alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15021]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Meeting of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Executive Panel

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The CNO Executive Panel will meet to conduct the midterm 
briefing of the High Impact Environmental Issues Task Force to the 
Chief of Naval Operations. This meeting will consist of discussions of 
findings regarding security implications, training impact and readiness 
effects, and will also include preliminary recommendations for Navy 
environmental strategy and evaluations of alternative training means. 
This meeting will be closed to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Friday, June 22, 2001, from 1:30 
p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the office of the Chief of Naval 
Operations, 2000 Navy Pentagon, Room 4E630, Washington, DC 20350-2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander Christopher Agan, CNO 
Executive Panel, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311, 
telephone (703) 681-6205.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), these matters constitute 
classified information that is specifically authorized by Executive 
Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and are, in 
fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. 
Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that 
the public interest requires that all sessions of the meeting be closed 
to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in 
section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code.

    Dated: June 5, 2001.
J.L. Roth,
Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy, Judge Advocate General's Corps, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-15021 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-U
# C_2010016EN.01001001.xml

| 22.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/10

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.5440 — Lufthansa/Austrian Airlines

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

2010/C 16/06

On 8 May 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Merger Regulation) by which the undertaking Deutsche Lufthansa AG (LH) acquires sole control of the undertaking Austrian Airlines (OS) by way of purchase of shares.

After examination of the notification, the Commission concluded on 1 July 2009 that the notified operation fell within the scope of the Merger Regulation and that it raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement). The Commission therefore initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

LH did not request access to the key documents in the file.

LH submitted remedy proposals on 10 and 17 July 2009 with a view to rendering the concentration compatible with the common market which were considered insufficient by the Commission. On 27 July 2009 LH submitted improved commitments that were market tested by the Commission. The finalised version of the remedy proposal was sent on 31 July 2009.

The Commission has concluded that the commitments are sufficient to remove the serious doubts raised by the concentration. Accordingly, subject to the full compliance with the commitments submitted by the notifying party, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement.

No queries or submissions have been made to me by the parties or any third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 26 August 2009.

Karen WILLIAMS

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

KAREN PINTO,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (MAIN LINE HEALTHCARE),

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 208 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                        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 Technology Funding Venture Partners V, An
Aggressive Growth Fund, L.P. (the Partnership) Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I Charles, R. Kokesh,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Chairman of Technology Funding Inc. and Managing General Partner of
Technology Funding Ltd., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as added Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Partnership as of
and for the period covered by the Report.

Date:  November 14, 2005     By:    /s/Charles R. Kokesh
                               --------------------------------
                                     Charles R. Kokesh
                                     President, Chief Executive
                                     Officer, Chief Financial
                                     Officer and Chairman of
                                     Technology Funding Inc. and
                                     Managing General Partner of
                                     Technology Funding Ltd.

Technology Funding Venture Partners V, L.P.
(a Delaware limited partnership)

Page 1 of 1
#### Paul Michael TEAHAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. V.M. ALMAGER; Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 08-55608.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 10, 2010.

Paul M. Teahan, Imperial, CA, pro se.

Kyle Niki Shaffer, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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 prisoner Paul Michael Teahan appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Teahan contends that new reliable evidence of actual innocence entitles him to equitable tolling and excuses the untimely filing of his petition. Teahan bases his claim of actual innocence primarily upon the unsworn alibi statements four witnesses provided to a defense investigator during pre-trial investigation. Assuming that the actual innocence gateway of *Schlup v. Delo,*513 U.S. 298, 327, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995), provides a basis for equitable tolling, Teahan has failed to show that, based on this evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. *See Smith v. Baldwin,*510 F.3d 1127, 1142 (9th Cir.2007). Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing his petition as untimely.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
| 1. | the Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in the Report. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Len E. Williams       |  /s/ Eric S. Nadeau           |
|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Len E. Williams                |  Eric S. Nadeau               |
| President and             |  Executive Vice President and |
| Chief Executive Officer   |  Chief Financial Officer      |
|                                |                               |
| Dated: May 9, 2011                  |                               |

|  45  |
|----------------|
EXHIBIT
32.1





Certificate
of Chief Executive Officer as required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





In
connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2008 (the "Report"), of Aurora Oil & Gas Corporation ("Aurora")
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2009, I,
William W. Deneau, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of
Aurora, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





1.      The
Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





March
      13, 2009
              By:
              /s/ William W. DeneauWilliam
      W. DeneauChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been
provided to Aurora Oil & Gas Corporation and will be retained by Aurora Oil
& Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request
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




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of BTHC XV, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) that:




1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 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.






Date:  July 1, 2011
/s/ Yu XinboYu XinboChief Financial Officer
H. Res. 1430 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 1, 2010. 

Whereas Juan Antonio ‘‘Chi Chi’’ Rodriguez taught himself 

how to play golf; 

Whereas Rodriguez’ strive for perfection, along with his uncompromising sportsmanship, resulted in a lifetime 38 

professional wins, including 8 PGA Tour wins and 22 

Senior PGA Tour wins; 

Whereas Rodriguez was the first Puerto Rican inducted into 

the World Golf Hall of Fame and was elected to the 

World Humanitarian Sports Hall of Fame in 1994; 

Whereas the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute 

(CHCI), a Latino youth leadership development and educational organization in the United States, honored 

Rodriguez with the CHCI Service Award for his ongoing 

commitment to providing opportunities for Latino youth 

to succeed; 

Whereas Rodriguez is a supporter of CHCI’s Fiesta de Golf 

Scholarship Challenge, and helped raise more than 

$824,000 for CHCI’s Scholarship Awards Program the 

past three years; 

Whereas Rodriguez’ efforts resulted in financial support for 

more than 430 scholarships over the past three years to 
2 

•HRES 1430 EH 

help Latino youth to attend institutions of higher education; 

Whereas Rodriguez remains active with his own Chi Chi 

Rodriguez Youth Foundation, which funds the Chi Chi 

Rodriguez Academy, whose mission is to assist at-risk 

children by improving their self-esteem, character, work 

ethic, social adjustment, and academic performance, 

using the golf course as a living classroom; 

Whereas Rodriguez has helped raise more than $4 million for 

his youth foundation, which annually brings 600 children 

from Latino and non-Latino low-income families or broken homes to a municipal golf course to learn responsibility and discipline by working at the various jobs in 

golf; 

Whereas the Chi Chi Rodriguez Academy’s program is based 

on love and respect, one that builds confidence, instills 

discipline and provides positive educational experiences; 

and 

Whereas the Chi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation has 

earned a number of awards, including the National Golf 

Foundation Award for the Best Youth Program in the 

United States in 1986, the Pinellas County Sports Salute 

XVIII for working with youth in 1990, the 758th Point 

of Light in 1992, the Gannett Company’s USA Weekend 

Most Valuable Athlete Award in 1983, based on an athlete’s contribution, caring and commitment off the field, 

and the Robie Award for Humanitarianism, presented by 

the Jackie Robinson Foundation in 1996: Now, therefore, 

be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 
3 

•HRES 1430 EH 

(1) honors and salutes Juan Antonio ‘‘Chi Chi’’ 

Rodriguez for his contributions to the successful programs of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute 

for Latino youth and his lifelong leadership in shaping 

the lives of at-risk youth who benefit from the generosity 

and devotion of the Chi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation; and 

(2) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make available an enrolled copy of this resolution to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute and 

to the Chi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### In re CROSS.

(District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

May 15, 1922.)

No. 4135.

Bankruptcy c§=»399 (2)—Waiver of exemptions not available to levying creditor.

Statutory exemptions are for the benefit of the debtor, and may be waived by him, and, on withdrawal by a bankrupt of the claim to exemptions made in his schedules, the property will not be set apart in favor of a levying creditor who holds a waiver of exemptions.

<@=»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests *&*Indexes

In Bankruptcy. In the matter of Wilfred M. Cross, bankrupt. On withdrawal of claim for exemption by bankrupt and rule by Tinkler & Co., Inc., a creditor, on John R. Hessel, trustee, to set aside exemptions.

Rule discharged.

S. M. R. O’Hara, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., for trustee.

Jenkins & Turner, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., for the rule.

WITHER, District Judge.

At the time the petition in bankruptcy was filed, the goods of the bankrupt were under levy upon execution of Tinkler & Co., Inc., in which there was waiver of the exemption. The bankrupt claimed certain specified goods under the exemption in his schedules filed, but shortly thereafter, upon the election of a trustee, the bankrupt filed a disclaimer to the exemption of the property enumerated in his schedules, and requested that amendment be noted accordingly. Tinkler & Co., Inc., the execution creditors, resist the amendment of the schedules and insist that they be permitted to have the property claimed set aside for the bankrupt that they might to this extent proceed with their levy and execution.

Bearing in mind that the benefits of the exemption were intended *218for the relief of the unfortunate debtor, and not as a medium to aid the pursuing creditor, suggests the answer to the proposition presented. It has been frequently stated that the right to the exemption is a personal privilege of the debtor and one over which he himself has absolute control. He may or not claim it at his option. If claimed, he may release it, or lose it, before property is set off, or money decreed to him, in compliance with the statutory provisions. Kyle & Dunlap’s Appeal, 45 Pa. 353; Overseer’s Appeal, 95 Pa. 191; Sutman v. Hogsett, 70 Pa. Super. Ct. 180; In re Jonas Baughman (D. C.) 25 Am. Bankr. Rep. 167, 183 Fed. 668.

In any aspect of the situation, until the specific property has been set off under the exemption, the court has full authority to consider and dispose of whatever is involvedj and since it is against no policy of. the law to permit the withdrawal of the bankrupt’s claim, for it results in no advantage to the bankrupt over the creditors, rather working equity among his creditors within the spirit of the bankruptcy law, the withdrajval is affirmed, and the schedule is amended accordingly.

The rule of Tinkler & Co., Inc., on the trustee, to set aside the exemption, is discharged.
#### Reynaldo Gonzalez GUIDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-76831.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 8, 2006.

Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq., Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wernery, Esq., William C. Minick, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Reynaldo Gonzalez Guido, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen because, *644contrary to Gonzalez Guido’s contention, the BIA considered the evidence Gonzalez Guido submitted, including evidence regarding his son’s recent difficulties in school and emotional problems, and acted within its broad discretion in determining that it did not constitute prima facie evidence of hardship. *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit (d)(126)

**FORM OF**

**SUB-ADVISORY AGREEMENT**

**between**

**FIDELITY INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS**

**and**

**FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH COMPANY**

**and**

**FIDELITY INVESTMENT TRUST ON BEHALF OF FIDELITY INTERNATIONAL SMALL CAP**
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-31043

Summary Calendar

_____________________

CORNELIUS J. DUPARD, III,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney

General, State of Louisiana;

BURL CAIN, Acting Warden,

Louisiana State Penitentiary,

Respondents-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-789-D

_________________________________________________________________

December 4, 1997

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cornelius J. Dupard, III, Louisiana prisoner #103460, appeals

from the district court’s order dismissing, without prejudice, his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court’s

order was based on Dupard’s failure to seek permission from this

court to file a successive § 2254 petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3) as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
-2-

Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Because Dupard filed his petition prior to

the AEDPA’s April 24, 1996 enactment date, however, the provision

requiring permission in amended § 2244(b)(3) does not apply to his

petition. See Williams v. Cain, 117 F.3d 363, 363-65 (5th Cir.

1997). Accordingly, the district court’s order is VACATED and this

case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

          In connection with the quarterly report of Ubiquitech Software Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the nine month period ended May 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, 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 Rule 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:  August 14, 2009 | Young Yuen_____________________________ |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------|

|   | Young Yuen, Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------------------|

|   | and Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-----------------------------|