alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AAM-10-246-E May 20, 2010 Exemption No. 10066 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0442

Mr. Henry E. Schwarz Owner/Operator

4301 Southwood Drive Alexandria, VA 22309

Dear Mr. Schwarz:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 12, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Henry E. Schwarz, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Henry E. Schwarz.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant of exemption;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Henry E. Schwarz, an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Mr. Schwarz, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the

conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Henry E. Schwarz are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Henry E. Schwarz part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Peter R. Metcalf, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Black Diamond, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Black Diamond, Inc.





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





Date:  March 15, 2011


By: /s/  Peter R. MetcalfName: Peter R. MetcalfTitle:  President and Chief Executive Officer
### §§841 to 844. Repealed. Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.26(a), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 624

Section 841, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §18, 39 Stat. 375; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933, provided for application for farm loan bonds. See section 2154 of this title.

Section 842, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §18, 39 Stat. 375; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933, provided for investigation and appraisal of securities tendered. See section 2154 of this title.

Section 843, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §18, 39 Stat. 375; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933, provided for transmission of decisions to land bank and registrar.

Section 844, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §18, 39 Stat. 375; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933, required Farm Credit Administration to execute a writing when approving a farm-loan bond issue.
### §3046. Financial analysis and market surveys at request of eligible cooperative

The Office may, at the request of any eligible cooperative, provide a financial analysis of the applicant's capital structure and needs and its cost of operations, survey the market for the goods or services the cooperative makes or desires to make available to its members or patrons or the users of its facilities.

(Pub. L. 95–351, title II, §206, Aug. 20, 1978, 92 Stat. 513.)
### §§911 to 915. Repealed. Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.26(a), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 624

Section 911, acts July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §24, 39 Stat. 379; Jan. 23, 1932, ch. 9, §4, 47 Stat. 13; Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 785, title III, §306(b), 69 Stat. 665; Aug. 18, 1959, Pub. L. 86–168, title I, §104(d), (h), 73 Stat. 386, 387, provided for amount to be carried in reserve account by land bank associations. See section 2052 of this title.

Section 912, acts July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §24, 39 Stat. 379; Jan. 23, 1932, ch. 9, §4, 47 Stat. 13, covered making good of any impairment of reserve before payment of any dividends.

Section 913, acts July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §24, 39 Stat. 379; Jan. 23, 1932, ch. 9, §4, 47 Stat. 13; June 3, 1935, ch. 164, §4, 49 Stat. 315, provided for payment of dividends by land bank associations on balance of net earnings. See section 2052 of this title.

Section 914, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §24, 39 Stat. 379; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933, covered investment of reserves of land bank associations.

Section 915, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §24, 39 Stat. 379, provided for disposition of reserves on liquidation of land bank associations.
§ 9032.1 Authorized committee. ( a ) Notwithstanding the definition at 11 CFR 100.5, *authorized committee* means with respect to candidates (as defined at 11 CFR 9032.2) seeking the nomination of a political party for the office of President, any political committee that is authorized by a candidate to solicit or receive contributions or to incur expenditures on behalf of the candidate. The term *authorized committee* includes the candidate's principal campaign committee designated in accordance with 11 CFR 102.12, any political committee authorized in writing by the candidate in accordance with 11 CFR 102.13, and any political committee not disavowed by the candidate in writing pursuant to 11 CFR 100.3(a)(3).
( b ) Any withdrawal of an authorization shall be in writing and shall be addressed and filed in the same manner provided for at 11 CFR 102.12 or 102.13.
( c ) For the purposes of this subchapter, references to the “candidate” and his or her responsibilities under this subchapter shall also be deemed to refer to the candidate's authorized committee(s).
( d ) An expenditure by an authorized committee on behalf of the candidate who authorized the committee cannot qualify as an independent expenditure.
( e ) A delegate committee, as defined in 11 CFR 100.5(e)(5), is not an authorized committee of a candidate unless it also meets the requirements of 11 CFR 9032.1(a). Expenditures by delegate committees on behalf of a candidate may count against that candidate's expenditure limitation under the circumstances set forth in 11 CFR 110.14.
#### John Barnesciotta et al., plaintiffs in error, *v.*The People of the State of New York, defendants in error.

(Argued March 29, 1877;

decided April 10, 1877.)

Reported below, 10 Hun, 137.

*William F. Kintzing,*for plaintiffs in error,

*Benjamin K. Phelps,*for defendants in error.

Agree to affirm on opinion of Davis, J., in court below.

All concur; Rapadlo, J., absent.

Judgment affirmed.
### §1704. Repealed. Apr. 3, 1936, ch. 165, §2, 49 Stat. 1188

Section, act June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title I, §3, 48 Stat. 1247, related to loans to financial institutions.
**Ohio Rural Development State Office**200 North High Street, Room 507Columbus, Ohio 43215

**Questions about Multifamily Housing Programs?**Call 1-800-292-8293

                          -    - State DirectorJonathan McCracken (View Bio)
 
                          -                      View All State Contacts                   
                          -                        Follow the RD Ohio Office on X                     
                          -                        Receive Emails Through GovDelivery                     

## Highlights and Announcements

                                -    Notice of Changes to Eligible Area Maps for USDA Rural Development Housing... 
                                -    PUBLIC NOTICE: 30-Day Public Inspection Period and Comments Received from U... 
                                -    Find USDA properties for resale 
                                -    Find Rural Housing Rentals 

### Featured Programs

                          -  Business & Industry Loan Guarantees 
                          -  Community Facilities Direct Loan & Grant Program 
                          -  Water & Waste Disposal Loan & Grant Program 
                          -  Rural Energy for America Program Renewable Energy Systems & Energy Efficiency Improvement Guaranteed Loans & Grants 
                          -  Single Family Housing Direct Home Loans 
                          -  Single Family Housing Repair Loans & Grants 
View All State Programs

### Resources

**Check Eligibility**Check a home, town or service location to verify eligibility for Rural Programs

**Manage your USDA Loan**You can create an account and manage your current loan through the Customer Service Center (CSC) portal. You can also contact the CSC at 800-414-1226
View All Resources

## Rural Development News

                                -  USDA Invests Nearly $1.2 Million in Renewable Energy for Ohio Rural Small BusinessesMar 28, 2024 
                                -  USDA Invests $3.3 Million in Clean Energy Projects to Strengthen Rural Farms and Businesses in OhioJan 25, 2024 
                                -  USDA Announces Awards to Increase Access to Clean, Affordable Domestic Biofuels in OhioJan 17, 2024 
                                -  USDA Invests $5.8 Million to Improve Access to Telemedicine, Distance Learning in Rural OhioJan 04, 2024 
                                -  USDA Invests More Than $6.4 Million to Help Ohio Rural Business Owners and Farmers Lower Energy Costs, Generate Income and Expand OperationsNov 02, 2023 
                                -  USDA Officials Visit Fremont to Celebrate Opening of Public Library ExpansionAug 02, 2023 

View All State News
### §102. Religion

The Secretary may collect decennially statistics relating to religious bodies.

(Aug. 31, 1954, ch. 1158, 68 Stat. 1018.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 13, U.S.C., 1952 ed., §111 (Mar. 6, 1902, ch. 139, §7, 32 Stat. 52; June 7, 1906, ch. 3048, 34 Stat. 218; June 18, 1929, ch. 28, §3, 46 Stat. 21; 1939 Reorganization Plan No. II, §4(e), eff. July 1, 1939, 4 F.R. 2731, 53 Stat. 1431; 1940 Reorganization Plan No. III, §3, eff. June 30, 1940, 5 F.R. 2107, 54 Stat. 1232; June 25, 1947, ch. 124, 61 Stat. 163; Sept. 7, 1950, ch. 910, §4, 64 Stat. 785).

Section was taken from that part of section 111 of title 13, U.S.C., 1952 ed., which related to statistics on religion. For remainder of such section 111, see this subchapter and Distribution Table.

Changes were made in phraseology.
IV

House Calendar No. 288

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 598

[Report No. 106–908]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and water development

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 27, 2000

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered

to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations

for energy and water development for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for

4 energy and water development for the fiscal year ending

5 September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. All points
2

HRES 598 RH

1 of order against the conference report and against its con2 sideration are waived. The conference report shall be con3 sidered as read.

House Calendar No. 288

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 598

[Report No. 106–908]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4733) making

appropriations for energy and water developmentfor the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001,and for other purposes.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30345 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DIVO JOHN BROCCHINI, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-60039

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Divo John Brocchini appeals his sentence for theft or receipt of stolen mail, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. The district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward from the guidelines based upon the inadequacy of Brocchini’s criminal history category, which did not adequately reflect the extremely high likelihood of recidivism. The district court offered acceptable reasons for the departure, and the departureNo. 96-30345 - 2 - was reasonable. See United States v. Lambert , 984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc).
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>                         0000912908
<NAME>                        FOAMEX INTERNATIONAL INC
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                Dec-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                   Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                     Mar-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                          1
<CASH>                              11,368
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                      180,204
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                        131,355
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   367,358
<PP&E>                             321,516
<DEPRECIATION>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,026,012
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              220,811
<BONDS>                            715,193
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                               267
<OTHER-SE>                          33,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     1,026,012
<SALES>                            318,242
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   318,242
<CGS>                              265,472
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      264,472
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    22,363
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  19,866
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     10,435
<INCOME-TAX>                         4,298
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  6,137
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                         6,137
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.24
        

</TABLE>
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

81-12 

May 13, 1981 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4211 Withdrawal Liability 

OPINION: 

 Thank you for your letter requesting clarification of PBGC's interim regulation on Alternative Allocation Methods

(26 C.F.R. Part 2652). 

Section 4211(c)(3)(B)(ii) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, provides that the

denominator of the rolling-5 method is -- 

. . . the total amount contributed under the plan by all employers for the last five plan years ending before the

withdrawal, increased by any employer contributions owed with respect to earlier periods which were collected in those

plan years, and decreased by any amount contributed to the plan during those plan years by employers who withdrew

from the plan under this section during those plan years. 

Section 4211(c)(2)(C)(ii)(II) contains an almost identical denominator for the modified presumptive method. 

For purposes of these denominators, § 2652.6(a) of the regulation defines "total amount contributed" to mean "the

amounts considered contributed to the plan for the plan year for purposes of section 412(b)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue

Code." Under section 412(c)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury regulation § 11.412(c)-12, any

contributions made by an [*2] employer within 8 1/2 months after the end of a plan year are considered made for that

previous plan year for purposes of minimum funding, without regard to the year in which the employer is obligated to

make the contribution under a collective bargaining agreement. 

 As you suggest in your letter, the definition of "total amount contributed" includes both amounts contributed by all

employers for the last five years and "the amount of any contributions owed with respect to earlier periods which were

collected in those plan years." The footnote in the preamble to the interim regulation (46 Fed. Reg. at 4895) states that

these delinquent contributions should not be included a second time if they have already been treated as amounts paid

for the plan year for funding purposes. 

I hope this has been of assistance. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### §904. Limitation on jurisdiction and powers of court

Notwithstanding any power of the court, unless the debtor consents or the plan so provides, the court may not, by any stay, order, or decree, in the case or otherwise, interfere with—

(1) any of the political or governmental powers of the debtor;

(2) any of the property or revenues of the debtor; or

(3) the debtor's use or enjoyment of any income-producing property.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2622.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### senate report no. 95–989

This section adopts the policy of section 82(c) of current law [section 402(c) of former title 11]. The only change in this section from section 82(c) is to conform the section to the style and cross-references of S. 2266.

#### house report no. 95–595

This section adopts the policy of section 82(c) of current law [section 402(c) of former title 11]. The Usery case underlines the need for this limitation on the court's powers. The only change in this section from section 82(c) is to conform the section to the style and cross-references of H.R. 8200. This section makes clear that the court may not interfere with the choices a municipality makes as to what services and benefits it will provide to its inhabitants.
#### § 108.4 Filing copies of reports by committees other than principal campaign committees (52 U.S.C. 30113(a)(2)).

Except as provided in § 108.1(b), any unauthorized committee that makes contributions in connection with a Presidential election and that is required to file a report(s) and statement(s) under the Act shall file a copy of such report(s) and statement(s) with the State officer of the State in which both the recipient and contributing committees have their headquarters.

[65 FR 15224, Mar. 22, 2000]
### §23. Acknowledgment and filing of certificate

The organization certificate shall be acknowledged before a judge of some court of record, or notary public; and shall be, together with the acknowledgment thereof, authenticated by the seal of such court, or notary, transmitted to the Comptroller of the Currency, who shall record and carefully preserve the same in his office.

(R.S. §5135.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §5135 derived from act June 3, 1864, ch. 106, §6, 13 Stat. 101, which was the National Bank Act. See section 38 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Exception as to Transfer of Functions

Functions vested by any provision of law in Comptroller of the Currency, referred to in this section, not included in transfer of functions to Secretary of the Treasury, see note set out under section 1 of this title.
#### § 2.153 Dogs refused entry.

Any dog refused entry into the States for noncompliance with the requirements of this subpart or the Act may be removed from the States or may be seized and the person intending to import the dog shall provide for the care (including appropriate veterinary care), forfeiture, and adoption of the dog, at his or her expense.

[79 FR 48659, Aug. 18, 2014, as amended at 85 FR 28798, May 13, 2020]
#### Town of Avon et al. *v.*Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Bloomfield et al.

*John A. Berman,*in support of the petition.

*Robert C. Runt, Jr.,*in opposition.

Submitted February 4

decided February 7, 1974

The petition for certification by the defendants Erie Martin et al. for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is granted.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7053 FREDRICK LYNWOOD FOLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SNIDER; LIEUTENANT BOYERS, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-7096 FREDRICK LYNWOOD FOLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK LEE, AWO, Defendant - Appellee.2 No. 96-7180 FREDRICK LYNWOOD FOLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WAGNER; LIEUTENANT LYLES; L. M. SAUNDERS, Defendants - Appellees.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-222-R, CA-96-255-R, CA-96-378-R) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 9, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fredrick Lynwood Foley, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaints. We have reviewedthe records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Foley v. Snider, No. CA-96-222-R (W.D. Va. June 25, 1996); Foley v. Lee , No. CA-96-255-R (W.D. Va. July 1, 1996); Foley v. Wagner , No. CA-96-378-R (W.D. Va. July 19, 1996). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED