alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
534 A.2d 576

#### Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Appellant *v.*Glenn Leroy Happe, Appellee.

Submitted on briefs October 5, 1987,

to Judges MacPhail and Colins, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three.

*Harold H. Cramer,*Assistant Counsel, with him, *Dale Aaron Cable,*Assistant Counsel, *Spencer A. Manthorpe,*Chief Counsel, *Henry G. Barr,*General Counsel, for appellant.

*Stephen F. Capone,*for appellee.

December 9, 1987:

Opinion by

Senior Judge Kalish,

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which sustained *533the appeal of Glenn Leroy Happe (appellee) from the six month suspension of his drivers license, due to his violation of section 1543 of the Vehicle Code, *as amend*ed, 75 Pa. C. S. §1543, driving while operating privileges are suspended. We reverse.

Appellees operating privileges were originally suspended due to his failure to satisfy a judgment as a result of an automobile accident. Appellee contends that since he had entered into a settlement agreement and he drove his car after this agreement was reached, he should not be held guilty of driving “while privileges were suspended.” The trial court held that appellee was not guilty of driving while under suspension because of this settlement agreement, that the prothonotarys record should have shown this correction, and that one cannot be convicted of driving while privileges are suspended when the period of suspension has expired.

Driving upon the highways is a privilege and not a right. When that privilege has been suspended, it is not automatically restored by the performance of some mandatory act. The operator must himself take affirmative steps to have his privilege to drive reinstated. He cannot be permitted to drive until the Department of Transportation has taken some affirmative action to restore his privilege. Nor can he offer such testimony as the settlement agreement as a defense. There is nothing in the evidence to show a reinstatement by the Department of Transportation and that was Happe’s burden. *Commonwealth v. Moyer,*225 Pa. Superior Ct. 374, 310 A.2d 345 (1973).

Accordingly, we reverse.

Order

Now, December 9, 1987, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, in No. S. A. 1431 of 1985, dated January 30, 1986, is reversed.
<Page>

                                                                         [LOGO]


                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 9 to the
registration statement on Form N-4 (No. 333-79701) (the "Registration
Statement") of our report dated February 13, 2003, relating to the financial
statements of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company, which appears in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the
heading "Independent Accountants" in such Registration Statement.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
December 4, 2003
##### 



Exhibit 31.02 Quintiles Transnational Corp. and Subsidiaries
Certification Pursuant To
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, John D. Ratliff, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Quintiles Transnational
Corp.;2.
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986.](c)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):




---



##### 



(a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and(b)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Date: May 13, 2005/s/ John D. RatliffJohn D. RatliffExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
#### IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT W. HILL v. CITY OF CAMDEN AND NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

January 17, 1984.

Petition for certification denied. (See 190 *N.J.Super.*418)
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
John W. Cooley, certify that:

1. the
accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 FX Alliance Inc. at the
dates and for the periods indicated.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to FX Alliance Inc. and will be retained by FX Alliance Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The
undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

/s/ JOHN W. COOLEY John W. Cooley Chief Financial OfficerMarch 29, 2012


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

---



QuickLinks
583 A.2d 310

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDWARD SMITH.

January 23, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6132

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ERNEST MICHAEL BROWN, a/k/a Rock,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-97-

15-MJG, CA-00-2641-MJG)

Submitted: March 6, 2001 Decided: March 23, 2001

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Michael Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ernest Michael Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000) and the order denying his motion to supplement the § 2255

motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Brown, Nos. CR-97-15-

MJG; CA-00-2641-MJG (D. Md. Jan. 5, 2001). 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
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 92 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United 
2 

•HJ 92 EH 

1 States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limita2 tion contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu 

3 thereof $10,615,000,000,000. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 5, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 92 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.
EXHIBIT 31.1




CERTIFICATION OF SENIOR OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE SERVICING FUNCTION OF THE SERVICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Joachim Hensel, certify that:
 
 1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2011-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and
 5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
 In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Citibank, NA.


Dated: March 28, 2012




By:   /s/ Joachim HenselName:    Joachim HenselTitle:      Vice President – Finance & CFO
               BMW Financial Services NA, LLC
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T E L B E R T T HO MAS MAR T I N, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. D O N A L D A . R A M B E R G , M .D ., D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 56562 D. C. No . 5 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 8 2 7 - SJ O- J EM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S . J a m e s O t e r o, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , B E A , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E l be rtT hom a s M art i n, aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m aryj udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng de l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e t o hi s s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e ds . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 

# FI LED APR26 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 56562 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , T oguc hiv . Chung , 3 9 1 F .3 d1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n dw e a f

f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm entbecause M art i n fai l ed t o r a i s e age nui ne di s put e of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o w he the rde f

e nda nt ’ s tr e a tm e ntof hi s bac k and l eg pai n con st i tut ed del i bera t e i nd i ff er ence . Se e id. a t1058 ( pr i s on offi ci al s a ctw i th d el i bera t e i nd i ff er ence on l y i f they kno w of and d i sr egar d an e xc e s s i ve r i s k t o i nm a t e he a l th, a nd adi f f e r e nc e of opi ni on c onc e rni ng the ap p r o p r ia te c o u r s e o f

tr e a tm e n t d o e s n o t a m o u n t to d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e ) . M a rtin ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . AF F I RME D.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1317

TITO LEMONT KNOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ELIZABETH G. MAGERA, US Probation Officer in her Individual and official 

capacity; SERGIO A. SANCHEZ, Psychiatric in his Individual and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:20-cv-00228-HMH)

Submitted: July 21, 2020 Decided: July 23, 2020

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tito Lemont Knox, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tito Lemont Knox appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil rights 

complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). After informing Knox of several pleading 

deficiencies and allowing him to amend his complaint, the magistrate judge recommended 

that the complaint as amended be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The magistrate 

judge further advised Knox that failure to file timely, specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Knox received proper notice 

and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived 

appellate review because, as the district court ruled, the objections were not specific to the 

particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin, 858 F.3d 

at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party 

must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as 

reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)).
3

Accordingly, we affirm the amended judgment of the district court. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
SCWC-18-0000018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

VICENTE KOTEKAPIKA HILARIO, 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-18-0000018; 5PC111000023)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Vicente Kotekapika Hilario’s

application for writ of certiorari, filed on August 1, 2019, is hereby

rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 23, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000018

23-SEP-2019

01:22 PM
News United States Air Force
 Hot maintenancePublished June 27, 2015
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Zachary Cacicia
                        
                        
                        436th Airlift Wing Public Affairs
                **DOVER AIR FORCE BASE, Del. (AFNS) --**
                Carrying out maintenance on Dover Air Force Base’s fleet of C-5M Super Galaxies and C-17A Globemaster IIIs can be challenging at times, but extreme heat and humidity can add additional challenges during the summer months. 
Throughout the hottest months of the year, Dover AFB Airmen from the 436th and 512th Maintenance Groups regularly spend their work days sweltering through 90-plus degree temperatures, the scorching sun and extreme humidity.
"It's exhausting at times, you have to stay hydrated," said Airman 1st Class Kyle Ahearn, a 436th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron crew chief.
Ahearn and his fellow Airmen of the 436th AMXS work maintenance on Dover's C-5Ms, spending most of their time out on the flightline where the aircraft are parked. They are responsible for the everyday maintenance and inspections of the airframes and components. This occasionally requires them to crawl into tight confined spaces to perform this maintenance.
"Confined spaces in a C-5 get really hot," Ahearn said. "Heat rises, so anytime you are upstairs or in any enclosed space without a hatch or door open, the heat can really get to you."
But many Airmen actually prefer the hot weather. Originally from a much warmer part of the country, Airman 1st Class Ryan Forslund, a 436th AMXS crew chief, said he feels this way.
"Me personally, I love it," Forslund said. "I'm from Texas, so I love the heat and I dislike the cold. I love coming out here and working in the sun."
Forslund takes satisfaction from working in the extreme heat.
"I know it's gross," he said. "But when I work and get all sweaty, it just makes me feel more accomplished."
For the maintenance Airmen, staying safe in the hot weather means that proper hydration is key.
"It's hot," said Senior Airman Shaquille Taylor, a 436th AMXS crew chief. "It's important to hydrate and get as much shade as possible; otherwise it's like working in a microwave."
But even when the heat index rises well about the 100-degree mark, most maintainers prefer it to the subzero temperatures they experience every winter.
"The cold is the worst," Taylor said. "When it's cold your fingers get stiff; when it's hot you can just sweat and get through it."
Master Sgt. William Garcia, the 436th AMXS first sergeant, is consistently pleased with the hard work that his Airmen perform, regardless of the working conditions.
"When I see the maintainers out there in environments, whether it be heat, cold, snow, whatever it may be; I'm always amazed by their professionalism and getting the job done," Garcia said. "They don't complain, they don't moan, they do what they got to do and they do a great job, day in and day out."AMC 



C-17 Globemaster III 



C-17 



maintenance 



Dover AFB
#### PATERSON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY v. MAX SCHULMANN.

April 18, 1978.

Petition for certification granted.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS J. MILANO.

April 18, 1978.

Petition for • certification denied.
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website
(r eleased the week prior to March 19, 2019 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :

A

- 17

- 1254 Olson v. Koch

A

- 18

- 547 State v. Davis

A

- 18

- 779 In re Interest of Doriahn P. & Dahrma P.

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov: http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

. Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here: http s ://www.nebraska.gov/ courts/s c cales/

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                  0000919601
<NAME> VENDALUX CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,168
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1274
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,437)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (214)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (214)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (214)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>