alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
January 2, 2014

Mr. Michael Daigneault

Director, Training & Flight Standards

CitationShares Management, LLC

5 American Lane

Greenwich, CT 06831

Dear: Mr. Daigneault

Th is is in response to your letter dated October 16, 2013 ( public docket No. FAA

- 2011

-
0182 )

, in which you petition the Federal Aviati on Administration (FAA) on behalf of

CitationShares Management, LLC (CitationShares ) for an amendment and extension of

Exemption No. 10328, as amended. The exemption provides relief from § § 43.3 (g),

91.443(b )(3) and 135.443 (b)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR) . That

exemption allows CitationShares ’s pilots who are properly trained under an approved training

program to accomplish supervised updates of navigational software databases of inst alled

flight management systems, including maintenance logbook entries, subject to certain

conditions and limitations

.

On Nov ember 29 , 2012

, the FAA published a final rule that amended § 43.3

, by adding a new paragraph (k) which allows pilots to update d ata bases in installed avionics. A copy of this

rule change is enclosed for your information

.

Since the relief you seek i s now permitted in the revised § 43.3

, an exemption is no longer

required. Therefore

, we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda D. Courtney

Manager, Air craft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 95-40576 & 95-41031 Summary Calendar

EDWARD B. LYON, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JAMES A. SHAW, JR.; JAMES DUKE; NOLAN A. PITTCOCK; RICKY JONES; COFFIELD UNIT, TDCJ-ID; K. COX, Captain; PHILLIP CRUTCHER, Lieutenant; A.K. ODEN; T. EDWARDS, Defendants-Appellees, and EDWARD B. LYON, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus NOLAN A. PITTCOCK, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC Nos. 6:94-CV-462 & 6:95-CV-382

- - - - - - - - - - September 26, 1996 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Nos. 95-40576 & 95-41031 - 2 -

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. Edward B. Lyon, Jr., Texas state prisoner #454153, appeals from the district court’s entry of judgment as a matter of law on behalf of some defendants, jury verdict in favor of some defendants, and dismissal of his claims against one defendant as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) in his civil rights suit. Lyon argues that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, that the magistrate judge erred by dismissing his pendant state claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act, that the jury instruction with regard to his failure-to-protect claim was fundamentally defective, that the magistrate judge erred by entering a judgment as a matter of law in favor of Warden Shaw, that the magistrate judge deprived him of the testimony of two necessary witnesses at trial, that the magistrate judge erred by failing to sequester a defense witness, that he was denied a fair trial because of defense counsel’s improper closing argument, that the magistrate judge erred by holding a second Spears hearing on Lyon’s claims against defendant Pittcock after Pittcock was severed from the case, and that the magistrate judge erred by dismissing his claims against Pittcock as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(d). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed for essentially the reasons stated in the memorandum orders entered by the magistrate judge. See Lyon v. Shaw , No. 6:94cv462 (E.D.Nos. 95-40576 & 95-41031 - 3 - Tex. June 6, 1995); Lyon v. Shaw , No. 6:94cv462 (E.D. Tex. June 7, 1995); Lyon v. Pittcock , No. 6:95CV382 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 1995). Additionally, the magistrate judge’s failure to sequester a defense witness and her denial of Lyon’s motion for a continuance did not constitute plain error. See United States v. Wylie , 919 F.2d 969, 976 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Shaw , 920 F.2d 1225, 1230 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 500 U.S. 926 (1991). Further, Lyon’s argument that defense counsel misstated the evidence in his closing argument lacks support in the record. Nor has Lyon shown plain error from the absence of two inmate witnesses from his trial. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
# C_2011103EN.01001102.xml

| 2.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/11

---

Appeal brought on 29 January 2010 by Antoni Tomasz Uznański against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) made on 27 November 2009 in Case T-348/09 Uznański v Poland

(Case C-143/10 P)

2011/C 103/18

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Antoni Tomasz Uznański (represented by: A. Nowak, adwokat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Republic of Poland

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 19 November 2010, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---
§ 108.3 Preparation of plot plans. Plot plans shall show all of the buildings on a particular land area, whether or not they are all used for the preparation and initial shipping of biological products: *Provided,* That, when a great number of buildings are on the same premises, only those surrounding the buildings used for preparation and initial shipping of biological products shall be shown. The presence of the remainder of the buildings may be accounted for by a single statement denoting the total number of such buildings not used for the preparation or shipping of biological products. ( a ) Reduce the entire premises to any standard scale on one sheet of paper which meets any of the American standard trimmed sizes. Indicate the scale used.
( b ) Clearly mark the boundaries of the licensed premises and indicate what marking denotes the boundaries. Such boundaries shall coincide with some readily apparent perimeter line. Identify all fences, walls, or streets.
( c ) Show buildings as reduced dimensional drawings in the proper scale distance relationship with each other.
( d ) Number, letter, or otherwise identify all buildings so that they may be correlated with the respective blueprints and legends.
( e ) Describe on the plot plan the use of immediate adjacent properties such as, residential area, pasture, box factory, or the like.
( f ) Show compass points.
( g ) Show date of preparation.
( h ) Apply signature of responsible official of the firm.
# C_2010161EN.01004501.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/45

---

Action brought on 9 April 2010 — Air France v OHIM (Representation of a parallelogram)

(Case T-159/10)

(2010/C 161/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Air France (Roissy Charles de Gaulle, France) (represented by A. Grolée, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Forms of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of 27 January 2010 of the Second Board of Appeal in Case 1018/2009-2 in so far as it dismissed the application for trade mark No 007576218 for the goods and services which are the subject of this action; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of 27 January 2010 of the Second Board of Appeal in Case 1018/2009-2 in so far as it dismissed the application for trade mark No 007576218 for the goods and services which are the subject of this action;

| — | Grant registration of the application for Community figurative mark No 007576218 for all goods and services covered by it; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant registration of the application for Community figurative mark No 007576218 for all goods and services covered by it;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs incurred in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present action, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs incurred in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present action, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, representing the shape of a parallelogram, for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 35 to 39 and 41 to 45 (Application No 7 576 218)

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, as the mark applied for has the requisite minimum level of distinctiveness.

---
#### Richard Webber, Respondent, v. Nathan A. Eisler, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Appeal from decision dismissed, with costs. Ho opinion.
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM v. FELIX M. HERNANDEZ, Defendant

Criminal No. 483-76

Superior Court of Guam

October 21, 1976

ABBATE, *Judge*

DECISION

Defendant brings before this Court a Motion to Dismiss filed 13 September, 1976 to which the People file no memorandum of opposition. Defendant alleges that the charges against him, violations of Section 273(a) of Penal Code of Guam, are fatally defective in three (3) respects: (1) Charging a crime beyond the statute of limitations provided by Guam Penal Code Section 801; (2) Denying Defendant his right to a fair trial because the information, being indefinite, prevents Defendant from preparing a *352defense; (3) Using the disjunctive “or” instead of the conjunctive “and” thus making the acts charged uncertain.

On 21 September, 1976 the Prosecution amended its information, rendering the above motion unnecessary. Therefore, the Defendant’s motion is dismissed as moot.

Submit order.
### §1692o. Exemption for State regulation

The Bureau shall by regulation exempt from the requirements of this subchapter any class of debt collection practices within any State if the Bureau determines that under the law of that State that class of debt collection practices is subject to requirements substantially similar to those imposed by this subchapter, and that there is adequate provision for enforcement.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title VIII, §817, as added Pub. L. 95–109, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 883; amended Pub. L. 111–203, title X, §1089(1), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2092.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–203 substituted "Bureau" for "Commission" in two places.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the designated transfer date, see section 1100H of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 552a of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Effective Date

Section effective upon the expiration of six months after Sept. 20, 1977, see section 819 of Pub. L. 90–321, as added by Pub. L. 95–109, set out as a note under section 1692 of this title.
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 Sunburst Acquisitions VI, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form  10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2006  (the
"Report"), I,  Michael R. Quinn, Principal Executive Officer  and  Principal
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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Michael R. Quinn

-----------------------
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
Date: August 3, 2007
Exhibit 11.0 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
             For the Six Months and Three Months Ended September 30, 1999
             (UNAUDITED)


Statement regarding computation of earnings per share for the six months ended
September 30, 1999.

                Income         Weighted Average Shares      Per-Share Amount
              --------------------------------------------------------------

Net Income      17,961                  91,872                    $0.20
                ------                  ------                    -----

Statement regarding computation of earnings per share for the three months ended
September 30, 1999.

                Income         Weighted Average Shares      Per-Share Amount
              --------------------------------------------------------------

Net Income      20,354                  91,997                    $0.22
                ------                  ------                    -----

Note: Basic earnings per share are computed based upon the weighted average
common shares outstanding for periods subsequent to the Building and Loan's
conversion to a stock savings bank on September 22, 1998. Earnings per share for
1999 are not meaningful.


                                       14
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of August TechnologyCorporation (the “Company”), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of hisknowledge:

 

(1)           The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date: August 5, 2005

 
|   | /s/ Jeff L. O’Dell  |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Jeff L. O’Dell      |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/ Stanley D.  Piekos   |   |
|   | Stanley D.  Piekos       |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |
|        |                          |        |  |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to August Technology Corporation and will be retained by August Technology Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Southern Wrest SO-356 

Experiment Starron - - - - - - - - 

N~vemBer I988 - - 

Merchantabie Volume Tabie for Uear in Puerlo Rlco 

- Jchn ' rrraneis 

LiTER-ATURE CITED
# C_2010221EN.01006102.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/61

---

Action brought on 24 June 2010 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-49/10)

()

2010/C 221/98

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision communicated to the applicant on 11 May 2009 insofar as it essentially obstructed the attempted amicable settlement of the matter by rejecting by implication the claim for reimbursement of medical expenses for laser therapy treatment, and an order that the defendant pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000 together with interest, monetary inflation to be taken into account in fixing the amount awarded.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the measure communicated by e-mail on 11 May 2010. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the measure communicated by e-mail on 11 May 2010.

| — | Order the EIB to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000, expenditure for the laser therapy treatment undergone in 2007, together with compensation for monetary inflation and interest on the amount awarded. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EIB to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000, expenditure for the laser therapy treatment undergone in 2007, together with compensation for monetary inflation and interest on the amount awarded.

| — | Order the EIB to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EIB to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---
Enclosure Page 2

FCIC Interpretation of Procedure

Risk Management Agency Interpretation of Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Provisions:

Subject: Request dated December 16, 2020, to the Risk Management Agency for an interpretation 

for the of the 2017 Whole-Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) Pilot Policy regarding whether section 

9(g) authorizes an Approved Insurance Provider (AIP) to adjust the expanded operation factor, 

expected price and/or yields on a WFRP policy at any time, including, but not limited to, after 

coverage has attached, after the issuance of a schedule of insurance, after the submission of a claim by 

the insured, and even after payment has been tendered if it is subsequently determined that the 

information upon which said payment was made is incorrect or otherwise not supported by verifiable 

records.

The relevant policy provision provided by the requester is section 9(g):

9. Coverage

(g) We will reduce your approved revenue and any indemnity or deny coverage at any time we 

become aware that the information used to determine your approved revenue is incorrect or 

is not supported by verifiable records. Your premium will be adjusted to reflect any revised 

approved revenue.

Interpretation Submitted by Requestor(s)

The requester’s interpretation is that AIPs not only have the authority – but an affirmative duty – to 

adjust the expanded operation factor, expected price, and/or yields on a WFRP policy at any time, 

including, but not limited to, after coverage has attached, after the issuance of a schedule of insurance, 

after the submission of a claim by the insured, and even after payment has been tendered if it is 

subsequently determined that the information upon which said payment was made is incorrect or 

otherwise not supported by verifiable records.

The duty to execute the program is a continuing one, and this duty may not be abrogated, nor waived. 

To that point, the preamble to the subject WFRP policy states, in part, “The provisions of the policy 

may not be waived or varied in any way by us, our insurance agent or any other contractor or 

employee of ours, or any employee of the United States Department of Agriculture.”

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Determination

FCIC agrees with the requester’s interpretation that section 9(g) of the 2017 WFRP Pilot Policy

requires an AIP to adjust the expanded operation factor, expected price, and/or yields on a WFRP 

policy at any time, including, but not limited to, after coverage has attached, after the issuance of a 

schedule of insurance, after the submission of a claim by the insured, and even after payment has been

made if it is subsequently determined that the information, such as the expanded operation factor, 

expected price, and/or yields, is deteremined incorrect or otherwise not supported by verifiable 

records.

In accordance with section 33(a)(1) of the WFRP Pilot Policy, this FCIC interpretation is generally 

applicable and binding in any mediation or arbitration. In accordance with section 33(a)(1), any 

appeal of this interpretation must be in accordance with 7 C.F.R. part 11.
**Exhibit 31.2** **Chief    Financial Officer Certification**     I, Robert Giambrone, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 of KBW, Inc. (the    “Registrant”);     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 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) [Intentionally omitted.]     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 quarterly 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    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 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 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 control 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: November 13, 2007 /s/  ROBERT    GIAMBRONE    Robert Giambrone    Chief Financial Officer