alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
January 14, 2014

Mr. Pierre Doyon

4985 Rainbow Gulch Trail Colorado Springs, Colorado 80924

Dear Mr. Doyon:

This is in response to your November 29, 2013 letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA-2013-1022) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to amend the “Age 65” rule to include part 91, Subpart K and part 135 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

As you have pointed out, the FAA raised the maximum age for pilots involved in part 121 operations in conjunction with changes adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and as directed by the U.S. Congress in the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act. Your proposal to apply this age limit to pilots operating under parts 91, Subpart K and 135 would differ from the current purview of the “Age 65” rule in two aspects. First, there is currently no age restriction for pilots operating under parts 91, Subpart K and 135, so your proposal would be an enactment of an age ceiling where there was none, as opposed to “loosening” an established age ceiling in the “Age 65” rule. Secondly, neither Congress, in its oversight of aviation safety, nor the ICAO has expressed a need to establish an age ceiling for pilots operating under parts 91, Subpart K or 135. It has been the FAA’s policy to mirror ICAO standards unless a safety issue warrants filing a difference from ICAO practices.

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73, the FAA must use the following criteria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise;

2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and

3) The resources the FAA has available to address these issues.

The FAA would be happy to examine the feasibility of extending the “Age 65” rule to encompass pilots operating under parts 91, Subpart K and 135 if sufficient data were to2 become available indicating that this group of pilots is disproportionately involved in

accidents and incidents.

Therefore, in absence of this data, the FAA will take no further action on this petition, and Docket No. FAA-2013-1022 is being closed. If I can be of further assistance to you, please

feel free to contact the office of Fli ght Standards Services at (202) 267-8166.

Sincerely,

/s/

Leslie H. Smith Manager, Air Transportation Division Flight Standards Service
#### John M. Deegan, an Infant, etc., Appellant, v. Homer C. Newton, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, without costs, without prejudice, however, to a renewal thereof in the event the appeal is not speedily prosecuted. Present — Jenks, P. J., Burr, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
#### Everett J. Konz, Plaintiff, v. Theodore Bedell, Jr., as Comptroller of Nassau County, et al., Defendants.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 777.]
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO §906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Michaels Stores, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the Company), for the period ended April 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned
officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers 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 Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report. Date: June 9, 2005
    
    /s/ R. Michael RouleauR. Michael RouleauPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Jeffrey N. BoyerJeffrey N. BoyerExecutive Vice PresidentChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
§ 4.802 Definitions. ( a ) The definitions set forth in § 17.12 of this title apply also to this subpart.
( b ) *Director* means the Director, Office for Equal Opportunity, Department of the Interior.
( c ) *Administrative law judge* means an administrative law judge designated by the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3105 and 3344.
( d ) *Notice* means a notice of hearing in a proceeding instituted under Part 17 of this title and these regulations.
( e ) *Party* means a recipient or applicant; the Director; and any person or organization participating in a proceeding pursuant to § 4.808.
Exhibit 3.5





AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION OF SERIES C CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK





Ross Miller


Secretary of state


204 N Carson St Ste1


Carson City Nevada 89701-4299


775-684-5708


Website: www.nvsos.gov











Certificate of Amendment


(Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390)





Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation


For Nevada Profit Corporations


(Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390- after issuance of stock)








1.  Name of corporation:


Global Entertainment Holdings, Inc.





2.  The articles have been amended as follows (provide article number, if available)





Article No. 4


Section 1. Authorized Shares


The Board of Directors authorizes the issuance of and the designation and preferences and relative participating, optimal, and other special rights and qualifications, limitations and restrictions of a series of Preferred Stock consisting of six million five hundred thousand (6,500,000) shares, $0.001 par value, to be designated “Series C Convertible Preferred Stock” (the Series C Convertible Preferred Stock).





3.  The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation* have voted in favor of the amendment is 58.7%





4.  Effective date of filing (optional)    11/8/08





5.  Signature (require)





/s/ Terry Gabby


*If any proposed amendment would alter or change any preference or any relative or other right given to any class or series of outstanding shares, then the amendment must be approved by the vote, in addition to the affirmative vote otherwise required, of the holders of shares representing a majority of the voting power of each class or series affected by the amendment regardless to limitations or restrictions on the voting power thereof.





IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and submit with the proper fees may cause this filing to be rejected.
NO. 07-02-0343-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	JANUARY 8, 2003

	______________________________

	C. JASON WAGNER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND D/B/A

	THE WAGCO CO., APPELLANT

	V.

	T. J. MEARS AND ZONA MEARS, INDIVIDUALLY AND

	IN THEIR CAPACITY AS TRUSTEES FOR THE 

	MEARS FAMILY LIVING TRUST, APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

	NO. 48,464-C; HONORABLE PATRICK A. PIRTLE, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, SJ.1

	In this proceeding, appellant Jason Wagner, individually and d/b/a The Wagco Co., appealed a judgment in favor of appellees T.J. Mears and Zona Mears, individually and in their capacity as trustees for the Mears Family Living Trust.

	However, the parties have now filed a motion in which they certify that they have settled and compromised all claims and controversies between them and neither of them desires to pursue the appeal.  The motion is in proper form and is filed before this court has rendered any opinion in the case.

	 Accordingly, the parties’ motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).  Having dismissed the appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and the mandate will issue forthwith.

							John T. Boyd

							Senior Justice
**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**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SpectraLink Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,John H. Elms, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify tothe best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periodspresented therein.
| /s/   JOHN  H. ELMS     |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| John H. Elms                           |
| President and  Chief Executive Officer |
| August 9,  2006                   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to SpectraLink Corporation and will be retained by SpectraLinkCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request. This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, is not deemed filed with the Securities andExchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filingof SpectraLink Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933 or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report),irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNITEL
VIDEO, INC. FORM 10Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDING MAY 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                              91
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                       354
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,232
<PP&E>                                         104,180
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,402
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,213
<BONDS>                                         41,909
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,757
<SALES>                                         33,899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,899
<CGS>                                           29,277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,277
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,469
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (75)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,475
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,847)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        38
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,885)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,885)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.43)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VAALCO Energy, Inc. (the “**Company**”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), I, Robert L. Gerry, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

Dated:May 9, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6344

JAMES CLIFF FORD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STEVENSON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (6:06-cv-1217)

Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 22, 2007

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Cliff Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Samuel

Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Cliff Ford seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Ford that failure to timely file

specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Ford filed a “motion to object” in which he

failed to identify any specific error in the magistrate judge’s

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. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Ford has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

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
479270.1 

Add at the end of Article 8(a): 

The Contracting Officer shall adjust the amount of Project Water for which payment is required 

to the extent of any reduction in diversions of Project Water made in accordance with the water 

conservation provisions of Article 29(e). 

Add to Article 29: 

(e) In order to provide incentives for water conservation, the Contracting Officer may reduce 

the amount of Project Water for which payment by the Contractor is required under 

Article 8(a) in accordance with the provisions of this Article 29(e). 

1. On or before February 15 of any Water Year, the Contractor may file with 

Reclamation an Offer to Reduce Project Water Use, hereinafter referred to as 

Offer. The Offer shall specify the maximum quantity of Project Water to be 

diverted by the Contractor for each month that Project Water is available for that 

Water Year under this Settlement Contract. The Contracting Officer shall provide 

the Contractor with a decision, in writing, to the Offer on or before March 15 of 

that Water Year. The dates specified in this Article 29 (e)(1) can be changed if 

mutually agreed to, in writing, by the Contractor and Contracting Officer. 

2. If Reclamation accepts the Offer, the Contractor’s payment obligation under 

Article 8(a)(1) shall be reduced to the maximum quantity of Project Water to be 

diverted by the Contractor as specified in the Offer. The Contractor shall not 

divert Project Water in excess of the monthly quantities set forth in the Offer: 

Provided, however, if the Contractor’s diversions of Project Water exceed the 

monthly quantities set forth in the Offer, the Contractor shall pay to Reclamation 

the applicable Rates and Charges plus a penalty assessment equal to the 

applicable Rates and Charges, unadjusted for ability to pay, for each acre-foot of 

Project Water diverted in excess of the quantities set forth in the Offer. 

3. If Reclamation decides not to accept the Offer, the Contractor’s payment 

obligation will remain as specified in Article 8(a)(1).
# OUTPUT

Schedule A-6BPage &P of &N
#### Samuel Kutay, Respondent, v. Freida Otner,, Appellant.

Present — Close, P. J.,, Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.
### **Subchapter B—Occupational Tax**

Sec.
4411.
Imposition of tax.
4412.
Registration.
4413.
Certain provisions made applicable.
4414.
Cross references.
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



                                  CERTIFICATION



I, Kenneth McCullum, certify that:


1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
         Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
         of the periods included in the year covered by this annual report of
         Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2005-066;

2.       Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
         whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
         report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the
         pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
         reports is included in these reports;

4.       I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
         depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar
         agreement, and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review
         required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports,
         the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under
         that agreement; and

5.       The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
         trustee's or depositor's compliance with the minimum servicing or
         similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent
         public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the
         Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
         procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar
         agreements, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

                  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents



Date: August 9, 2005

/s/ Kenneth McCullum

Kenneth McCullum
Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
### §1443. Foreign tax-exempt organizations

#### (a) Income subject to section 511

In the case of income of a foreign organization subject to the tax imposed by section 511, this chapter shall apply to income includible under section 512 in computing its unrelated business taxable income, but only to the extent and subject to such conditions as may be provided under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

#### (b) Income subject to section 4948

In the case of income of a foreign organization subject to the tax imposed by section 4948(a), this chapter shall apply, except that the deduction and withholding shall be at the rate of 4 percent and shall be subject to such conditions as may be provided under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 358; Pub. L. 91–172, title I, §§101(j)(22), 121(d)(2)(C), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 528, 547; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" in two places.

1969—Pub. L. 91–172, §101(j)(22), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 91–172, §121(d)(2)(C), substituted "income" for "rents" after "this chapter shall apply to".

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

#### Effective Date of 1969 Amendment

Amendment by section 101(j)(22) of Pub. L. 91–172 effective Jan. 1, 1970, see section 101(k)(1) of Pub. L. 91–172, set out as an Effective Date note under section 4940 of this title.

Amendment by section 121(d)(2)(C) of Pub. L. 91–172 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1969, see section 121(g) of Pub. L. 91–172, set out as a note under section 511 of this title.