alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the Matter of L.M., C.M., I.M., J.M., and S.M.

No. COA15-401.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and vacated and remanded in part.
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

###### Surface Transportation Board 

          - [Ex Parte No. 333] 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Dennis Watson, Office of Congressional and Public Services, Telephone: (202) 565-1596 FIRS: 1-800-877-8339. 

Dated: September 8, 2005. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05-18131 Filed 9-8-05; 1:51 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
STATE v. KING.

No. COA07-1504.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Wayne (06CRS8042).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                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 John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. on
      Form 10-Q for the period ended July 1, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission, we, John Q. Hammons, Chief Executive Officer, and
      Paul E. Muellner, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002, that:

            1.    The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of
                  Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            2.    The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operation of John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
      been provided to John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. and will be retained by John
      Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its Staff upon request.

Dated:  August 12, 2005

                                                     /s/ John Q. Hammons
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     John Q. Hammons

                                                     /s/ Paul E. Muellner
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Paul E. Muellner
**EXHIBIT 33****CONSENT OF G. R. MACFARLANE**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents,which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statementon Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission: 1. The technical report dated March 9, 2005, entitled “An audit of the MineralReserves/Resources Tayoltita, Santa Rita San Antonio and San Martin Mines” (the“Tayoltita Report”).  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 30, 2007, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the Tayoltita Reportand the Wharf Mine and the property described therein.March 30, 2007/s/ G. R. MacFarlane
Patrick COWELL and wife, Terri Cowell v. GASTON COUNTY, First Gaston Bank of North Carolina, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

No. 359P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

D. Christopher Osborn, Charlotte, for Gaston County.

William Everett Moore, Jr., Arcangela M. Mazzariello, Gastonia, for Cowell.

A. Todd Brown, Brent A. Rosser, Charlotte, for Countrywide Home Loans.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 660 S.E.2d 915.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st day of August 2008 by Defendant (Gaston County) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002          In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LIN Television Corporation. for thethree months ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Vincent L. Sadusky, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, and Bart W. Catalane, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: November 9, 2007 s/Vincent L. Sadusky   Vincent L. Sadusky   President and Chief Executive Officer      Dated: November 9, 2007 s/ Bart W. Catalane   Bart W. Catalane   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice 05-137] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. 

# SUMMARY:

The inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing. 

# DATES:

September 16, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert M. Padilla, Patent Counsel, Ames Research Center, Code 202A-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000; telephone (650) 604-5104; fax (650) 604-2767.

NASA Case No. ARC-15461-1: Portable Virtual Environment System for Emergency Response Applications;

NASA Case No. ARC-15487-1: Communication Path for Extreme Environments;

NASA Case No. ARC-15542-1: Catalyst Selection for Synthesis of Inorganic Nanostructures and Nanowires;

NASA Case No. ARC-15564-1: Clench Mode Control of Vehicle Motion or Appliance Operation;

NASA Case No. ARC-15461-2: Portable Environment Interrogation System for Health Care Workers in an Emergency Environment;

NASA Case No. ARC-15519-1: Applications of Sub-Audible Speech Recognition Based Upon Electromyographic Signals. 

Dated: September 12, 2005. 

Keith T. Sefton, 

Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management. 

[FR Doc. 05-18447 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
II 

Calendar No. 105 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 521 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse and customhouse located at 515 West First Street in Duluth, Minnesota, as the 

‘‘Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United States Courthouse 

and Customhouse’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2007 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

MARCH 29, 2007 

Reported by Mrs. BOXER, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse and customhouse located at 515 West First Street 

in Duluth, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Gerald W. Heaney Federal 

Building and United States Courthouse and Customhouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 521 RS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

3 and customhouse located at 515 West First Street in Du4 luth, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United States 

6 Courthouse and Customhouse’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

10 building and United States courthouse and customhouse 

11 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

12 to the ‘‘Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United 

13 States Courthouse and Customhouse’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Calendar No. 105 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 521 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United 

United States Courthouse and Customhouse’’. the ‘‘Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and 515 West First Street in Duluth, Minnesota, as States courthouse and customhouse located at 

MARCH 29, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
# CE2004088EN.01005401.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/54

---

(2004/C 88 E/0057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1984/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject:   Turkish violations of Greek airspace

Subject:

Turkish warplanes, often fully armed, are continually violating the rules of air traffic and Greek airspace, and there are frequent interceptions and mock dogfights over the Aegean. These incidents occur on a daily basis: they severely threaten peace in the region, constitute a threat against a Member State and certainly violate the principles of good-neighbourly relations to which Turkey is supposed to have committed itself. On 26 May 2003 General Hilmi Özkök, Chief of the Turkish General Staff, stated that Turkish warplanes would move freely in Greek airspace and that this would not constitute a violation, since it was international airspace.

Has the Commission intervened with the Turkish authorities to put an end to these provocative actions which pose a serious threat to a Member State of the European Union? What else does it intend to do to persuade Turkey to apply the principles of good-neighbourly relations vis-à-vis Greece and other neighbouring countries, a policy to which it has committed itself?

---
WILNER, et al. v. The CEDARS OF CHAPEL HILL, LLC, et al.

No. 234P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

James T. Williams, Jr., Greensboro, for the Cedars of Chapel Hill, LLC, et al.

Jennifer K. Van Zant, Greensboro, for the Cedars of Chapel Hill, LLC, et al.

D.J. O'Brien, III, Greensboro, for the Cedars of Chapel Hill, LLC, et al.

Benjamin R. Kuhn, Raleigh, for Wilner, Jonathan, et al.

Amie C. Sivon, Raleigh, for Wilner, Diane, et al.

R. Michael Pipkin, Chapel Hill, for Wilner, Diane, et al.

Paul Stam, Apex, for N.C. Association of Realtors.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the conditional motion filed on the 31st of July 2015 by North Carolina Association of Realtors for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
# CE2004084EN.01073301.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/733 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/733

---

(2004/C 84 E/0826)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3154/03

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Mobile telephone safety

Subject:

Given the findings of recent studies which show that the new generation of mobile telephones can interfere with many types of heart pacemaker, can the Commission detail what measures are being taken to prevent harm to the health of EU citizens?

It would seem that newer pacemakers that are fitted with a ceramic filter are immune. Can the Commission confirm that steps are being taken to introduce these models across the industry and to ensure that the public are aware of the risks of using the old models?

Can the Commission also detail what information it has provided regarding the safety of using mobile telephones in conjunction with a pacemaker since 1994?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

(15 January 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the studies to which the Honourable Member is referring. Similarly, the Commission is not aware that under the vigilance systems in place with regard to medical devices, incidents have occurred.

Pacemakers must meet the requirements established by Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on active implantable medical devices (1). These requirements imply, amongst others, that the devices must be designed and manufactured in such a way that, when implanted under the conditions and for the intended purpose, their use does not compromise the clinical condition or the safety of patients. More specifically pacemakers must be designed and manufactured in such a way as to remove or minimize, as far as possible, risks connected with reasonably foreseeable environmental conditions, such as magnetic fields, external electrical influences, electrostatic discharge, pressure or variations in pressure and acceleration. Also, the manufacturer must provide an instruction leaflet allowing the physician to brief the patient on contra-indications and precautions to be taken. These should cover, in particular, the precautions to be taken as regards the risks of exposure mentioned above. This information is to be updated in the light of new risks that may occur.

1

From research performed on this matter, the Commission understands that interference between mobile phones and pacemakers can be avoided provided a distance of 20-30 cm from the pacemakers is ensured.

The Commission would expect relevant new information to be provided by physicians in their relations with patients. In addition, national health care systems may have to provide information through the various means at their disposal.

---

(1)  OJ L 189, 20.7.1990.

1

---
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 Quarterly Report of Captaris, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, David P. Anastasi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ DAVID P. ANASTASI                                              
|David P. Anastasi President and Chief
Executive Officer May 9, 2008
# CE2004078EN.01048101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/481 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/481

---

(2004/C 78 E/0503)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3182/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   The air transport company SATA's failure to comply with Community legislation

Subject:

Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) of 4 February lays down the immediate minimum compensation to be paid by air transport companies if they refuse to embark passengers.

1

The contents of this Regulation are dealt with in Decree-Law 321/89 of 25 September, Portaria No 223/97 of 2 April and Law No 24/96 of 31 July but there are no provisions reflected in Portuguese law corresponding to these particular provisions of the Community Regulation.

Neither does any Portuguese airline apply this Regulation.

On 12 September, the airline SATA Internacional, without providing any explanation or information, and after several hours of waiting, cancelled flight S4 125 from Lisbon to Ponta Delgada, and re-routed the passengers on another flight, S4 221 from Lisbon to Ponta Delgada.

The airline refused to comply with the Community Regulation provisions referred to above.

What measures has the Commission taken to ensure that Community legislation on passengers' rights is transposed into Portuguese law and is respected in Portugal?

When does the Commission believe that Community legislation protecting passengers' rights will be applied in Portugal?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

(8 December 2003)

Community legislation on compensation for denied boarding is in the form of a regulation, not a directive. As such, it directly imposes obligations on air carriers and does not have to be transposed into national law in order to apply. There is no need for provisions on denied boarding in national law for the regulation to be binding.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (2) only covers denied boarding and not cancellations. It therefore does not oblige air carriers to pay compensation in cases such as that mentioned in the question.

2

Nevertheless, the Commission believes that passengers should also enjoy rights if they suffer cancellation or long delay of their flights and, in December 2001, presented a proposal for a new regulation covering compensation and assistance in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights (3). This is presently going through the process of conciliation between the European Parliament and the Council, as provided in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. On 14 October 2003 the Conciliation Committee adopted a compromise text, on which the European Parliament will vote on 17 December 2003. The Commission strongly hopes that the Parliament will approve the proposal.

3

---

(1)  OJ L 36, 8.2.1991, p. 5.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport, OJ L 36, 8.2.1991.

2

(3)  OJ C 103, 30.4.2002.

3

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6651

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL GLENN POWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:99-cr-00024-F; 7:02-cv-00082-F)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 20, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Glenn Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Glenn Powell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Powell has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED