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

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of RTCA Special Committee 181/EUROCAE Working Group 13 meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 181/EUROCAE Working Group 13: Standards of Navigation Performance.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held May 21-25, 2001 starting at 9 a.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., Colson Board Room and Rohde & Schwartz Room, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC, 20036.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; web site                         *http://www.rtca.org.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 181/EUROCAE Working Group 13 meet.                     *Note: Working Groups 1 and 4 will meet separately each day of the meeting.*                     The agenda will include:                
    - May 22:
    - Opening Session (Chairman Remarks, Working Group Reports, Plenary Review)
    - May 24:
    - Closing Session (Plenary Review, New Business, Future Meeting Schedule, Adjourn)

                    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the                     **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                     section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.                

      ( print page 27196)    
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 9, 2001.

Janice L. Peters,

FAA Special Assistant, RTCA Advisory Committee.

[FR Doc. 01-12236 Filed 5-15-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13649]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Army Science Board; Notice of Closed Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), an announcement is made of the 
following Committee Meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board, Objective Force Soldier, 
Leadership Meeting.
    Date of Meeting: June 5 and 6, 2001.
    Place: SAIC, McLean, VA., 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Summary: The Army Science Board's (ASB) Summer Study Leadership 
on the ``Objective Force Soldier/Soldier Systems'' will meet for the 
purpose of ``pre-decisions'' and FY2001 SS general discussion. As 
this session is for the purposes of laying the framework for the 
two-week report writing session and outbrief to Army leadership and 
because the proprietary matters to be discussed are so inextricably 
intertwined, this precludes opening any portion of these meetings to 
the public.
    Contact Person: For further information, please contact Everett 
R. Gooch at (703) 604-7479.

Wayne Joyner,
Executive Assistant, Army Science Board.

Agenda

June 5-6, 2001

    8 a.m.-5 p.m. (both days)  Group discussion and leadership 
decision.

[FR Doc. 01-13649 Filed 5-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1198 

CA 15-00610 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY DESA, M.B., B.S., 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, SUNY UPSTATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, 

WILLIAM D. GRANT, Ed.D, AND STEPHEN J. KNOHL, M.D., 

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ROBERT M. GOLDFARB OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

WEISBERG & ZUKHER, PLLC, SYRACUSE (DAVID E. ZUKHER OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (James

P. Murphy, J.), entered June 20, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 78. The order awarded petitioner attorney’s fees and costs.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Villar v Howard, 126 AD3d 1297, 1300).

Entered: November 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**WITEL
      CORP.**




**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 WiTel Corp. (the "Company") on Form
        10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"), the undersigned,
        in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant
        to
        18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, that to his 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.








Dated:  December
                  5, 2007
              /s/
                  James E. Renton
                James
                  E. Renton
                President
                  and Chief Accounting
                  Officer
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company.  The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.  The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors.  Comments must be received not later than June 12, 2001.

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas**                     (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:                

1.  Jimmie Michael Luecke, The Fred Luecke Trust, The Susan Luecke Trust, Tim Kleinschmidt, trustee, The Jimmie Luecke Children Partnership, Ltd., Jimmie Luecke, general partner, all of Giddings, Texas; to acquire additional voting shares of Giddings Bancshares, Inc., Giddings, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of Giddings Holdings, Inc., Dover, Delaware, and First National Bank, Giddings, Texas.
      ( print page 29326)    
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 23, 2001.

Robert deV. Frierson

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 01-13478 Filed 5-29-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
# C_2017318EN.01001901.xml

| 25.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/19

---

Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v SRB

(Case T-481/17)

(2017/C 318/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno (Madrid, Spain) and SFL — Stiftung für Forschung und Lehre (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Pelayo Jiménez and A. Muñoz Aranguren, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08);

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v SRB.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

SRB

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2439

FATMA JUMA KHATIB,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals. (A78-597-045)

Submitted: May 24, 2004 Decided: July 13, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard S. Bromberg, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD S. BROMBERG,

Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant

Attorney General, Donald E. Keener, Deputy Director, Francis W.

Fraser, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Fatma Juma Khatib, a native and citizen of Tanzania,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s decision

denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the

petition for review. 

We find the Board’s decision affirming the immigration

judge’s discretionary decision that Khatib was not eligible for

asylum was not manifestly contrary to the law or an abuse of

discretion. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(4)(D)(2000). We further find

substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s findings. We

do not find the evidence so compelling that it warrants a different

conclusion. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).

Finally, we find no error in the Board’s summary

affirmance. See In re Burbano, 20 I. & N. 872, 874 (BIA 1994).

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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Palmer, Appellant.

Submitted February 6, 2012;

decided February 9, 2012

Reported below, 88 AD3d 676.

Motion for poor person relief granted.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

I, Carl Russo, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Calix, Inc. for the quarter ended June 26, 2010;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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 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 condensed 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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 control over financial reporting.



|                    |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: July 22, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ CARL RUSSO         
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Carl Russo             
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
32.1














CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Report of Data Storage Consulting Services, Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Ross Bernstein, 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:








(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/ Ross
      BernsteinRoss
      Bernstein

                Chief
      Executive OfficerDate: May 14, 2008
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6548** 

JONATHAN HENSLEE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Graham C. Mullen , Senior District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00048

- GCM )

Submitted : August 26, 2010 Decided: September 2, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judg e .
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jonathan Henslee, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jonathan Henslee seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the den ial 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 constit utional 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 dispositiv e procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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 Henslee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny Henslee’s motions for discovery and to compel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the co urt and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSE D
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13748]


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

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 for information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Customer Comment Card; AF Form 3211; 
OMB Number 0701-0146.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement.
    Number of Respondents: 200.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 200.
    Average Burden Per Response: 5 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 17.
    Needs and Uses: Each guest of Air Force Lodging and its contract 
lodging operations are provide access to AF Form 3211. The AF Form 3211 
gives each guest the opportunity to comment on facilities and services 
received. Completion and return of the form is optional. The 
information collection is necessary for Wing leadership to assess the 
effectiveness of their lodging program. Respondents are authorized 
guests of Air Force Lodging.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households; Business or Other-For-
Profit.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondents Obligation: Voluntary.
    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.

    May 25, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-13748 Filed 5-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 2-09-028-CR

2-09-029-CR

JOHNNY GOMEZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1

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

Appellant Johnny Gomez waived a jury and entered open pleas of guilt to

one count of aggravated robbery and one count of robbery, both enhanced with

repeat offender allegations to which appellant pled true. He appeals his

convictions and twenty-five year sentences on each charge. We affirm.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel

avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeals are frivolous. Counsel’s brief

and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Appellant filed a pro

se brief, alleging ineffective assistance by trial counsel. The State declined to

file a brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw

on the ground that the appeals are frivolous and fulfills the requirements of

Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the

record in each case. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the records in each case, counsel’s brief, and

appellant’s pro se brief. We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly

frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably

support the appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex.

2
Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and

affirm the trial court’s judgments.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and GARDNER, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 3, 2009

3