alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
December 15, 2015

Dear Mr. Barrington:

This letter is to inform you th at the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 3575). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Your petition references the material(s) list ed below, however the material(s) was/were not submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o Motion Picture and Television Op erations Manual (MPTOM).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information has b een submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary in formation), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exe mptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by 12/29/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely, /S/ Program Analyst
<PAGE>   1
 
                         [KPMG PEAT MARWICK LETTERHEAD]
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
The Board of Directors
Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc.:
 
     We consent to the use of our report dated February 26, 1999, related to the
consolidated balance sheets of Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of January 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended January 31, 1999,
incorporated by reference herein, and to the references to our firm under the
heading "Experts" in the Registration Statement (Form S-4) dated May 18, 1999.
 
                                          /s/ KPMG LLP
 
Detroit, Michigan
May 18, 1999
Fourth Department,

January, 1948.

(January 14, 1948.)

#### Irving K. Baxter, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Motion No. 1284.)

—■ Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. All concur. (The order denies claimant’s motion for permission to file a claim against the State for assault and battery, false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, pursuant to section 10 of the Court of Claims Act.) Present — MeCurn, Larkin, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [189 Mise. 525.]
#### James King, as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. New York Transportation Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Scott and Dowling, JJ.
94°32' 94°31' 94°30' 94°29' 94°28' 

39°00' 

39°01' 

39°02' 

39°03' 

39°04' 

39°05' 

39°06' 

39°07' 

39°08' 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Prepared in cooperation with the 

CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 

SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 2006–5089

Missouri River backwater inundation of 746.9 feet—PLATE 5.9

Kelly, B.P., Rydlund, P.H., Jr., 2006

Estimated Flood-Inundation Mapping for the Lower Blue River in Kansas City, Missouri, 2003–05

Estimated Flood-Inundation Mapping for the Lower Blue River in Kansas City, Missouri, 2003–05

By

Brian P. Kelly and Paul H. Rydlund, Jr.

2006

* #

* #

* #

* #

A B C D E F 

13 

12 

11 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Base from Jackson County Management Information Systems digital data, 1:833, 2003 

 and City of Kansas City, Missouri, digital data, 1:833, 2004

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

* #

U.S. Geological Survey 

stage gage at 12th Street 

Kansas City, Missouri, 

ALERT gage at Blue Parkway 

National Weather Service

flood-forecast location 

at Highway 40

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow 

gage at Stadium Drive 

Kansas City, Missouri, 

ALERT gage at 63rd Street 

I - 435 

I-435 

Hawthorne Road 

 Trafficway 

Clary Boulevard 

I-70 

23rd Street 

U S Highway 40 

17th Street 

Road I - 435 

R

a

yto

wn

Coal Mine Road

Van Brunt 

Boulevard

Avenue 

Hard

esty

63rd Steet Brighton

L

e

wis

R

oad

67th

Street

Manchester

Gregory Boulevard

Drive Crest

A

venue

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER 

0 0.5 1 MILE 

FORECAST LOCATION STAGE STAGE ELEVATION 

12TH STREET 32.5 746.9

HIGHWAY 40 25.3 746.9

STADIUM DRIVE 28.6 746.9

BLUE PARKWAY 24.4 746.9

63RD STREET 25.1 746.9

MISSOURI RIVER AT KANSAS CITY 53.3 759.7

MISSOURI RIVER BACKWATER INUNDATION 

WATER DEPTH, IN FEET, AT STAGE ELEVATION 

 OF 746.9 FEET AT THE BLUE RIVER GAGES

 >, greater than

 0 to 1

 >1 to 2

 >2 to 5

 >5 to 10

 >10

LAND SURFACE BELOW RIVER STAGE

 (levee protected or unconnected to river)

STUDY AREA

GAGE OR FLOOD-FORECAST LOCATION

 (ALERT, Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time)

# *

EXPLANATION
### §5303. Statement of policy

It is the policy of the United States that—

(1) the United States and the other major industrialized countries should take steps to continue the process of coordinating monetary, fiscal, and structural policies initiated in the Plaza Agreement of September 1985;

(2) the goal of the United States in international economic negotiations should be to achieve macroeconomic policies and exchange rates consistent with more appropriate and sustainable balances in trade and capital flows and to foster price stability in conjunction with economic growth;

(3) the United States, in close coordination with the other major industrialized countries should, where appropriate, participate in international currency markets with the objective of producing more orderly adjustment of foreign exchange markets and, in combination with necessary macroeconomic policy changes, assisting adjustment toward a more appropriate and sustainable balance in current accounts; and

(4) the accountability of the President for the impact of economic policies and exchange rates on trade competitiveness should be increased.

(Pub. L. 100–418, title III, §3003, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1373.)
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                               |  |                        
|------------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY             |  | COUNTRY OF ORGANIZATION
|                               | 
|Lazard Frères & Co. LLC        |  | U.S.                   
|Lazard Asset Management LLC    |  | U.S.                   
|Lazard & Co., Holdings Limited |  | United Kingdom         
|Lazard & Co., Limited          |  | United Kingdom         
|                               | 
|Lazard Frères SAS              |  | France                 
|Lazard Frères Gestion          |  | France                 
|Lazard Frères Banque SA        |  | France                 
|Maison Lazard SAS              |  | France                 
|                               | 
|Lazard & Co. Srl*              |  | Italy                  
|                               | 
|Lazard Funding Limited LLC     |  | U.S.                   



*Jointly-owned indirectly by Lazard Frères & Co. LLC, Lazard & Co., Holdings Limited and Maison Lazard SAS.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.4


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to  the  use  in  this  Pre-Effective  Amendment  No.  4 to
Registration Statement on Form S-1 of our report dated July 9, 1999, relating to
the financial statements of Universal Commodities Corp. for the ten months ended
October 31, 1996 which appear in such Registration Statement. We also consent to
the references to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration Statement.


/s/ Rubin, Brown, Gornstein & Co. LLP

RUBIN, BROWN, GORNSTEIN & CO. LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
December 30, 1999
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5

                   Consent of Independent Public Accountants



The Board of Directors
SEMCO Energy, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-3 of SEMCO Energy, Inc. of our report dated January 15, 1999, with
respect to the combined statements of financial position of ENSTAR Natural Gas
Company (a division of Seagull Energy Corporation) and Alaska Pipeline Company
(a subsidiary of Seagull Energy Corporation) as of December 31, 1998 and 1997,
and the related combined statements of income and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report appears in
the Form 8-K of SEMCO Energy, Inc. dated November 24, 1999, and to the
reference to our firm under the heading "Experts".




                                                                    /s/ KPMG LLP


Anchorage, Alaska
November 29, 1999
###### Editorial Note on Part 655

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

#### § 655.205 Herding and range livestock job orders.

An employer whose job opportunity has been determined to qualify for the procedures in §§ 655.200 through 655.235 is not required to comply with the job order filing timeframe requirements in § 655.121(a) and (b) or the job order review process in § 655.121(e) and (f). Rather, the employer must submit the job order along with a completed *Application for Temporary Employment Certification,* as required in § 655.215, to the designated NPC for the NPC's review.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicataand collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 19 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
AARON DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v. L.E. BRUCE, Warden, Ellsworth Correctional Facility; CHARLES SIMMONS, Secretary of Correction, Respondents-Appellees. No. 97-3160 (D.C. No. 97-CV-3219) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Mr. Davis is a state inmate and a pro se litigator. He appeals from the district court's denial of habeas relief and refusa l to grant a certificate of appealability. We deny the certificate of appealab ility and dismiss the appeal.
Mr. Davis, a parole violator, filed a pro se compla int alleging the defendants violated his constitutional rights by th eir failure to convert his sentence under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines. B ecause Mr. Davis alleged he was being confined illegally, the district court co rrectly treated his complaint as a request for habeas relief. See Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). The court determined Mr. Davis failed to present his cl aims to the state courts and dismissed his complaint for failure to exhaust. Id.
Mr. Davis appeals this decision asserting a varietyof arguments. Basically, his arguments swirl about his claim that the Kansas authorities have misapplied state law. Giving his appeal the benefit of a libe ral reading, Mr. Davis argues the district court's decision denied him equal protecti on of the law. We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a petition fora writ of habeas corpus on legal grounds. See Davis v. Executive Dir., Dep't of Corrections , 100 F.3d 750, 756 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 828 (1997). But first we must decide whether to issue a certificate of appealability pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Such-3-

a certificate may only be issued upon a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Mr. Davis has not met thi s standard.
Mr. Davis misperceives the law and his claims on ap peal lack merit. Mr. Davis fails to realize the federal courts will not consider his claims until he has exhausted them in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Mr. Davis sets forth no reasons requiring this court to invoke an exception to the rule requiring exhaustion.
We deny the certificate of appealability and dismis s the appeal for substantially the same reasons set forth by the dis trict court in its order, a copy being attached hereto.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court
WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge
### §4863. Use of cleared personnel to ensure secure maintenance and repair of diplomatic facilities abroad

#### (a) Policies and regulations

The Secretary of State shall develop and implement policies and regulations to provide for the use of persons who have been granted an appropriate United States security clearance to ensure that the security of areas intended for the storage of classified materials or the conduct of classified activities in a United States diplomatic mission or consular post abroad is not compromised in the performance of maintenance and repair services in those areas.

#### (b) Study and report

The Secretary of State shall conduct a study of the feasibility and necessity of requiring that, in the case of certain United States diplomatic facilities abroad, no contractor shall be hired to perform maintenance or repair services in an area intended for the storage of classified materials or the conduct of classified activities unless such contractor has been granted an appropriate United States security clearance. Such study shall include, but is not limited to, United States facilities located in Cairo, New Delhi, Riyadh, and Tokyo. Not later than 180 days after February 16, 1990, the Secretary of State shall report the results of such study to the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

(Pub. L. 99–399, title IV, §415, as added Pub. L. 101–246, title I, §133(a), Feb. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 32.)
Ue^j%>. (!Wfc

^Mu9tJ^ly QZk&x^ $^

c^p^-- sk&tSoL Jpn&t&- iA- J&W^

cfe^_:u3^4JL

_ite^J>±t

COURT OF CRI1NAL/p^S

SEP 16 20111 &ca&i

Ab#Acostar6^^ J^JS±

<£$ ,/W M/<s, Ilk*- A Juy**£

J)m&&i

(yWdwemjL

^ v _ ^_.._ ^M^JJL-JAM^m^ £U£f£&b&&L\s)J^

iBo^xeXj^^-^^g^^^ jQv^PcV off&o ^

u)c^ ir&Qj>^-tf(^ ^ ^le^a^j^^y^

no
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF BLACKROCK KELSO CAPITAL CORPORATION



|                       |  |             
|---------------------- |  | ------------
|Name                   |  | Jurisdiction
|BKC ARS Blocker, Inc.  |  | Delaware    
|BKC ASW Blocker, Inc.  |  | Delaware    
|BKC DVSH Blocker, Inc. |  | Delaware    
|BKC MTCH Blocker, Inc. |  | Delaware    

In addition, we may be deemed to
control certain portfolio companies identified as Controlled Investments in footnote (g) to the Schedule of Investments at December 31, 2009 included in the Financial Statements portion of BlackRock Kelso Capital
Corporations Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.
GENERAL EXAS

Honorable J. D, Crow CountyAttorney .HemphillCounty Box 216 Canadian, Texas 79014 OpinionNo. C-616 Ret Authority of county attorney to bring removal proceedings against the city attorney of Dear Mr. Crow: a general law city.

You have requested our opinion concerningyour au-. thority to bring removalproceedings against a city attorney of a city incorporatedunder the general laws of the State of Texas. Article 1006, Vernon's Civil Statutes, applicable to general law cities,provides as follows:

"The city council shallhave power to remove any officer for incompetency,corruption,misconduct ormalfeasance in office, after due notice and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. The city council shall also have power at any time to remove any officer of the corporation elected by them,by resolutiondeclaratory of its want of confidence in said officer;provided that two-thirds of the aldermen electedvote in favor of said resolution." In Attorney General's Opinionm-1398 (1962), it was held that it was not the duty of the county attorney or distrlct attorney to institute a suit for removal of an official of the governing body of a city incorporatedunder the general laws of Texas, We are not aware of any constitutional or statutoryprovision authorizing either the county attorney, district attorney or Attorney General to bring removal proceedings against an official of a city incorporatedunder the general laws of the State of Texas. Therefore, it is our opinion that theprovisiosns -2992-Hon. J. D. Crow, page 2 (C-616)

of Article 1006, Vernon's Civil Statutes, is the exclusive removal statute for city officials of general law cities. You are thereforeadvised thatyou do not have authority to bring removalproceedings against a city attorney of a general law city. For a discussion of thepowers of the county attorney and Attorney General to institute ousterproceedings, see Garcia v. Laughlin, 1 5 Tex. 261, 28 ;z; (1956),and State v. .Harney,162 .?S.W.2d S.W.2d 55 (19 2), error

.,w.0.m. In view of our answer, we are not authorized to advise you as to whether a city attorney appointed pursuant to theprovisions of Article 977, Vernon's Civil Statutes, is an officerwithin themeaning ofArticle 988, Vernon's Civil~Statutes,nor other related questions, in view of the provisions of Article 4399, Vernon's Civil Statutes. SUMMARY A county attorney is not authorized to bring ousterproceedingsagainst a city attorney of a city incorporatedunder the general laws of the State of Texas. Very trulyyours, WAGGONER CARR Attorney General

Assistant APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman Malcolm Quick Phillip Crawford Gordon Houser Pat Bailey APPROVED FOR TBE ATTORREY GENERAL By: T. B Wright

-2993-
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 130.76

 130.78

 130.67

 130.87

 130.88

 131.01

 131.01

 130.93

 130.96

 130.92

 130.85

 130.79

 130.94

 130.92

 130.46

 130.35

 130.79

 130.79

 130.73

 130.43

 130.16

 130.11

 130.54

 130.75

 130.74

 130.75

 131.00

 130.77

 130.98

 130.93

 130.84

 663

 665

 652

 675

 676

 691

 691

 682

 685

 680

 673

 666

 683

 680

 629

 618

 666

 666

 659

 626

 597

 592

 637

 662

 660

 662

 690

 664

 688

 682

 671

STORAGE

-3

+2

-13

+23

+1

+15

+0

-9

+3

-5

-7

-7

+17

-3

-51

-11

+48

+0

-7

-33

-29

-5

+45

+25

-2

+2

+28

-26

+24

-6

-11

CHANGE

571

586

621

637

626

617

589

592

609

609

606

572

536

496

477

522

541

520

511

395

318

312

333

317

332

345

392

414

475

491

520

INFLOW

 44

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

PUTAH

 528

 541

 584

 581

 581

 565

 545

 553

 563

 568

 566

 532

 483

 454

 459

 484

 473

 476

 471

 369

 290

 271

 266

 260

 289

 300

 334

 383

 419

 450

 482

PUTAH

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 0

 0

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

C.F.S.

 .18

 .18

 .20

 .14

 .19

 .31

 .30

 .36

 .31

 .31

 .27

 .31

 .27

 .27

 .29

 .28

 .34

 .29

 .26

 .09

 .07

 .16

 .17

 .33

 .27

 .30

 .27

 .30

 .21

 .30

 .31

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .57

 .54

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-SOLANO PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2002 RUN DATE: 06/18/2002

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +5 15,482 14,120 1,334 29 7.84 1.11

ACRE-FEET +5 30,709 28,007 2,646 58

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

PUTAH CREEK 2,646

PUTAH SOUTH CANAL 28,007

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 1.11

JULY 1, 2001 23.66

 666

LAKE SOLANO DAILY OPERATIONS

SOUTH CREEK
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



     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of First
Keystone Corporation (the "Corporation") for the period ended June
30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, J. Gerald Bazewicz, President and CEO, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

    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 Corporation as of and for the period
        covered by the Report.



                                  /s/ J. Gerald Bazewicz
                                  J. Gerald Bazewicz
                                  President and CEO


August 7, 2006


                                27
### §7104e. Preventing future trafficking in the United States through receipt of complaints abroad

#### (a) In general

The Secretary of State shall ensure that each diplomatic or consular post or other mission designates an employee to be responsible for receiving information from—

(1) any person who was a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons (as such term is defined in section 7102(14) 1 of this title) while present in the United States; or

(2) any person who has information regarding a victim described in paragraph (1).

#### (b) Provision of information

Any information received pursuant to subsection (a) shall be transmitted to the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Department of Homeland Security, and to any other relevant Federal agency for appropriate response. The Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the head of any other such relevant Federal agency shall establish a process to address any actions to be taken in response to such information.

#### (c) Assistance from foreign governments

The employee designated for receiving information pursuant to subsection (a) should coordinate with foreign governments or civil society organizations in the countries of origin of victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons, with the permission of and without compromising the safety of such victims, to ensure that such victims receive any additional support available.

(Pub. L. 115–425, title I, §102, Jan. 8, 2019, 132 Stat. 5474.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 7102(14) of this title, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), was redesignated section 7102(16) of this title by Pub. L. 115–427, §2(1), Jan. 9, 2019, 132 Stat. 5503.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2018, and not as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 which comprises this chapter.

1 See References in Text note below.