alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19966]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 
Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special 
Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice 
of a decision to designate a class of employees at the Y-12 Plant in 
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort 
(SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
Program Act of 2000. On August 15, 2008, the Secretary of HHS 
designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All employees of the Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor 
agencies, and DOE contractors or subcontractors who worked at the Y-
12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee from March 1, 1943 through December 
31, 1947 for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work 
days occurring either solely under this employment or in combination 
with work days within the parameters established for one or more 
other classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation will become effective on September 14, 2008, 
unless Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After 
this effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the Federal Register 
reporting the addition of this class to the SEC or the result of any 
provision by Congress regarding the decision by HHS to add the class to 
the SEC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of 
Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, 
OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). 
Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5b14181a081b181f18751c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cf808c8e9c8f8c8b8ce1888099">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 22, 2008.
Christine M. Branche,
Acting Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E8-19966 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-17-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 398 6

_____________________________
F. W

. J
., a c hild
, Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Eric C. Roberson , Judge

. August 10, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and R OWE and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Archie F. Gardner, Jr.
, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender s , Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Jason W. Rodriguez
, Assistant Attorn ey General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

TRAVIS WILFORD BOWLES, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE 

CONNIE J. STEINHEIMER, DISTRICT 

JUDGE, 

Respondents. 

No. 85448 

LED 

OCT 1 3 2022 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or in 

the alternative to show cause per NRS 34.160 et. seq. seeking to compel the 

district court to reinstate his postconviction petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus. 

Petitioner was convicted in 2012 of six counts of lewdness with 

a child under the age of 14 years. In 2013, petitioner filed in the district 

court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and in 2015, petitioner 

supplemented his petition. The State moved to dismiss the petition and 

supplemented petition, and in 2016, after holding a hearing on the motion, 

the district court dismissed petitioner's habeas action. The district court 

order of dismissal indicates that the district court considered petitioner's 

claims for relief and determined that they did not warrant an evidentiary 

hearing. Petitioner now seeks a writ from this court directing the district 

court to reinstate his habeas action. 

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writ of mandamus, 

and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole 

discretion. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 

z 351 
C.J. 

Parraguirre 

J. 

474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). A writ of mandamus is available to 

compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting 

from an office, trust, or station. NRS 34.160. Petitioner bears the burden 

of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth 

Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841. 844 (2004). 

Having considered the petition, we conclude that our 

extraordinary relief is not warranted. A district court's dismissal of a 

postconviction habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing is not 

procedurally improper, NRS 34.770(2) ("If the judge or justice determines 

that the petitioner is not entitled to relief and an evidentiary hearing is not 

required, the judge or justice shall dismiss the petition without a hearing."), 

and the challenged district court order expressly determined that no 

evidentiary hearing was warranted. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate 

that the district court's determination was improper or that petitioner's 

habeas petition should be reinstated. See NRS 34.160. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Hardesty 

A/ksy;^-Q J. 

Stiglich 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheirner, District Judge 

Travis Wilford Bowles 
Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

III) 104, A 

3
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending October 28, 2006,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),

I,Harry F. Yanowitz, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(i)                                     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| Date:  December 6, 2006 | by:                                               | /s/ Harry F. Yanowitz |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
|                         | Harry F. Yanowitz                                 |
|                         | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7176
JESSE DWIGHT MIXION, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; MARTIN MCDADE, Superintendent, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-931-6) Submitted: January 30, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesse Dwight Mixion, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Mixion v. Attorney Gen. of North Carolina,No. CA-96-931-6 (M.D.N.C. July 18, 1997). We find that the Appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was not violated because the State's proffered evidence was admissible under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803(3), and Fed. R. Evid. 803(3), a "firmly rooted" exception to the hearsay rule. See White v. Illinois , 502 U.S. 346, 356 (1992); see also State v. Cummings , 389 S.E.2d 66, 74 (N.C. 1990); State v. Faucette , 392 S.E.2d 71, 74-75 (N.C. 1990).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
EX-10.17



 Exhibit 10.17 

ASSIGNMENT OF INTEREST 
 IN 

WATERSIDE AT HIGHLAND PARK, LLC 

CENTURY COMMUNITIES COLORADO, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (“Assignor”), hereby conveys, transfers, and assigns
to Dale Francescon and Robert J. Francescon (collectively, “Assignee”), on behalf of Daro Ventures, LLC and Daro Ventures II, LLC, Assignor’s entire interest (the “Assigned Interest”) in Waterside at Highland
Park, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (“Waterside”). The conveyance, transfer and assignment shall be 50% to Dale Francescon and 50% to Robert J. Francescon. In connection with such assignment, Assignor and Assignee agree
as follows: 
 Assignor hereby represents and warrants to Assignee that as of the execution of this Assignment by the two parties, that
Assignor owns the entire membership interest in, to and of Waterside. 
 This Assignment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the successors, assignees, personal representatives, heirs and legatees of all the respective parties hereto. 
 This Assignment may be
executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original for all purposes, and all of which when taken together shall constitute a single counterpart instrument. Executed signature pages to any counterpart instrument may
be detached and affixed to a single counterpart, with such single counterpart with multiple executed signature pages affixed there to constituting the original counterpart instrument. All of those counterpart pages shall be read as though one, and
they shall have the same force and effect as if all the signers had executed a single signature page. 
 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK] 







 This Assignment is effective as of the 31st day of December,
2012. 
  

	
	ASSIGNOR
	
	CENTURY COMMUNITIES COLORADO, LLC
	
	




	Dale Francescon, CO-CEO
	
	ASSIGNEE
	
	




	Dale Francescon
	
	




	Robert J. Francescon
EX-34 (b)
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
1601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:

We have examined management's assessment for those customers that
management has informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included
in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria
set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those
issuers of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables
portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions
(the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Regulus Group LLC
has determined that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable
to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assessment about the Company's compliance based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures
as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included
testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and
securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing
activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company
processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in
compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited
to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company
during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to
determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our
tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by
the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected
transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides
a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ KPMG LLP


Philadelphia, PA
February 22, 2007


KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
EXHIBIT
32.2




THE
PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY




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 The Penn Traffic Company (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ending October 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eric
Sattler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:




(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.





/s/   Eric
      Sattler


Eric
Sattler


Chief
Financial Officer





December
21, 2009





* - The report does not so comply to the extent
described within Note 1 to the financial statements.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ITN FLIX, LLC , a

Uta h Lim ite d Lia

bility c om pa ny , Pe t i tione r,
and GIL M EDINA, a

n individua l, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. DANNY TR

EJO, a n individua l, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 20-56187 D.C . No. 2:20-c v-01978-ODW -AGR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm i tte d June 17, 2021 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED JUN 21 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Gil M e dina a ppe a l s pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt c onfirm ing a n
award in a

n a rbitration brought by

Da nny Tre jo a ga inst M e dina

and his c o m

pa ny , ITN Flix, LLC (ITN). The distric t c ourt de nie d M e d ina ’ s pe tition to va c a te the
award, a nd gra nte d Tre jo’ s re que st to c onfirm

it. W e a ffirm
. W e a gre e with the distric t c ourt tha t M e dina ’ s pe t ition to va c ate the
arbitration a

ward wa s untim e ly

be c a u se M e dina

fa ile d to se rve Tre

j o or his c ounse l with notic e of the pe tition within thre e m onths a fte r the fina l a rbitration a

ward wa s de live re d
. Se e 9 U.S.C . § 12; se e also Ste v e ns v . J iffy Lube Int’l, Inc

. , 911 F.3d 1249, 1251–52 (9th C ir. 2018). In light of tha t untim e line ss, we de c line to re vie w M e d ina ’ s othe r c ha lle nge s 1 to the distric t c ourt’ s c onfirm a tion of the award. Se e Brothe rhood of Te amste r s Loc
. N o. 70 v . C e lote x C orp. , 708 F.2d 488, 490 (9th C ir. 1983); se e also Lafarge C o nse ils Et Etude

s, S.A. v . K

aise r C e me n t & Gy

psum C orp. , 791 F.2d 1334, 1338–39 (9th C ir. 1986). AFFIRM E D.

1 Se e 9 U.S.C . §§ 10–11; K y o c e ra C orp. v . Prude ntial-Bac he TradeSe rv s., Inc
. , 341 F.3d 987, 997 (9th C ir. 2003) (e n ba nc ); se e also Lagste in v . C e rtain Unde r w r ite rs at Lloyd’s, London , 607 F.3d 634, 641 (9th C ir. 2010). 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00168-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.A.R., et al.

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-PA-01606

Honorable David A. Berchelmann, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 20, 2011

DISMISSED

A copy of appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in this court on March 3, 2011. The 

clerk of the court notified the appellant in writing that our records did not reflect that the filing 

fee in the amount of $175 was paid. On March 17, 2011, appellant’s attorney filed a Motion to 

Withdraw, stating that the trial court determined appellant is not indigent and, therefore, not 

entitled to representation by appointed counsel. Appellant’s attorney further stated that he had 

notified the appellant in writing that the filing fee was due. On March 22, 2011, we ordered 

appellant to file written documentation within fifteen days of the date of our order establishing 

that the filing fee has been paid. We cautioned appellant that a failure to respond would result in 
04-11-00168-CV

- 2 -

the dismissal of this appeal for failure to pay the filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c). 

Appellant failed to respond to our order; therefore, this appeal is dismissed. See id.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit
      99.1




Annual
      Servicer’s Certificate


Provided
      by Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation


to
      Holders
      of Notes and Certificates




**NISSAN
        MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION**
   **OFFICER'S
        CERTIFICATE**
   The
        undersigned, Jeffrey
        L. Edwards ,
        Vice
        President, Operations of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California
        corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such
        corporate officer, as follows:
  (1)  The
        undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its
        capacity as Servicer, during the period April 25, 2006 through December 31,
        2006
        (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to that certain Sale
        and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 25, 2006 (the “Agreement”), by
        and among the Company, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as Seller,
        and
        Nissan Auto Receivables 2006-B Owner Trust, as Issuer (the “Issuer”), to be
        conducted under his supervision; and
  (2)  To
        the
        best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has
        fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement throughout the Reporting
        Period  except
        for (a) those exceptions described in the Company’s “Report on Assessment of
        Compliance with Servicing Criteria” filed with the Issuer’s Form 10-K on March
        30, 2007, and (b) certain technical instances of non-compliance with certain
        reporting requirements and the timing of funds transfers, discovered by the
        Company during the course of its Regulation AB assessment of compliance,
        that
        individually and in the aggregate do not have a material adverse impact on
        the
        Noteholders and do not create a Servicer Default under the
        Agreement.
  This
        Officer’s Certificate is being furnished to Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner
        Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, Standard
        & Poor’s Ratings Services and Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., as required
        by Section 4.09(a) of the Agreement. Capitalized terms used but not defined
        herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
        Agreement.
  IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 30 th day of
        March, 2007.
  /s/ Jeffrey
        L. Edwards
 Jeffrey
        L.
        Edwards
 Vice
        President,
        Operations
                34
Exhibit 32.1





Statement of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Sempra Energy (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







May 5, 2009



/S/  Donald E. FelsingerDonald E. FelsingerChief Executive Officer