alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION · WASHINGTON, D.C.
Essential AirService at ADAK, ATKA, and NIKOLSKI, ALASKA ) ) ) ) DocketOST-2000-8556 ) DocketOST-1995-363 ) ) _u_n_d_er_4_9

__**U_.s_.c~.§~41_7_3_1_e_t._s_e~q~·--** _________)

REQUEST OF PENINSULAAIRWAYS, INC. FORAN EXTENSION

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to: Danny Seybert Scott Bloomquist PENINSULAAIRWAYS, INC. 6100 Boeing Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99502

March 1, 2012 Robert E. Cohn Patrick R. Rizzi Hogan Lovells US LLP 555 131 h Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 637-4999/5659 robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com Counsel for PENINSULAAIRWAYS, INC.BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.
Essential AirService at ADAK, ATKA, and NIKOLSKI, ALASKA ) ) ) ) DocketOST-2000-8556 ) DocketOST-1995-363 ) ) March 1, 2012**_u_n_d~er_4_9_U~.S_.c~·~§~4_1_7~3_1_e~t._s_e~q~·--** _________)

REQUEST OF PENINSULAAIRWAYS, INC. FOR AN EXTENSION
Peninsula Airways, Inc. ("PenAir") hereby requests a two-week extension, until March 23, 2012, to submit a bid proposal for service to Adak and/or Atka, Alaska. PenAir further notifies the Department of Transportation that it will not be submitting a service proposal to continue serving Nikolski, Alaska, beyond the expiration of its current EAS contract.

Under DOT Order 2012-2-8, EAS proposals for Adak, Atka, and Nikolski
are due on March 9, 2012. PenAir is developing EAS proposals for service to Adak and Atka, but it needs a two-week extension in order to prepare detailed, reasonable proposals for the Department's consideration. The two-week extension will give all interested carriers, including PenAir, an opportunity to present the Department with their best and fully developed proposals. At the
same time, since the current EAS contract for these destinations does not expire until the end ofJune 2012, this brief extension will not disadvantage any carrier

I \DC·004721/000002 • 3372202 vIor the communities. Accordingly, for the good cause shown, the Department should grantthe requested extension.

1\DC- 004721/000002 • 3372202vi Respectfully submitted,

Robert E. Cohn Patrick R. Rizzi Hogan Lovells US LLP 555 131 h Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 637-4999/5659 Counselfor PENINSULA AIRWAYS, INC. d/b/a PenAir

2
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-98-33 March 26, 1998

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled these

upcoming meetings to discuss Millstone Station:

ˇ On Tuesday morning, April 7, the NRC’s Special Projects Office

staff will meet with officials of Northeast Utilities, Sargent &

Lundy and Parsons Power Group to discuss the status of the

Independent Corrective Action Verification Program at Millstone

Units 2 and 3. The meeting, which begins at 9:00 a.m., will be

held in the Leland F. Sillin Training Center at the Millstone

site. It is open to the public for observation.

ˇ On Tuesday afternoon, April 7, the Special Projects Office staff,

officials from Northeast Utilities and Little Harbor Consultants

will meet to discuss employee concerns. The 1:00 p.m. meeting in

the Training Center is open to the public for observation.

ˇ On Wednesday morning, April 8, the Special Projects Office staff

will meet with officials of Northeast Utilities to discuss the

status of restart activities at Millstone Station. The meeting,

which is open to the public for observation, begins at 8:30 a.m.

in the Training Center.

ˇ On Wednesday evening, April 8, the Special Projects Office staff

will meet with the public to discuss the status of restart

activities at Millstone. The meeting will be held in the Senior

Citizens Meeting Room in the Municipal Complex, 1000 Hartford

Road in Waterford, Conn. It begins at 7:00 p.m.

#
EXHIBIT 12.1


                          FrontierVision Holdings, L.P.
                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                             (Dollars in thousands)

<TABLE>

                                                                                       For the Period
                                                                                       From Inception
                                          For the Year Ended   For the Year Ended    (April 17, 1995) to
                                           December 31, 1997    December 31, 1996     December 31, 1996
                                               --------             --------                -----

<S>                                            <C>                  <C>                   <C>
Net Loss ..........................            $(52,216)            $(23,801)             $(2,703)
Add (Deduct):
     Income Tax Provision (Benefit)                --                   --                    --
Less: Minority Interest
                                               --------             --------                -----
Pre Tax Income (Loss) .............             (52,216)             (23,801)              (2,703)
Add:  Fixed Charges
     Interest .....................              48,005               23,210                1,451
                                               --------             --------                -----
                                                 48,005               23,210                1,451
                                               --------             --------                -----
                                               $ (4,211)            $   (591)             $(1,252)
                                               ========             ========                =====
Fixed Charges .....................            $ 48,005             $ 23,210              $ 1,451
                                               ========             ========                =====

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
     Charges ......................                 N/A                  N/A                  N/A

Deficiency of Earnings to Fixed
     Charges ......................            $ 52,216             $ 23,801             $  2,703

</TABLE>
#### Ampazzio W. WARREN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jerry W. KILGORE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-7577.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided: March 3, 2006.

Ampazzio W. Warren, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*774PER CURIAM:

Ampazzio W. Warren, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee, 252*F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Warren has not made the requisite showing. 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*
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Ener1, Inc., a Florida corporation (the
Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Jeffrey Seidel, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
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.





/s/ Jeffrey SeidelJeffrey
      SeidelChief
      Financial Officer(Duly
      Authorized Principal Financial Officer and Duly Authorized
      Officer)





November
4, 2010





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Ener1, Inc. and will be retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
#### Reginald H. Sayre, Appellant, v. Progressive Construction and Leasing *956Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
HomeAbout NRCEEO/Civil Rights ProgramEqual Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights Program

# External Civil Rights Program

*Some of the links on this page are to non-NRC servers and websites and are provided solely as a reference for the convenience of users. NRC cannot guarantee the authenticity of documents or the validity of information obtained at these non-NRC websites. See our Site Disclaimer for more information.*

The External Civil Rights Program administers and assesses the Agency’s compliance and enforcement of Federal nondiscrimination laws and regulations to include:  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. In providing federal financial assistance to a wide range of recipients including institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, and private corporations, the NRC ensures that no person is excluded from participation in, denied benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under an NRC federally conducted and federally financially assisted program and/or activities.  Your rights provided under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly states...

** "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance"**.
            - Nondiscrimination in Federally Funded Activities
            - Pre and Post Award Compliance Reviews
            - Limited-English Proficiency (LEP)
            - Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
            - How to File a Compliant of Discrimination by Recipient of NRC Financial Assistance
            - Federal Statutes, Regulations, and Policies

For questions or comments about the NRC’s Civil Rights programs, please Contact Us.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 04, 2023

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Internal Civil Rights Program
          - External Civil Rights Program
          - Contact Us

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Applicable Statutes:

            - Title VI: Race, Color, or National Origin
            - Title IX: Sex Discrimination in Education
            - Executive Order 12250
            - Executive Order 13166

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 04, 2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 CASE NO: 4-20-cv-10069-JLK / Becerra

GERARDO FERNANDEZ and 

KORNPHAT HILDEBRANT,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THAI ISLAND RESTAURANT, LLC, a 

Florida limited liability company, and PHEN

P. FUTTERMAN,

Defendants.

____________________________________________/

NOTICE OF DISCOVERY TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE UNITED STATES

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JACQUELINE BECERRA

The Plaintiffs notify the parties that United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra 

will hold a hearing on the Court’s discovery calendar for December 22, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. 

Specifically, the Plaintiff is requesting the Court address the following discovery issues:

a. Deficiencies in Defendant, Thai Island Restaurant, LLC’s Amended Response to First Set 

of Interrogatories (the Interrogatories and Responses thereto are attached as Exhibit A

and Exhibit B). Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to compel better responses to 

Interrogatory #’s 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

b. Deficiencies in Defendant, Thai Island Restaurant, LLC’s Response to Plaintiff’s First 

Request for Production. The Request for Production is attached as Exhibit C and Thai 

Island Restaurant, LLC’s Response to Request for Production is attached as Exhibit D.

Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to compel RFP #’s 1, 2, 26 and 27.

The Parties should attend the hearing telephonically by calling 1-866-390-1828; the 

access code number is 2046890 followed by the # sign.

Case 4:20-cv-10069-JLK Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully submitted,

s/. Peter Bober, Esq.

FBN: 0122955

Peter@boberlaw.com

BOBER & BOBER, P.A. 

2699 Stirling Road, Suite A-304

Hollywood, FL 33312

Tel: (954) 922-2298 

Fax: (954) 922-5455

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) and Local Rule 7.1A(3)(a), counsel for Plaintiffs certifies 

that he in good faith contacted opposing counsel by email and telephone to address the 

Defendants’ discovery responses. The Plaintiff contacted Defendants promptly about the 

discovery issues on the same day responses were served (October 1, 2020). The Plaintiff spent 

numerous weeks attempting obtain supplemental discovery, however, deficiencies continued

remain. The Defendants, ultimately, agreed to supplement their discovery responses by 

November 11, 2020. On November 11, 2020, Thai Island finally supplemented its 

interrogatories, but it did not supplement its response to Request for Production. 

The supplemental interrogatory responses remained deficient and failed to address 

Plaintiff’s concerns. In a continued effort to narrow the issues, the undersigned contacted 

defense counsel on December 11, 2020 in writing, again 

Also, on December 11, 2020, the Plaintiff sent correspondence in writing to the defense 

counsel in an effort to resolve the discovery issues and obviate the need for a discovery hearing. 

Notwithstanding, no further supplementation has been made (or promised) by the Defendants.

s/. Peter Bober

Fla. Bar. No. 0122955

Case 4:20-cv-10069-JLK Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2020 Page 2 of 2
1 The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2090

___________ Tasha R. Thomas, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Sprint Spectrum, doing business as * Sprint PCS; William Ersey, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 5, 2003 Filed: December 15, 2003

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM Tasha R. Thomas appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude summary judgment was proper for the reasons explained by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
### §117d. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 117d was editorially reclassified as section 6626 of this title.
#### Miehle Printing Press and Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. Amtorg Trading Corporation, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20968

Conference Calendar

 

LOUIS HARVEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KATHY MAXEY; VELMA MONCADA; JOHN JETER,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CV-4196

--------------------

June 18, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louis Harvey, Texas prisoner # 653560, appeals from the

district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We review the

dismissal of a prisoner's complaint as frivolous for abuse of

discretion. See Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir.

1999).
No. 01-20968

-2-

Harvey argues that during a hearing conducted pursuant to

Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), the district

court denied him the appointment of counsel and entertained

unsworn testimony from defense witnesses. We decline to review

Harvey's appointment of counsel claim due to inadequate briefing. 

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

When conducting a Spears hearing, a district court must

ensure that all evidence is authentic and reliable, and witnesses

should be sworn. See Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483

(5th Cir. 1991). The record before us is unclear as to whether

the defense witnesses gave unsworn testimony or, as defendants

claim, were sworn in at the beginning of the day's proceedings. 

Nevertheless, we conclude that Harvey's medical records support

the district court's finding that the defendants were not

deliberately indifferent and that any error was harmless. See

Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1997);

Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 234 (5th Cir. 1995); Farmer

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

Harvey argues in his reply brief that the district court

failed to give him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses

at the Spears hearing. Because we do not consider claims raised

for the first time in a reply brief, we do not address this

issue. See United States v. Prince, 868 F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th

Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED. ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS ARE DENIED.
### §567. Labor-management dispute settlement expenses

Appropriations in this Act or subsequent Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts available for salaries and expenses shall be available for supplies, services, and rental of conference space within the District of Columbia, as the Secretary of Labor shall deem necessary for settlement of labor-management disputes.

(Pub. L. 102–394, title I, §101, Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1798.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

Pub. L. 102–170, title I, §101, Nov. 26, 1991, 105 Stat. 1114.

Pub. L. 101–517, title I, §101, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 2196.

Pub. L. 101–166, title I, §101, Nov. 21, 1989, 103 Stat. 1165.

Pub. L. 100–202, §101(h) [title I, §101], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–256, 1329–263.

Pub. L. 99–500, §101(i) [H.R. 5233, title I, §101], Oct. 18, 1986, 100 Stat. 1783–287, and Pub. L. 99–591, §101(i) [H.R. 5233, title I, §101], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341–287.

Pub. L. 99–178, title I, §101, Dec. 12, 1985, 99 Stat. 1108.

Pub. L. 98–619, title I, §101, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3311.

Pub. L. 98–139, title I, §101, Oct. 31, 1983, 97 Stat. 877.

Pub. L. 97–377, title I, §101(e)(1) [title I, §101], Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1878, 1884.
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-126 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
[EXHIBIT 32.2]


            CERTIFICATION UNDER SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

In  connection  with  the Annual Report of  Med  Gen  ,Inc.  (the
"Issuer")  on  Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September  30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I Paul B. Kravitz, Chairman and Chief
Executive  Officer of the Issuer, certify, pursuant to 18  U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

The  Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or  15(d)  of  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Act  of  1934  (15
U.S.C. 78m or 780(d); and

The  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in  all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results   of
operations of the Issuer.


By: /s/ Jack Chien
   -----------------------------------
   Vice-President, Finance and Chief
   Financial Officer


January 12, 2004
#### § 315.1 Purpose and scope.

Chapter 3 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341-2355) establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of Commerce concerning the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms (TAAF) program. The regulations in this part lay out those responsibilities as delegated to EDA by the Secretary. EDA executes these responsibilities through cooperative agreements that support a network of Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers (TAACs). The TAACs assist Firms in petitioning EDA for certification of eligibility to receive Adjustment Assistance. EDA certifies the eligibility of Firms. The TAACs then provide Adjustment Assistance to Firms through the development and implementation of Adjustment Proposals.

[85 FR 8379, Feb. 14, 2020]