCK, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by Charles A. Pollock against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
# C_2021423EN.01001301.xml

| 19.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/13

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case M.9730 – FCA/PSA

(2021/C 423/09)

On 8 May 2020, the Commission received a notification pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation (2) of a proposed concentration by which Peugeot S.A. (‘PSA’) and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (‘FCA’) (together ‘the Notifying Parties’) would enter into a merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation (the ‘Proposed Transaction’).

On 17 June 2020, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation (‘Article 6(1)(c) Decision’).

On 30 June 2020, the Notifying Parties submitted written comments on the Article 6(1)(c) Decision.

On 20 July 2020, the Commission adopted a decision pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Merger Regulation, requiring the Parties to supply information that had been the object of two earlier requests for information. This decision suspended the time limit referred to in Article 10(3) of the Merger Regulation, pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Merger Regulation.

On 25 September 2020, the Notifying Parties submitted commitments in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation in order to address the competition concerns identified by the Commission.

On 28 September 2020, the Commission launched a market test of these commitments.

On 30 September 2020, the Commission informed the Notifying Parties that the suspension of the time limit had come to an end on 28 September 2020, following the Parties’ submission of the required information on that date.

On 27 October 2020, the Notifying Parties submitted revised commitments pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation.

The draft decision declares the Proposed Transaction compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement, subject to full compliance with the revised commitments.

Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected during the present proceedings.

Brussels, 8 December 2020.

Wouter WILS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1) (‘Merger Regulation’).

2

---
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Jeffrey H. Buchalter, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ILEX Oncology, Inc;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: July 30, 2004
/s/ JEFFREY H. BUCHALTERJeffrey H. Buchalter
#### In the Matter of Maliti Latine, Respondent, v Walter R. Kelly, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants.

Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.