alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 4001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1321]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Personnel Security Clearance Change 
Notification; DISCO Form 562; OMB Number 0704-[To Be Determined].
    Type of Request: New Collection.
    Number of Respondents: 11,290.
    Responses Per Respondent: 20.
    Annual Responses: 225,800.
    Average Burden Per Response: 12 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 45,160.
    Needs and Uses: The DISCO Form 562 is used by contractors 
participating in the National Industrial Security Program to report 
various changes in employee personnel clearance status or 
identification information. The execution of the form is a factor in 
making a determination as to whether a contractor employee is eligible 
to have a security clearance.
    Affected Public: Business or Other For-Profit; Not-For-Profit 
Institutions.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondents Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C. Springer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing. Written requests for 
copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. 
Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, 
VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: January 8, 2001.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-1321 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
Exhibit 32.2  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 on Form 10-Q of Enterprise Acquisition Corp.  (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Ezra Shashoua, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that: (1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Ezra Shashoua Ezra Shashoua Chief Financial Officer November 5, 2009
141 So. 706

#### Eugene McKINNEY v. STATE.

6 Div. 148.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 12, 1932.

Pennington & Tweedy, of Jasper, for petitioner.

Chas. R. Wiggings, of Jasper, for the State.

GARDNER, J.

We are persuaded the argument for petitioner overlooks the limited review of this court of decisions of the Court of Appeals as to questions of law therein presented. Baumhauer v. Liquid Carbonic Corp., 223 Ala. 244, 135 So. 427; Hardy v. First National Bank, 219 Ala. 435, 122 So. 702.

*8We find nothing in the opinion in this case calling for the granting of the petition. The writ will be denied.

Writ denied.

BOULDIN, FOSTER, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
# C_2017112EN.01004201.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/42

---

Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Schoonjans v Commission

(Case T-79/17)

(2017/C 112/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alain Schoonjans (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

Declare and rule that

| — | The decision of the selection board of the competition of 11 April 2016 rejecting the applicant’s candidature in Internal Competition COM/02/AST/16 is annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision of the selection board of the competition of 11 April 2016 rejecting the applicant’s candidature in Internal Competition COM/02/AST/16 is annulled;

| — | The European Commission is ordered to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 5 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm which he has suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

The European Commission is ordered to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 5 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm which he has suffered;

| — | The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises a plea of illegality of the competition notice based on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 82(7) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), inasmuch as the Commission restricted access to the internal competition organised for grade AST 2 to those members of the contractual staff in Function Group III. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 82(7) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), inasmuch as the Commission restricted access to the internal competition organised for grade AST 2 to those members of the contractual staff in Function Group III.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, inasmuch as that condition for admission is not, in any event, justified by the interest of the service or the type of posts to be filled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, inasmuch as that condition for admission is not, in any event, justified by the interest of the service or the type of posts to be filled.

---
# C_2018123EN.01001201.xml

| 9.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2018 — TopFit e. V., Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e. V.

(Case C-22/18)

(2018/C 123/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TopFit e. V., Daniele Biffi

Applicants:

Defendant: Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e. V.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that a provision in the Athletics Rules of an association of a Member State which makes participation in national championships dependent on having the nationality of the Member State amounts to impermissible discrimination? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that a provision in the Athletics Rules of an association of a Member State which makes participation in national championships dependent on having the nationality of the Member State amounts to impermissible discrimination?

| 2. | Are Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that an association of a Member State impermissibly discriminates against amateur athletes who do not have the nationality of the Member State by allowing them to participate in national championships but only letting them start ‘outside classification’ or ‘without classification’ and not letting them participate in the finals of races and contests? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that an association of a Member State impermissibly discriminates against amateur athletes who do not have the nationality of the Member State by allowing them to participate in national championships but only letting them start ‘outside classification’ or ‘without classification’ and not letting them participate in the finals of races and contests?

| 3. | Are Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that an association of a Member State impermissibly discriminates against amateur athletes who do not have the nationality of the Member State by excluding them from the award of national titles or from the standings? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that an association of a Member State impermissibly discriminates against amateur athletes who do not have the nationality of the Member State by excluding them from the award of national titles or from the standings?

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

No. 21

- 7398

JAMES C. WHALEY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
WARDEN TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondent

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 4:20

- cv - 04366

- HMH )

Submitted : February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
James C. Whaley , Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7398 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: James C. Whaley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advi sed Whaley that failure to file timely , specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is

nece ssary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v

. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 , 154

- 55 (1985). Although Whaley received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particu larized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin , 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient spec ificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)). * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny Whaley’s motion for discovery, and dismiss the appeal.

* To the extent Whaley asserts on appeal that he is actually innocent of his underlying criminal offenses, a claim he preserved below, we conclude that he fails to make the requisite showing. See Mahdi v. Stirling , 20 F.4th 846, 893 n.32 (4th Cir. 2021) (no ting USCA4 Appeal: 21-7398 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 We dispens e 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.
DISMISSED

that showing of actual innocence requires demonstrating “factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency” (internal quotation marks omitted)). USCA4 Appeal: 21-7398 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
143 So. 923

#### CHARLOTTE SALVAGE CO. v. The PARISIAN CO.

7 Div. 82.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 4, 1932.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by agreement.
#### Marlon BLACHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. DIAZ, Chief Deputy Warden at CSP-Corcoran, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-17419.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.*

Filed Oct. 4, 2013.

Marlon Blacher, Lancaster, CA, pro se.

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Marlon Blacher appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant R. Diaz violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Blacher’s claim challenging the prison’s grievance procedures because “[t]here is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure.” *Mann v. Adams,*855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988); *see also Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 483-88, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (prison regulations do not provide a state-created liberty interest unless they impose an “atypical, significant deprivation” in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life).

Dismissal of Blacher’s aceess-to-courts claim was proper because Blacher failed to allege facts demonstrating defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged denial of access to the prison law library or a causal connection between defendant’s conduct and the alleged violations. *See Starr v. Baca,*652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.2011) (“A defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 ‘if there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.’ ” (citation omitted)).

The district court did not err when it dismissed without prejudice for improper venue Blacher’s claims added in his amended complaint. Venue was not proper in the Eastern District of California because the events giving rise to those claims occurred in the Central District of California. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (listing grounds for venue and explaining that a civil action should be brought in judicial *781district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Maddox *vs.*Gray, administrator.

[Jackson, 0. J., not presiding, on account of providential cause.]

Delivery of a deed is essential to the conveyance of title thereby. Where it was shown that a deed was made, and that the grantor said that the land belonged to the grantee, but it was proved that the deed never was recorded, and was found by the grantee among the papers of the grantor after his death, there was no sufficient evidence of delivery, and a verdict finding against a title set up under such a deed was right.

January 12, 1886.

Deeds. Delivery. Title. Before Judge Roney. Columbia Su perior Court. September Adj ourned Term, 1884.

Gray, administrator of Jackson Maddox, brought complaint for land against Benjamin F. Maddox, and on the trial, the jury found for the plaintiff, with mesne profits. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he excepted.

Salem Dutcher ; D. C. Moore, for plaintiff in error.

Thos. E. Watson, for defendant.

*453Blandeord, Justice.

The question in this case is, whether a certain deed from Jackson Maddox in his lifetime, to the plaintiff in error (B E. Maddox), was ever delivered. The making of the deed and the sayings of Jackson Maddox, that the land in dispute belonged to his brother, Ben, were shown; on the other hand, it was shown by the statements of B. E. Maddox that he found the d eed among, the papers of his brother, Jackson Maddox. The same was never recorded in Jackson Maddox’s lifetime. We think it quite clear in this case that one of the essential elements in the deed is wanting—the delivery. A deed is a writing, sealed and delivered. Without delivery the deed is nothing and conveys no title. See *Ross, administrator, vs. Campbell et al.,*decided at the September term, 1884, of this court. 73 *Ga.,*309. The verdict and judgment in this case was right, and the new trial should have been refused.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 10.03





Exhibit 10.03









August 30th, 2010




François Barbier

33 Rue Des Chablis

67500 Haguenau

France




Dear François,




This letter confirms that the changes in the terms of your employment as provided in my letter to
you dated as of July 1st, 2010 (including the relocation expenses addendum attached
thereto) have been approved by the Compensation Committee of the company’s Board of Directors on
August 30, 2010.



Please acknowledge below your agreement to the effective date of the offer as August 30, 2010. The
salary, benefits and other compensation described in the offer letter will be provided retroactive
to July 1st, 2010, which shall also be the effective transfer date for purposes of the
prorated relocation reimbursement agreement that you signed in connection with the offer letter.



Regards,




/s/ Paul Humphries




Paul Humphries

EVP, Human Resources

Flextronics Corporation




OFFER ACCEPTANCE




I understand all the terms and conditions in the offer letter, including those regarding the “at
will” relationship and I accept the offer. I agree by signing below that the Company has made no
other promises other than what is outlined in the offer letter, and that it contains the entire
offer the Company is making to me and I accept this offer.



	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ François Barbier

	 	August 31, 2010
	 	July 1, 2010
	 

	 	 
	 	 
	Signature — François Barbier

	 	Today’s Date
	 	Start Date
Exhibit 99.4  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 EnCana Corporation (the Company) on Form 40-F
for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian C. Ferguson,
Executive Vice-President &Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
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.   By:
  /s/ Brian C. FergusonBrian
  C. FergusonExecutive
  Vice-President & Chief Financial Officer  February 20, 2009
exv4w1






Exhibit 4.1




Country Style Cooking Restaurant Chain Co., Ltd.

Incorporated in the Cayman Islands


REGISTERED 

SHARE CERTIFICATE




			
	 	 	 
	CERTIFICATE NO.
	 	NO. OF SHARE(S)






This
is to Certify that                                          
is/are the registered Holder(s) of                     
Ordinary Share(s) of USD 0.001 each of the above-named Company, subject to the Memorandum and Articles of
Association of the Company.




Executed
on behalf of the said Company




this                 day of



	 	 	 

	 

Director
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, in his or her capacity as an officer of Osage Exploration and Development, Inc. (the "Company"), that,
to his or her knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



Date: September
6, 2011





| | /s/ Kim Bradford              | 
| | ----------------------------- | 
| | Kim Bradford                  | 
| | Chief Financial Officer       | 
| | (Principal Financial Officer) | 



Date: September 6, 2011



| | /s/ Kim Bradford                       | 
| | -------------------------------------- | 
| | Kim Bradford,                          | 
| | President and Chief Executive Officer, | 
| | (Principal Executive Officer)          |
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13195]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institutes of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group, Medical Rehabilitation Research 
Subcommittee.
    Date: June 18, 2001.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Marriott Pooks Hill, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Anne Krey, Scientific Review Administrator, 
Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive 
Blvd., Rm. 5E03, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6908.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 18, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-13195 Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M