alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 6574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1570]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Public Meeting: With the Community College of the Air Force Board 
of Visitors To Review and Discuss Academic Policies and Issues Relative 
to the Operation of the College

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) Board of 
Visitors will hold a meeting to review and discuss academic policies 
and issues relative to the operation of the college. Agenda items 
include a review of the operations of the CCAF and an update on the 
activities of the CCAF Policy Council.
    Members of the public who wish to make oral or written statements 
at the meeting should contact First Lieutenant Matthew M. Groleau, 
Designated Federal Officer for the Board, at the address below no later 
than 4:00 p.m. on April 1, 2001. Please mail or electronically mail all 
requests. Telephone requests will not be honored. The request should 
identify the name of the individual who will make the presentation and 
an outline of the issues to be addressed. A minimum of 35 copies of the 
presentation materials must be given to First Lieutenant Matt Groleau 
no later than 3 days prior to the time of the board meeting for 
distribution. Visual aids must be submitted to First Lieutenant Matt 
Groleau on a 3\1/2\'' computer disk in Microsoft PowerPoint format no 
later than 4:00 p.m. on April 1, 2001 to allow sufficient time for 
virus scanning and formatting of the slides.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 9, 2001 at 1:00 p.m. 
on the First Floor Conference Room, Community College of the Air Force, 
130 West Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: First Lieutenant Matt Groleau, 
Community College of the Air Force, 130 West Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell 
Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6613, (334) 953-7322, or through 
electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#214c4055554944560f46534e4d444054614c405956444d4d0f40470f4c484d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dcb1bda8a8b4b9abf2bbaeb3b0b9bda99cb1bda4abb9b0b0f2bdbaf2b1b5b0">[email protected]</span></a>.

Janet A. Long,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-1570 Filed 1-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Dirkson R. Charles, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of K&F Industries, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.            Date: March 16, 2006/s/ DIRKSON R. CHARLES   Dirkson R. Charles   Executive Vice President and
Dimitrios Mitch FATOUROS, petitioner, v. Emmanuel LAMBRAKIS, et al.

No. 15-9435.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2010037EN.01002102.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/21

---

Action brought on 30 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-490/09)

2010/C 37/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and E. Traversa, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by maintaining in force, in their current wording, Paragraph 24 of the Social Security Code which precludes the reimbursement of the costs of medical analyses carried out in another Member State by providing for those analyses to be reimbursed only by a paying third party, and Article 12 of the statutes of the Union des Caisses de Maladie (Union of Sickness funds) which subjects the reimbursement of medical analyses carried out in another Member State to full compliance with the dispensing conditions provided for by Luxembourg national conventions, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has to fulfil its obligations under Article [49] EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by maintaining in force, in their current wording, Paragraph 24 of the Social Security Code which precludes the reimbursement of the costs of medical analyses carried out in another Member State by providing for those analyses to be reimbursed only by a paying third party, and Article 12 of the statutes of the Union des Caisses de Maladie (Union of Sickness funds) which subjects the reimbursement of medical analyses carried out in another Member State to full compliance with the dispensing conditions provided for by Luxembourg national conventions, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has to fulfil its obligations under Article [49] EC Treaty;

| — | order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the European Commission claims that by maintaining in force the laws which preclude the reimbursement of medical analyses and medical laboratory tests carried out in other Member States, or which subject such reimbursement to full compliance with the dispensing conditions provided for by Luxembourg legislation, the defendant infringed the principle of the freedom to provide services set out in Article 49 EC.

The applicant observes, by way of example, that the national authorities reimburse the costs of analysis and testing only where they are carried out within a separate laboratory which fully complies with the provisions of Luxembourg law. However, in certain Member States, such analyses are not carried out in a laboratory, but by the doctors themselves.

According to the Commission, the restrictions at issue cannot be justified by an overriding requirement in the general interest and neither do they represent an essential and proportionate measure to achieve the aim of the protection of public health.

---
Renee BELL, petitioner, v. FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al.

No. 16-5434.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emmanuel Uko AKPAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10687

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 23, 2010.

Susan B. Cowger, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Dianne Kathryn Jones McVay, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Emmanuel Uko Akpan challenges his guilty-plea convictions of health-care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347, and of engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. In doing so, he contends the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B).

In determining whether a district court abused its discretion in denying such a motion, our court considers a number of *458factors, including, but not limited to, assertions of innocence, delay in moving to withdraw, the availability of close assistance of counsel, and the voluntariness of the plea. *See United States v. Carr,*740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir.1984).

All of these factors weigh against Ak-pan’s motion being granted. Akpan’s unsupported assertion of innocence is not credible, especially in the light of his sworn assertions at rearraignment. *See United States v. McKnight,*570 F.3d 641, 649 (5th Cir.2009). Although there was testimony that Akpan sometimes wavered in his desire to persist with his plea, his motion to withdraw, filed approximately five months after he entered his plea, was not promptly filed. *See Carr,*740 F.2d at 345. Akpan also has not shown his plea was coerced by counsel or induced by any improper promise by the Government. Finally, the correct standard is whether Akpan had the close assistance of counsel, *not*whether, as he contends, counsel was ineffective. *See McKnight,*570 F.3d at 649. The record demonstrates that Akpan did receive such assistance. In sum, Akpan has not established that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw. *See United States v. Powell,*354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir.2003).

Akpan also contends the Government breached the plea agreement by asking for an increased loss amount at sentencing. He raises this issue, however, for the first time in his reply brief. We decline to consider it. *See United States v. Aguirre-Villa,*460 F.3d 681, 683 n. 2 (5th Cir.2006); *see also*5th Cir. R. 47.5.3.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
MINTO, petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 17-6321.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Dawud FITZGERALD, petitioner, v. Steven JOHNSON, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

No. 16-6401.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Mario THOMAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7260.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

*841Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Rose T. JAMES, petitioner, v. Doreen CORINO, et al.

No. 17-7132.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

*1007Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Form 10-K/A") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  Date: January 21, 2011/s/ William Yan Sui HuiWilliam Yan Sui Hui, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 302

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Steven Coffey, Acting Principal Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of Novogen Limited, a New South Wales corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that:



| | (1) | The Companys periodic report on Form 20-F for the period ended June 30, 2012 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*    *    *



|                                   |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Acting Principal Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                                   |  | 
|/s/ Steven Coffey                  |  |  |  | /s/ Steven Coffey      
|Steven Coffey                      |  |  |  | Steven Coffey          
|                                   |  | 
|Date: July 2, 2013                 |  |  |  | Date: July 2, 2013
II-00149

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Vince L. <sirquickwit@aol.com>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 3:10 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Vince L.

129 Reserve cir 109

oviedo, FL 32765
II-00466

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Richard Han <richan@umich.edu>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 6:09 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Richard Han

1795 W. Stadium Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Guillermo O. ARBELAEZ, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 16-9288.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2014159EN.01004002.xml

| 26.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/40

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 April 2014 — Strack v Commission

(Case F-61/09) (1)

1

2014/C 159/56

Language of the case: German

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009, p. 36.

1

---
Monte Cato LITTLE COYOTE, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6155.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16178]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket OST-00-8254]

Application of Orlando Air Link, Inc. for Issuance of Commuter 
Air Carrier Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of order to show cause (Order 2001-6-19).

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding that 
Orlando Air Link, Inc., is fit, willing, and able, to provide commuter 
air carrier service under 49 U.S.C. 41738.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
July 10, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket OST-00-8254 and addressed to Department of Transportation 
Dockets (SVC-124, Room PL-401), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590 and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to 
the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Howard Serig, Air Carrier Fitness 
Division (X-56, Room 6401) U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4822.

    Dated: June 21, 2001.
Robert S. Goldner,
Special Counsel, Office of Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 01-16178 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
```
II-00593

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Linda Coombs <kittykittylinda@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:46 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (PIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Linda Coombs

5320 Satsuma

North Hollywood, CA 91601
Ivory Lee THOMPSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9483.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth District denied.
null

503.24722
Michael ACKERMAN, petitioner, v. INDIANA.

No. 16-5551.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Indiana denied.