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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7185

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

IVO SVETOZAROV DAMYANOV, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District 

Judge. (1:11-cr-00120-CCB-1; 1:13-cv-01308-CCB) 

Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 21, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Ivo Svetozarov Damyanov, Appellant Pro Se. Kristi Noel 

O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Ivo Svetozarov Damyanov seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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). 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 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 Damyanov 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
[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 Annual Report of Med Gen, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31st 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report'), I, Paul B. Kravitz, Chief Executive
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 result of
operations of the Company.

May 7th, 2008                     /s/ Paul B. Kravitz
                                  ---------------------------
                                  Paul B. Kravitz
                                  Chief Executive Officer
## Breadcrumb

-  Astrogeology Science Center 
-  Science 

#           Revisiting Lava Flow Simple Models      

  Active

      By Astrogeology Science Center      October 19, 2018    

            -              Overview           
            -              Multimedia           

**Simple models relating the final dimensions of a lava flow** to eruption parameters an lava rheology were used extensively in the 1980's but have fallen out of use in the terrestrial vocanology community. However, in the planetary volcanology community these models have had a resurgence of utilization, especially in response to the availability of high resolution topographic data. In order to assess the uncertianties in these model results, it is important to revisit the underlying assumptions, understand the issues that have led terrestrial volcanologists to largely abandon these models, and search for more robust models that do not require inputs unobtainable for planetary lava flows.

### Documents

Below are multimedia items associated with this project.

October 19, 2018

#### Lava Flow Presentation

link

Lava Flow Presentation by Laszlo Keszthelyi

Astrogeology Science Center

October 19, 2018

#### Lava Flow Presentation

link

#### Lava Flow Presentation

link

Lava Flow Presentation by Laszlo Keszthelyi

Astrogeology Science Center

**Simple models relating the final dimensions of a lava flow** to eruption parameters an lava rheology were used extensively in the 1980's but have fallen out of use in the terrestrial vocanology community. However, in the planetary volcanology community these models have had a resurgence of utilization, especially in response to the availability of high resolution topographic data. In order to assess the uncertianties in these model results, it is important to revisit the underlying assumptions, understand the issues that have led terrestrial volcanologists to largely abandon these models, and search for more robust models that do not require inputs unobtainable for planetary lava flows.

### Documents

Below are multimedia items associated with this project.

October 19, 2018

#### Lava Flow Presentation

link

Lava Flow Presentation by Laszlo Keszthelyi

Astrogeology Science Center

October 19, 2018

#### Lava Flow Presentation

link

#### Lava Flow Presentation

link

Lava Flow Presentation by Laszlo Keszthelyi

Astrogeology Science Center
143 So. 289

#### In re OPINIONS OF JUSTICES. In re ALABAMA EDUCATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION ACT.

No. 15.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 31, 1932.

*359Response of the Justices.

To the Honorable Senate of Alabama:

Replying to your inquiry concerning Senate Bill 51, the undersigned Justices of the Supreme Court of Alabama are of the opinion that the financial scheme therein disclosed is, without reference.to any other provision of the Constitution, violative of section 213 of our State Constitution. In re Opinions of the Justices, 223 Ala. 130, 136 So. 489.

We are of the opinion that the bill here proposed is to be differentiated from the act considered in Alabama State Bridge Corporation et al. v. Smith, 217 Ala. 311, 116 So. 695.

Signed, this the 31st day of August, 1932.

JOHN C. ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

LUCIEN D. GARDNER, Associate Justice.

WILLIAM H. THOMAS, Associate Justice.

VIRGIL BOULDIN, Associate Justice.

JOEL B. BROWN, Associate Justice.

A. B. FOSTER, Associate Justice. .

THOMAS E. KNIGHT, Associate Justice.
Clear All

        29 February 2024    

                    CTF-63 Welcomes USNS Trenton (T-EPF 5) Arrival in Naples                 
                The Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport ship USNS Trenton (T-EPF 5) arrived in Naples, Italy Monday, Feb. 26, 2024, for a scheduled port visit.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
#### WEN BI CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-2426.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 6, 2013.

Decided: May 16, 2013.

Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Kathryn M. McKinney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

*176Before KING, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wen Bi Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum and withholding of removal and denying her motion to remand. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the U.S. Department of State’s *International Religious Freedom Report 2010*for China, the transcript of Chen’s merits hearing, and Chen’s asylum application and supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the Board’s factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have also reviewed the denial of Chen’s motion to remand and find no abuse of discretion. *See Onyeme v. INS,*146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir.1998) (setting forth standard of review).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re: Chen*(B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Case 1:07-cv-05363-AKH     Document 7      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-05363-AKH     Document 7      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 15

August 8,
2008

Securities
and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We
are aware that our report dated August 8, 2008 on our review of interim financial information of W. R. Grace & Co. (the "Company") for the three-month and
six-month periods ended June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2007 and included in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2008, is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-37024, 333-49083, 333-49507,
333-49509, 333-49511, 333-49513, 333-49515 and 333-49517).

Very
truly yours,

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
McLean, Virginia

---



QuickLinks
# EUR-Lex - 52004XC0318(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 52004XC0318(01)

**Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Community of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or non-alloy steel originating, inter alia, in Croatia: modification of the name of a company from which an undertaking was accepted **

*
Official Journal C 068 , 18/03/2004 P. 0008 - 0008 *

Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Community of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or non-alloy steel originating, inter alia, in Croatia: modification of the name of a company from which an undertaking was accepted

(2004/C 68/06)

Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or non-alloy steel originating, inter alia, in Croatia are subject to definitive anti-dumping duties, imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 348/2000(1) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2002(2).

An undertaking was accepted by Commission Decision 2000/137/EC(3), as amended by Decision 2002/669/EC(4), from Zeljezara Sisak d.d., a Croatian company, whose exports to the Community of seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or non-alloy steel are subject to the residual anti-dumping duty rate for exports from Croatia of 23,0 % by the aforementioned Regulation. By notice 246/02(5) it was found that the acceptance of the undertaking was not affected by the change of name of Zeljezara Sisak d.d. into Zeljezara Sisak - Nova d.o.o.

The company has informed the Commission that it has now changed its name again to Mechel Zeljezara Ltd. The company has asked the Commission to confirm that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the undertaking given by the company under its previous names of Zeljezara Sisak d.d. and Zeljezara Sisak - Nova d.o.o.

The Commission has examined the information supplied, which satisfactorily demonstrated that all the company's activities linked to the manufacturing, sales and exports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel are unaffected by the change of name. The Commission therefore concludes that the change of name in no way affects the findings of the investigation, in particular the exemption from the duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 348/2000 and the undertaking accepted by Decision 2000/137/EC. Accordingly, the right of the renamed company to benefit from the individual measure should remain.

Hence, the reference to Zeljezara Sisak d.d. should be read as Mechel Zeljezara Ltd in Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 348/2000 and in Article 1 of Commission Decision 2000/137/EC.

The Taric additional code A064 previously attributed to Zeljezara Sisak d.d. and afterwards to Zeljezara Sisak - Nova d.o.o. shall apply to the company under its new name, Mechel Zeljezara Ltd.

(1) OJ L 45, 17.2.2000, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 228, 24.8.2002, p. 8.

(3) OJ L 46, 18.2.2000, p. 34.

(4) OJ L 228, 24.8.2002, p. 20.

(5) OJ C 246, 12.10.2002, p. 2.
#### LEANNA PUTMAN *v.*CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17392.

*Susan M. Phillips,*in support of the petition.

Decided March 2, 2005

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 25220) is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly dismiss the defendant’s appeal on the ground of mootness?”
Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 14-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 14-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 14-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 14-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 14-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 5 of 5
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6808

ROBERT COOPER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HENRY J. GAITHER; B. THOMAS; LEHRMAN W.

DOTSON, Warden; TYRONE CROWDER, Acting Chief

of Security; MARVIN REID, Major; COTTMAN,

Lieutenant; CARTER, Lieutenant; J. DAVIS,

Lieutenant; D. LANE, Lieutenant; PETERS,

Lieutenant; W. PITTMAN, Lieutenant; WILSON,

Captain; MCFARLANE, Captain; CORRECTIONAL

MEDICAL CARE; SUNNY KOMOLAFE; ZERABRUCH

TEWELDE, M.D.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-cv02216-AMD)

Submitted: November 14, 2007 Decided: December 7, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland;

Philip Melton Andrews, Katrina J. Dennis, KRAMON & GRAHAM,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Cooper appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Cooper v. Gaither,

No. 1:06-cv-02216-AMD (D. Md. May 3, 2007). 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
Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR     Document 13      Filed 08/17/2007     Page 1 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR     Document 13      Filed 08/17/2007     Page 2 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR     Document 13      Filed 08/17/2007     Page 3 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR     Document 13      Filed 08/17/2007     Page 4 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR     Document 13      Filed 08/17/2007     Page 5 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05299-AKH Document 14-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05299-AKH Document 14-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05302-AKH Document 17 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05302-AKH Document 17 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05302-AKH Document 17 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05302-AKH Document 17 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 4 of 4
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings. 

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Chemical Warfare Defense will meet in closed session on May 31, 2001, and June 1, 2001, at SAIC, Inc., 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201. The Task Force will assess the possibility of controlling the risk and consequences of a chemical warfare (CW) attack to acceptable national security levels within the next five years.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Task Force will assess current national security and military objectives with respect to CW attacks; CW threats that significantly challenge these objectives today and in the future; the basis elements (R&D, materiel, acquisition, personnel, training, leadership) required to control risk and consequences to acceptable levels, including counter-proliferation; intelligence, warning, disruption; tactical detection and protection (active and passive); consequence management; attribution and deterrence; and policy. The Task Force will also assess the testing and evaluation necessary to demonstrate and maintain the required capability and any significant impediments to accomplishing this goal.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that this Defense Science Board meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly this meeting will be closed to the public.

Dated: May 4, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

*Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.*

[FR Doc. 01-11760  Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KEITH SHAWN HALL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 154 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of August, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 32.1
  Certification
    Of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant to
    Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  Form 10-K
  (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 Covanta Holding Corporation.      Anthony
    J. Orlando
   President and Chief Executive Officer
  Mark
    A. Pytosh
   Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
   147
**USFF Band Menu**

                    - USFF Band Home
                    - USFF Band Leadership
                    - Performing Ensembles
                    - Upcoming Schedule
                    - U.S. Navy Fleet Band Auditions
                    - Contact USFF Band

#                                                 Lt. Cmdr. Joel Davidson                                                                                            

#### Fleet Bandmaster, U.S. Fleet Forces Band

14 October 2020

                Lt. Cmdr. Joel Davidson            

                Lt. Cmdr. Joel Davidson            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: na

VIRIN: 230928-N-TE455-9876

Tags:
**Fleet Bandmaster

Categories:
**USFF Band

Terms:
**Leadership
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *89Stephen Jones, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), rendered December 29, 1981, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, following a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record established that there were no improper procedures employed by the police and the victim’s in-court identification of the defendant was properly admitted at trial *(see, People v Monaco,*93 AD2d 823). The victim observed the defendant, who was hitchhiking on Route 9, the day after the crime. After passing the defendant on the road a second time to ensure that he was in fact the person who had stolen her purse, the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was a passenger alerted the police via his citizen’s band radio. They then proceeded to follow the vehicle which had picked up the defendant. The police responded to the scene and ultimately stopped the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger. When the defendant exited the vehicle, the victim confirmed for the police that the defendant was the one who had stolen her purse the night before. Approximately 30 minutes later, she again identified the defendant at police headquarters where he was being held. Such a confirmatory identification cannot be construed as unnecessarily suggestive and the defendant’s argument to the contrary is without merit *(see, People v Morales,*37 NY2d 262).

. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or without merit. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 27 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 27 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 27 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 27 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 27 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 5 of 5
#### WILMERDING, Appellant, v. FIELD et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

March, 1894.)

Action by John C. Wilmerding against Marshall Field and others.

No opinion. Order reversed, with $30 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 cor,ts.
Case 1:07-cv-05349-AKH Document 13 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05349-AKH Document 13 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05349-AKH Document 13 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 3 of 3