alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
03/22/201 0 15:0 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0001/00 2



# '::? j Oy-mmm m UNITED STATE S DEPARTMEN'l " OF Tl^NSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E OF HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C , I N THE MATTEROF : AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES , INC . § § § § § § 

## J FA

A Docke t No . CP09SW000 6 FAA Cas e 2008SW21028 8 U

- S . Administrativ e Law Judg e Richard C . Goodwi n
NOTIC E O F DEPOSITIO N O F MITCHEL L WAGSTE R Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . §I3.220(j) , pleas e take notic e that th e undersigne d counse l will tak e ih e depositio n upo n ora

J examinatio n ol " Mitchel l Wagslcr , Principal Mainlenanc e Inspector , beginnin g a

i 2p mo n Marc h II , 2010 , a t America n Airlines , Inc. , 433 3 Amo n Carter Boulevard , For t Worth , Texa s 76155 , befor e acertifie d cour

t reporter authorize d to administe r

oaths , fo r al l purpose s permitte d b y federa l rule s an d statutes . Respectfull y submitted . 

# 4-^4 ^ Franci s C . Ilei l America n Airlines , Inc . Legal Departmen t P.O . Bo x 61961 6 MD 567 5 DF W Airport , T

X 75261-961 6 Attorne y fo

r America n Eagl e Airlines , Inc . Dated : Februar

y 26 , 201 003/22/201 0 15:0 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0002/00 2

CERTTTTCATE O F SERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t o n Februar

y 26 , 2010 , acop y o f

th e foregoin g Notic e o f

Depositio n ha s been serve d b y Federal Expres s Priorit y Overnight

deliver y on th e following : Mitchel l Wagster , Principa l Maintenanc e Inspecto r AMRCertificate s Managemen t Offic e 1480 0 Trinit

y Boulevard , Suite 100 For t Worth , Texa s 7615 5 T : 817-684-680 0 F : 817-684-692 0 Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC:-43 0 (U.S . Mai l Only ) Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Wilbu r Wright Building , Suite 2W100 0 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , SW, , Wiishington , D C 2059 1 Ren aM . Price , Attorne y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Southwes t Regio n Offic e o f tli e Regiona

l Counsel , ASW- 7 260 1 Meacha

mBlvd . For t Worth , Texa s 7613 7 rena . m . pr i cc(a)faa . go v T : 817-222-506 8 F : 817-222-594 5

is aA . Paparelli , Paralegal
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.2

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 Annual Report
on Form 20-F of Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. (the Company) for the period
ending December 31, 2003 (the Report), I, Naamit Salomon, 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 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.

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: June 30, 2004

|/s/ Naamit Salomon
Naamit Salomon
Vice President, Finance
(Principal Financial Officer) |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 



---

---
### EDF transmission and storage paper

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Zimmerle,Dan" < Dan.Zimmerle@colostate.edu >

Date: July 21, 2015 at 8:13:32 AM EDT

To: "Weitz, Melissa" < Weitz.Melissa@epa.gov >, "James Bradbury

( James.Bradbury@Hq.Doe.Gov )" < James.Bradbury@Hq.Doe.Gov >

Subject: FW: Your ACS manuscript acs.est.5b01669 has been made open access

For your reference, here is a link to the paper. If you can forward within your teams, I would appreciate

it.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Daniel Zimmerle

970

‐ 581

‐ 9945 (cell)

dan.zimmerle@colostate.edu

Scheduling: Contact Jacqueline Vance at Jacqueline.Vance@colostate.edu

Senior Researcher & Director, Electric Power System Laboratory

Personal Page: http://energy.colostate.edu/p/dan

‐ zimmerle.html

Smart Village Microgrids: http://energy.colostate.edu/p/svm

Energy Institute: http://energy.colostate.edu/

From: support@services.acs.org [ mailto:support@services.acs.org ]

Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:01 AM

To: Zimmerle,Dan

Cc: dzimmerle@comcast.net

Subject: Your ACS manuscript acs.est.5b01669 has been made open access



### Dear Prof. Daniel Zimmerle,

Your published article

Methane Emissions from the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage System in the United States

was purchased into open access and is now openly av ailable to all readers under the terms of the

AuthorChoice license.

If you have questions regarding th is purchase, please reach out to support@services.acs.org

. Thank you for publishing with ACS.

Best regards,

Darla Henderson, Ph.D.

Asst. Director, Open Access Programs

American Chemical Society
#### William L. Dykes, Respondent, *v.*The Wabash, St Louis & Pacific Ry. Co., Appellant.

March 30, 1885.

The appeal dismissed because of failure of appellant to file a statemen and brief as required by the statute.

Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court, Host. G-eo. W Dunn, Judge.

*Appeal dismissed.*

W. H. Blodgett, for the appellant.

J. M. Lowe, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Hall, J.

The appellant having failed to file a statement and brief as required by the statute, the appeal in this case is dismissed.

All concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

          - [Dockets OST-2004-17311 and OST-2004-17312] 

# AGENCY:

Department of Transportation. 

# ACTION:

Notice of order to show cause (2004-10-6). 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Omega Air Holdings, LLC d/b/a Focus Air fit, willing, and able, and awarding it certificates of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to engage in interstate and foreign charter air transportation of property and mail. 

# DATES:

Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than October 28, 2004. 

# ADDRESSES:

Objections and answers to objections should be filed in Dockets OST-2004-17311 and OST-2004-17312 and addressed to Docket Operations (M-30, Room PL-401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. William M. Bertram, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-1062. 

Dated: October 14, 2004. 

Karan K. Bhatia, 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 04-23543 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
---

> Total Year Financial Summary
> 
> 2002
>     2001
>     2000
>     1999
>     1998A$m
>     A$m
>     A$m
>     A$m
>     A$mSales revenue
>     20,196
>     18,679
>     19,343
>     17,571
>     16,703Total  revenue (including interest)
>     20,928
>     23,086
>     20,567
>     18,218
>     17,288EBITDA(1)
>     9,483
>     9,834
>     8,563
>     8,351
>     7,375EBIT(2)
>     6,216
>     6,963
>     5,917
>     5,849
>     5,053Profit before income tax expense
>     5,446
>     6,297
>     5,349
>     5,320
>     4,468Net profit after minorities
>     3,661
>     4,058
>     3,677
>     3,486
>     3,004Dividends
>     2,830
>     2,445
>     2,316
>     4,247
>     1,802Total Assets
>     37,597
>     37,473
>     30,339
>     27,682
>     26,470Gross Debt
>     13,726
>     13,990
>     9,821
>     7,211
>     7,722Net Debt
>     11,553
>     10,630
>     8,531
>     5,769
>     6,458Shareholders' equity
>     14,106
>     13,722
>     11,602
>     10,294
>     11,079Operating cash flow
>     7,098
>     6,599
>     6,547
>     6,574
>     5,635Investing cash flow
>     (3,258)
>     (6,370)
>     (4,896)
>     (4,064)
>     (3,609)Financing cash flow
>     (3,817)
>     94
>     (1,881)
>     (2,484)
>     (1,808)Net movement in cash
>     23
>     323
>     (230)
>     26
>     218Capital expenditure & investments (including capitalised interest)
>     (3,777)
>     (7,712)
>     (5,428)
>     (4,478)
>     (3,973)Financial Ratios
>     %
>     %
>     %
>     %
>     %Return on average assets
>     17.8
>     21.9
>     21.2
>     22.7
>     20.1Return on average equity(3)
>     26.8
>     32.7
>     33.7
>     29.9
>     28.7Interest cover (times)
>     7.0
>     9.0
>     8.5
>     9.4
>     7.6Gross debt to capitalisation(3) (4)
>     49.3
>     50.5
>     45.8
>     36.9
>     41.1Net debt to capitalisation(3) (5)
>     45.0
>     43.7
>     42.4
>     31.8
>     36.8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1)Net profit before interest received/receivable, interest expense (borrowing costs), depreciation and amortisation and income tax expense.  EBITDA is used as a measure of financial performance by excluding certain variables that affect net profit but which may not directly relate to all financial aspects of the operations of the company.  EBITDA is not a measure of operating income, operating performance or liquidity under Australian GAAP or USGAAP.  Other companies may calculate EBITDA in a different manner to us.
> 
> 
> (2)EBITDA less depreciation and amortisation.
> 
> 
> (3)Excludes the effect of the special dividend of A$2,059 million provided for in the financial statements as at 30 June 1999.
> 
> 
> (4)Based on gross debt (total current and non current borrowings) as a percentage of gross debt plus shareholders' equity.
> 
> 
> (5)Based on net debt (gross debt less interest bearing assets and loans to employees) as a percentage of net debt plus shareholders' equity.

---

| | 
| |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Carlos CORRAL-SANCHEZ, Appellant.

No. 01-3815.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2002.

Decided May 21, 2002.

*292Before BOWMAN, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Carlos Corral-Sanchez pleaded guilty to re-entering the United States illegally after deportation, following his conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court1 sentenced Corral-Sanchez to 46 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has filed a brief arguing that the district court erred in denying Corral-Sanchez a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, on the basis of cultural assimilation.

Counsel’s argument is unreviewable because the district court made a purely discretionary decision not to depart on this basis. *See United States v. Edwards,*225 F.3d 991, 992-93 (8th Cir.2000), *cert. denied,*531 U.S. 1100, 121 S.Ct. 834, 148 L.Ed.2d 715 (2001). Further, following our independent review, *see Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

1

. The HONORABLE ROBERT W. PRATT, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 452

**Question 452:**The following questions refer to the selection and use of a half-mask face piece, as described in Appendix A, "Protection Factors for Respirators":
> 
(a) Footnote "g" of Appendix A states that "this type of respirator is not satisfactory for use where it might be possible (e.g., if an accident or emergency were to occur) for ambient airborne concentrations to reach instantaneous values greater than 10 times the pertinent values in table 1, column 3 of Appendix B...," i.e., the derived air concentrations (DACs) for inhalation. Is this provision intended to apply to the work activity in progress for which the respirator is being used, or is it more broadly applicable to the type of facility or licensed activity? For example, is the statement intended to exclude the use of a half-mask face piece respirator at a nuclear power plant? We believe that the use of half-mask face piece respirators should be permitted with the same limitations as are applied to other respirator types because the use of a half-mask face piece may offer advantages over, for example, a full face piece respirator in some applications by keeping the overall total effective dose equivalent ALARA. This would appear to be in keeping with the intent of §20.1703, Use of Individual Respiratory Protection Equipment, which states that ". . . the licensee may select respiratory protection equipment with a lower protection factor only if such a selection would result in keeping the total effective dose equivalent ALARA."

(b) Footnote "g" requires that ". . . the mask is to be tested for fit prior to use each time it is donned . . ." for the use of half-mask face pieces. Is a negative pressure test an acceptable method to adequately test the respirator prior to use? Such a qualitative test method would seem to be acceptable because it appears that there would be no practical method to accomplish a quantitative test in the field prior to each use.

**Answer:**
> 
(a) This provision is intended to apply to situations in which the ambient airborne concentrations are likely ". . . to reach instantaneous values greater than 10 times the pertinent values in table 1, column 3 of appendix B . . ." The statement is not intended to exclude the use of a half-mask face piece at a nuclear power plant or other licensee facility.

(b) Yes. See NUREG-0041, Section 8.5.2.3, for four acceptable testing methods for field testing of respirator operation (isoamyl acetate, irritant smoke, negative pressure test, and positive pressure test).

(Reference: 10 CFR 20, Appendix A)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7389

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KYLE MORRELL BRIGGS, a/k/a Gangster,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:11-cr-02161-TLW-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kyle Morrell Briggs, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kyle Morrell Briggs appeals the district court’s 

orders denying his motion to compel the Government to file a 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion for reduction of 

sentence and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Briggs, 4:11-cr-02161-TLW-1 (D.S.C. June 25, 2013 & Aug. 20. 

2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-60 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
§ 1.8 Petitions for rulemaking. ( a ) Any interested person may petition the Administrator for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. For purposes of this section, the term *person* includes any member of the public and any entity outside the Federal Executive branch of Government. Each petitioner must: ( 1 ) Submit the petition to the Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, FEMA, 8NE, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472;
( 2 ) Label the petition with the following: “Petition for Rulemaking” or “Rulemaking Petition”;
( 3 ) Set forth the substance of the rule or amendment proposed or specify the rule sought to be repealed or amended;
( 4 ) Explain the interest of the petitioner in support of the action sought; and
( 5 ) Set forth all data and arguments available to the petitioner in support of the action sought.
( b ) FEMA will specify additional methods of submitting rulemaking petitions on its website at *www.fema.gov/about/offices/chief-counsel/rulemaking* and petitioners seeking to confirm whether FEMA has received or responded to a specific rulemaking petition may inquire at *fema-regulations@fema.dhs.gov .* The website may also contain other information about the petition for rulemaking process.
( c ) ( 1 ) FEMA may solicit public comment on the petition in its discretion. If the Administrator finds that the petition contains adequate justification, a rulemaking proceeding will be initiated, or a final rule will be issued as appropriate. If the Administrator finds that the petition does not contain adequate justification, the petition will be denied by letter or other notice, with a brief statement of the ground for denial. The disposition will be posted on *www.regulations.gov* under docket ID FEMA-2022-0011.
( 2 ) The Administrator may consider new evidence at any time; however, FEMA will not consider repetitious petitions for rulemaking.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2107

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Jonathan T. Watkins lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________ Submitted: December 4, 2020 Filed: December 9, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Jonathan T. Watkins appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. His counsel has moved

1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing the district court procedurally erred in applying an enhancement to his base offense level, and Watkins’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. We conclude the district court did not err in applying the sentencing enhancement. See United States v. Kirlin , 859 F.3d 539, 543 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review); U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a)(2) , 4B1.2(a). We also conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness). Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-114 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

(Tuesday, August 5, 1997)

MARTIN NAMED DIRECTOR OF OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

OF OPERATIONAL DATA; ROSS APPOINTED TO THE OFFICE OF

NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH POST

Thomas T. Martin, currently Director of the NRC's Division

of Reactor Program Management, will become the Director of the

Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD).

Mr. Martin will succeed Dr. Denwood F. Ross, Jr., acting

head of AEOD, who has been named Special Assistant to the

Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. Both

appointments are effective August 17.

Mr. Martin has directed the Division of Reactor Program

Management in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

since August 4, 1996. Earlier, he had served as NRC Region I

administrator in King of Prussia, Pa., since 1990. He is a

graduate of Georgia Tech, where he received a bachelor's degree

in electrical engineering. Mr. Martin served seven years in the

Navy and worked in the electric utility industry for four years

before joining the Atomic Energy Commission (NRC's predecessor

agency) in 1974 as a reactor inspector in Region I. Later, he

directed the region's Division of Engineering and Technical

Programs, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, and

Division of Reactor Safety. He was deputy regional administrator

for a year before being appointed as administrator.

Dr. Ross was appointed Acting Director of AEOD in March.

Before that appointment he had served as Deputy Director. Before

joining AEOD, Dr. Ross served as Deputy Director for Research in

the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research from 1981 to 1990. He

has been with the AEC and NRC since January 1967 and has held

many positions of increasingly greater responsibility. He spent

14 years in NRR and has participated in many international

projects.

#
### §9b. Rules and regulations

The Secretary of Labor shall prescribe rules and regulations for the enforcement of sections 9 and 9a of this title.

(Apr. 13, 1934, ch. 118, §3, 48 Stat. 583; Apr. 11, 1935, ch. 59, 49 Stat. 154; June 15, 1937, ch. 349, 50 Stat. 259; Apr. 15, 1939, ch. 71, 53 Stat. 581; Aug. 7, 1946, ch. 770, §1(16), 60 Stat. 867.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This section and sections 9 and 9a of this title comprised sections 1 to 3 of act Apr. 13, 1934, which were to terminate one year after Apr. 13, 1934, pursuant to section 4 of act Apr. 13, 1934, set out as a Codification note under section 9 of this title. Such sections were temporarily extended by acts Apr. 11, 1935, and June 15, 1937, and were made permanent by act Apr. 15, 1939.

#### Amendments

1946—Act Aug. 7, 1946, repealed provisions requiring Secretary of the Interior to make annual reports to Congress.
### SUBCHAPTER C—POSTJUDGMENT REMEDIES

Sec.
3201.
Judgment liens.
3202.
Enforcement of judgments.
3203.
Execution.
3204.
Installment payment order.
3205.
Garnishment.
3206.
Discharge.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David Kalhofer, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

Judgment and order affirmed. Ho opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.; Dowling, J., dissented on the grounds stated in his dissenting memorandum in *People*v. *Swersky (ante,*p. 941), decided herewith.