alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SERVED:· April27,2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC

IN THE MATTER OF STARJET; INC. Docket No. FAA-2014- 1115



### ORDERTO SHOW CAUSE . -**~.** - • •**~** •• • I '

- ,· '-. -. ', \i:**·-~-: ~:·.~~.-** 

# ..**<T:,:.::~**

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") filed a Complaint dated January 6, 2015. Starjet, Inc., (hereinafter "StarjeC) filed a Request for Hearing dated December21, 2014. We served our Procedural Orderon February 19,2015. On March 17,2015,the FAA filed a Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted. Starjet has failed to file an Answerto the Complaint, failed to file a response to our Procedural Orderand failed to respond to the Agency's Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted. · WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows:
I. On orbefore May 8, 2015, Starjet shall file a response to this Order stating why the reliefrequested in the Agency's Motion should not he granted; and 2. On orbefore May.8, 2015, Stru:iet shall answer the Complaint; and 3. On orbefore May 8, 2015, Starjet shall fully comply with our Procedural Order; and 4. Absent full and complete responses to paragraphs I, 2 and 3 hereinabove.**Sta~jet** may be sanctioned including, but not limited to, allegations in the Complaint may be deemed admitted; and/or Starjet may be precluded from introducing any evidence at the hearing otherthan his own testimony; and/or Starjet's Request for Hearing may be dismissed; and/or a DefaultJudgment may be entered against Starjet in the full amount of the fine requested by the Agency in its Complaint.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge
Attachment- Service List

### SERVICE LIST- BY 

### U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WI000 1


### ONE COPY
Pekka Karu, President/Director ofOperations Starjet, Inc., Respondent 

### 26 Washington Blvd., 211d 

### Floor Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 TEL: 310-301-9325 FAX: 310-301-1556 LisaJ. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel 

### Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7 Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region P. 0. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7110 FAX: 310-725-6816
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative La'H'Judge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 Docket No. FAA-2014-1115 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier. use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO. Washington. DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.


### 2
### §8305. Annual report

Not later than 60 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the amount of purchases by the Department of Defense from foreign entities in that fiscal year. The report shall separately indicate the dollar value of items for which this chapter was waived pursuant to—

(1) a reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding described in section 8304(a) of this title;

(2) the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.); or

(3) an international agreement to which the United States is a party.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3833.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 8305 | 41:10b–3. | Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title VIII, §827, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2611; Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title VIII, §846, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1845; Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title VIII, §812, Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2086. |

Section
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL**

**EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY**

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

 

In connection with this amended Quarterly Report of Bekem Metals, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A-1 for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the *"Report"*), I, Yermek Kudabayev, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

| Date:  April 2, 2008 | By: | /s/ Yermek Kudabayev |  
 

Yermek Kudabayev

 

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

  |
|----------------------|-----|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67950-67951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25859]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Unified Abrasive Manufacturers Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 17, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Unified Abrasive 
Manufacturers Association (``UAMA'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade

[[Page 67951]]

Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Unified 
Abrasive Manufacturers Association, Cleveland, OH. The nature and scope 
of UAMA's standards development activities are: UAMA acts as 
secretariat for two ANSI accredited standards committees which develop 
(1) specifications for safety in the use of bonded, coated and loose 
abrasives, excluding natural sandstones, including safety requirements 
for abrasive products, abrasive machines and accessories, and 
requirements for the proper storage, handling and mounting of abrasive 
products; and (2) identification and dimensional standards and standard 
test methods for bonded, coated and loose abrasive in the natural and 
manufactured categories.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-25859 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
* 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. 98-40472

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NOE RAMOS-MORENO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-97-CR-352-1

- - - - - - - - - -

December 9, 1998

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Noe Ramos-Moreno has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED. Counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF B. E. E., A 

JUVENILE,

 

 Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00121-CV

Appeal from the

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 1500872)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s third motion for extension of time within which to file 

the brief until April 15, 2022. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Cheri Shapleigh, the Appellee’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellee’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before April 15, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of March, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
#### § 930.111 OCRM mediation.

The availability of mediation does not preclude use by the parties of alternative means for resolving their disagreement. In the event a serious disagreement arises, the parties are strongly encouraged to make every effort to resolve the disagreement informally. OCRM shall be available to assist the parties in these efforts.
#### § 25.15 Ex parte contacts.

No party or person (except employees of the ALJ's office) shall communicate in any way with the ALJ on any matter at issue in a case, unless on notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. This provision does not prohibit a person or party from inquiring about the status of a case or asking routine questions concerning administrative functions or procedures.
#### Louis Rubenstein, Respondent, v. Philip Morris Dress Manufacturing Co., Inc., Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. c
### SUBCHAPTER I—ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
OFFICEOFTHEAlTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS **AUSTIN**

Honmablr liarry 8ohults CMtuity Attorney, Dallam County Dalhart, Texar Deer Sir:

**bsariq** date of **Ootabe** your opinion request queetionr you propound thr following

lff would not be entitled to any allowenoe automobile, unlerre he heb first omplfed with f the statute a8 to the making and sworn appliaionerel Court, stating the neoeaalty therefore, with a suboequent eat on the part of the Canuulssioneri9~Court aoknowledging theeneoaselty for euah:expenditure to be made.Hon. Harry Sohulta, Pegs e
Inesmuoh a8 the rtatute mekeenoprovfaionwor Noneeutomobile exOhange*, we **do** not feel as though the law oontempletee mm aa en approved expenditure. Thie offioe does not have auffioient feats before It to aroertain whether or not the item none automobile exohengew is a depreoletlon item or not. Weoennot say that the dffferenoe,in prioe between the old automobile ownedby the Sheriff and the.new eutomobile traded for is the eo~tuel depreoietlon of the Sherlff*g automobile oeueed by the uee of eeid automobile b&the Sherlff~ln the aleoherge of his ofi’lolel duties. The amountoi deprealetlon to be allowed ea a %eoeseary expenee’ ie e figure which suet neoesrarily be peased upon by the fJommj.ealoneref Court **0r** your County.

If in lieu of the Item Wolleeutomobile.exohange~ an item for depreoietion upon e pereonallly ownedeut6moblle ehould be submitted by the Shertif upon~hlcl*neoeaeary expen&e* aooount, ahowing de$reolatlon of apersonally ownedeutomoblle by ruoh Sheriff in the dieoharge of hi8 offlolel dutlse, end striot oompllenoc with the provlelons of Artlole 3S99of the Revised Civil Statutes of Teree, es amended, fo otherwise had, then and in that event suah en allowenoe for depreoietion oould be properly made.

However, in arriving at e dealsion es to whether auoh expenditures should. be allowed, under Artiole 9891 of the Revleed Civil Statutes of Texas, ae emended, wefind that e fee offioer ie not allowed to deduot any amountof moneya8 expense8 of offioe until after he ahell have earned the maximuinamountof moneyallowed him by etetute, ea,auoh fee officer. Then and in that event, he ehall be allowed in aooordanoe with the provisions of Article 3S99, above refarrbd to, to deduot rrom earned fees, over end above the maximum amountallowed himby statutee, the approved expenses herein lnqulre’d about. Trueting that the above eetlsfeotori~l~ answers your queetion, weremain Yours very truly ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS
Edger Oale Aaeiatent ECrN Approved Nov. 10, 1939

Gerald 0. Mann ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS
NRC PROPOSES CHANGES IN LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR 

STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeks public comment on proposed changes 

to its licensing requirements for the storage of spent nuclear fuel, which would clarify the 

term limits for specific licenses for independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) 

and for certificates of compliance (CoCs) for spent fuel storage casks. 

 In a proposed rule published today in the Federal Register, the agency proposes 

formalizing the initial and renewal terms of a specific ISFSI license at a period of up to 

40 years, instead of the current duration of up to 20 years. This change would codify a 

technical approach begun in 2004 with the renewal of the licenses for storage 

installations at the Surry and H. B. Robinson nuclear power plants. Currently, licensees 

must request an exemption if they desire a term of more than 20 years. 

 Similarly, the proposed rule would allow CoC applicants to request initial and 

renewal terms of up to 40 years, provided they can demonstrate that all design 

requirements are satisfied for the requested term. 

 For both site-specific licenses and CoCs, the proposed rule would require renewal 

applicants to provide time-limited aging analyses and a description of an aging 

management program to ensure that storage casks will perform as designed under the 

extended renewal terms. 

 The proposed rule would also allow general licensees to implement changes 

authorized by an amended certificate of compliance to a cask previously loaded under the 

initial certificate or an earlier amended certificate. Currently, licensees must request 

exemptions to modify such “previously loaded casks.” These changes will save licensee 

and NRC resources without an adverse effect on public health and safety or the 

environment. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 09-155 September 15, 2009
 Comments will be accepted for 75 days following publication in the 

Federal Register. Comments may be mailed to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications 

Staff; or e-mailed to Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. 

### 

NOTE: Anyone wishing to take photos or use a camera to record any portion of a NRC meeting 

should contact the Office of Public Affairs beforehand. 

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a 

SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's 

Web site.
Exhibit 15.2

[PricewaterhouseCoopers Letterhead]

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-100069) of NetEase.com, Inc. of our report
dated June 30, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F.



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                          
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian CPAs Limited Company
|PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian CPAs Limited Company    
|                                                          
|Beijing, the Peoples Republic of China                   
|                                                          
|June 30, 2009
Exhibit 31.2
 
 CERTIFICATIONS
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial
reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in
accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this report based
on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter for the
year ended December 31, 2008) that has
materially affected or is reasonably likely to
materially affect the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants
internal controls over financial reporting.
 /s/ Thomas M. Brandt, Jr.Thomas M. Brandt, Jr.Sr. Vice President & CFODate: August 24, 2009
CtjAdon If& C477b hrt dabllity for occywula Quo8 d taxprpr wucb
puruu it0 occqdiam duiqbata pertt~dtk 

### l a mit a g b u peri od.**Hrorsbk** Goo. H. JLpprd, ir* a
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA - 2013 - 1065 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM230AD
600 - 0710, R02 --- 10/29/07 601 - 0546, R02 --- 10/29/07 604 - 32 - 014, R01 --- 10/29/07

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
#### *In re*Estate of Roy Willard Davison, Deceased—(Leonard Jarnowski *et al.,*Claimants-Appellants, *v.*Marjorie Radke, Adm’r of the Estate of Roy Willard Davison, Deceased, Defendant-Appellee.)

(No. 73-82;

Second District

September 3, 1974.

*1044LeRoy Stevens, of Chicago, for appellants.

Gunner, Keller & Magdich, of Dixon, for appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE GUILD

delivered the opinion of the court:

The estate of Roy Willard Davison was opened on July 1, 1971, and on January 11 and 21, 1972, the appellants filed claims for services rendered. Due notice was mailed to counsel for the claimants on January 24, 1972. It is admitted that this notice was timely received. The notice stated that on February 8, 1972, the administrator “* **** would appear and ask for an immediate hearing on the claims of the appellants * ***The appellants did not appear on that date and the attorney for the administrator was directed to submit an order disallowing the claims. On February 15, 1972, the order was submitted and entered.

The sole question presented in this case is whether the use of the word “immediate” in a notice of motion is sufficient to apprise the claimants of the administrator’s intention to ask for a hearing on the merits of the claim on that day. Appellants contend that the word “immediate” connotes the act being done within a reasonable time, while the use of the word “instanter” would apprise appellants that the hearing on the merits would be had on that date.

 Stating it more succinctly, appellants’ contention is that had the notice read “instanter” they would have known that the hearing was to be held on that date, but that the use of the word “immediate” meant they woud be heard within a reasonable time. With this we do not agree.

 Appellants have cited *Hamilton v. People*(1911), 163 IIl.App. 541, and in so doing have answered their own contention. The court in that case stated, “In its general signification and meaning the word instanter means at once, or immediately * * (163 Ill.App. at 544.) With this we agree. We see no difference between the use of the word “immediate” and “instanter” as did tire court in the case cited by the appellants. It is to be noted that the attorney for the claimants took no further action after he was notified of the hearing on the claims until approximately 9 months later when, on November 8, 1972, he moved to vacate the judgment entered dismissing the claims on February 15, 1972.

 Appellants further contend that one seeking to vacate a default *1045judgment need not show due diligence and a meritorious defense (claim), and cites *Knight v. Kenilworth Insurance Co.*(1971), 2 Ill. App.3d 493, 495, 275 N.E.2d 470, 472. Examination of that case does not substantiate appellants’ contention. The holding in *Kenilworth*is that a motion to vacate a default judgment made within term time, or 30 days from the entry thereof, may be vacated without the showing of a meritorious defense and due diligence.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

T. MORAN, P. J., and SEIDENFELD, J., concur.
July 18, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LONE STAR COLLEGE SYSTEM DISTRICT D/B/A LONE STAR COLLEGE 

SYSTEM, Appellant

NO. 14-12-01118-CV V.

CADENCE MCSHANE CONSTRUCTION COURT COMPANY LCC, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard the parties joint motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on November 20, 2012. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.