alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TP 7245E 1 of 1 AD Number: CF

- 201 6- 01 

# EMERGENCY **AIRWORTHINESS DIRECT IVE**  This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued pursuant to C anadian Aviation Regulation (CAR) 521.427. No person shall conduct a take

- off or permit a take

- off to be conducted in an aircraft that is in the ir legal custody and control , unless the requirements of CAR 605.84 pertaining to ADs are met. Standard 625 - Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standards Appendix H provides information concerning alternative means o f compliance (AMOC) to AD s. Number: CF

- 201 6- 01 ATA: 64 Effe ctive Date: 19 January 201 6 Type Certificate: H

- 107 Subject : Tail Rotor – Pitch Link Corrosion Applicability: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (BHTC) model 429 helicopters, serial numbers 57001 and subsequent Compliance: As indicated below, unless already accomplished. Background: A model 429 helicopter experienced an in

- flight failure of a tail rotor pitch link, resulting in noticeable vibration and difficulty controlling the helicopter. A safe landing was completed with no injuries; however there was collateral damage to the tail rotor system in addition to the failed pitch link. I nvestigation revealed that the pitch link had fractured. A crack had initiated at a corrosion pit located between the roll staked lip of the part number (P/N) 429

- 312

- 107

- 103 bearing and the beveled edge of the P/N 429

- 012

- 112

- 103 tail rotor pitch link. Further investigation revealed deficiencies in the application of corrosion resistant finishes to the pitch link during the manufacturing process. Undetected corrosion of the pitch link could lead to pitch link failure, resulting in loss of controllability of the helicopter

. Corrective Actions: 1. Within 10 hours air time from the effective date of this AD : a. I nspect the tail rotor pitch link in accordance with Part I of BHTC Ale rt Service Bulletin (ASB) 429

- 15

- 26 , dated 7 Dec ember 2015, or later revision approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada. b. Replace any pitch links found corroded during the inspection. c. Modify pitch links found to be free of corrosion in accordance with Part I of the ASB noted above. Modification involves cleaning, application of corrosion preventative sealant and re - identification. 2. Subsequently, at intervals not exceeding 50 hours air time, inspect the tail rotor pitch links for the co ndition of applied sealant and reapply as applicable in accordance with Part II of the ASB noted above

. Authorization: For the Minister of Transport, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Ré my Knoerr Chief, Continuing Airworthiness Issued on 5 January 201 6 Contact: Ross McGowan , Continuing Airworthiness, Ottawa, telephone 1- 888

- 663

- 3639 , facsimile 613

- 996

- 9178 or e - mail AD

- CN@tc.gc.ca or any Transport Canada Centre.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,133

EX PARTE CHRISTOPHER WOFFORD, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 45,742-C IN THE 89 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM WICHITA COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of assault on a

public servant and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary because the negotiated plea bargain to have

a chance in boot camp was unenforceable because Applicant was not eligible for the boot camp

program. 

All parties agree that the plea agreement was for Applicant to go to boot camp and upon
2

successful completion, he would be released on three years of community supervision. All parties

agree that Applicant was not eligible for boot camp and that when he was brought back to Wichita

County, the intention was to release him to community supervision. However, due to medical

problems and a death in defense counsel’s family, the case was reset until after the trial court lost

jurisdiction. All parties agree that Applicant is entitled to relief. Based on the pleadings and

affidavits in the record, the trial court determined that the plea agreement was not followed.

Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Huerta, 692 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 45,742-C in the 89 Judicial District Court of th

Wichita County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Wichita

County to answer the charges as set out in the indictment. Applicant’s remaining claims are

dismissed. 

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: April 22, 2009

Do Not Publish
### SUBCHAPTER V—REVIEW OF FEDERAL GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAMS
### **CHAPTER 128—HYDROGEN RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM**

Sec.
12401.
Finding, purposes, and definitions.
12402.
Report to Congress.
12403.
Hydrogen research and development.
12404.
Demonstrations.
12405.
Technology transfer program.
12406.
Coordination and consultation.
12407.
Technical panel.
12408.
Authorization of appropriations.
No: III-14-032 July 28, 2014

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Schedules Public Meeting Aug. 7 to Discuss 

Performance of Clinton Nuclear Power Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting with representatives of Exelon 

Generation Co. on Aug. 7 to discuss the agency’s annual safety performance of the Clinton Nuclear 

Power Station. The plant is located in Clinton, Ill., about 23 miles southeast of Bloomington.

The meeting is scheduled to start at 5 p.m. CDT at the Vespasian Warner Library, 310 N. Quincy 

St., in Clinton. The NRC will present its assessment of the plant’s 2013 performance, talk about agency 

activities, and be available to respond to questions or comments from the public.

“NRC inspectors spend a significant amount of time monitoring a wide range of plant activities 

to ensure the plant operates safely. Our hands-on approach is a key factor in protecting the public and 

environment,” said NRC Region III Administrator Cynthia D. Pederson. “We hold public meetings near 

the plant every year to make our inspectors available and accessible to answer questions and have open 

discussions about NRC oversight with those who live near the plant.”

The annual assessment letter sent from the NRC Region III office to the company addresses the 

performance of the plant during 2013 and is available on the NRC website.

Overall, the Clinton plant operated safely in 2013. 

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear

plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow,” or “red,”

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Performance indicators are statistical 

measurements of plant and equipment performance. The NRC’s action matrix reflects overall plant 

performance and agency response. There are five columns in the matrix with Column 1 requiring a 

baseline level of inspections. A move to another column results in an increased level of NRC oversight 

and inspections.

For the first three quarters of 2013 year, Clinton’s performance indicators and inspection 

findings were “green” and the plant was in Column 1. In the fourth quarter, the plant moved to Column 

2 due to a “white” performance indicator in the area of unplanned scrams. 
Page | 2

The NRC is performing a supplemental inspection to review the plant’s actions to correct the 

performance issue.

Routine inspections are conducted by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by 

inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agency’s headquarters in 

Rockville, Md. Some of the performance areas to be inspected this year include radiation protection and 

operator licensing examinations.

The most current performance information for Clinton is available on the NRC website.
§ 285.5 Termination of a LAP. ( a ) The Chief of NVLAP may terminate a LAP when he/she determines that a need no longer exists to accredit laboratories for the services covered under the scope of the LAP. In the event that the Chief of NVLAP proposes to terminate a LAP, a notice will be published in the Federal Register setting forth the basis for that determination.
( b ) When a LAP is terminated, NVLAP will no longer grant or renew accreditations following the effective date of termination. Accreditations previously granted shall remain effective until their expiration date unless terminated voluntarily by the laboratory or revoked by NVLAP. Technical expertise will be maintained by NVLAP while any accreditation remains effective.
### SUBCHAPTER III—PRODUCTION GOAL OF THE CORPORATION
### §1003. Residence outside the United States

For purposes of section 1001 of this title, with respect to any month, an individual shall be regarded as residing outside the United States if, on the first day of the month, the individual so resides outside the United States.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title VIII, §803, as added Pub. L. 106–169, title II, §251(a), Dec. 14, 1999, 113 Stat. 1845.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

For prior provisions, see note set out under section 1001 of this title.
### Part III—Innovative and Community-Based Service-Learning Programs and Research
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Devonish, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a decision and order of the County Court, Orange County, denying, after a hearing, his motion in the nature of a writ of error *coram nobis*to vacate and set aside a judgment of said court rendered on June 21, 1937, convicting him, on his plea of guilty, of the crime of robbery in the second degree. Order reversed and matter remitted to said court for such further proceedings thereon as may be proper and not inconsistent herewith. Appellant and four others were indicted on June 19, 1937, and charged with the crimes of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree and assault in the second degree. On June 21, 1937, he pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree and sentence was imposed thereon. On this application, appellant asserts that he was sixteen years of age at the time, and that he was not advised of his right to counsel and was not represented by counsel at any stage of the proceedings against him. Concededly, there is no documentary proof that he was so advised or represented, and at the hearing herein he testified in support of the allegations of his petition. No evidence in opposition was adduced by the People. In addition, it appears that the conviction of a codefendant, one Hutton Miller, who entered the same plea and was sentenced the same day as appellant, was vacated in 1951 upon a *coram nobis*application based upon the same grounds as are asserted by appellant and decided by the same learned County Judge who denied the instant motion. A further hearing should be held and all available evidence introduced as to the circumstances surrounding the arraignments and the entry of the pleas of guilty of both appellant and Miller. If it should develop that the circumstances were the same and that they were part of one proceeding, and in the absence of proof negativing appellant’s claims, the court would be justified in following the former adjudication, even though the parties are different. (Of. *People*v. *Tompkins,*186 N. Y. 413; *Moore*v. *City of Albany,*98 N. Y. 396, 410, and *Newitt*v. *Newitt,*282 App. Div. 81, 85.) Appeal from decision dismissed. No appeal lies therefrom. Nolan, P. J., MacCrate, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.
### §10609. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 10609 was editorially reclassified as section 20144 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 904.205 Disqualification of Judge. ( a ) The Judge may withdraw voluntarily from an administrative proceeding when the Judge deems himself/herself disqualified.
( b ) A party may in good faith request the Judge to withdraw on the grounds of personal bias or other disqualification. The party seeking the disqualification must file with the Judge a timely affidavit or statement setting forth in detail the facts alleged to constitute the grounds for disqualification, and the Judge will rule on the matter. If the Judge rules against disqualification, the Judge will place all matters relating to such claims of disqualification in the record.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                      CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE 1st BANCORP
  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 REGARDING QUARTERLY
           REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2006


         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Service 1st Bancorp, a California corporation
("Bancorp"), does hereby certify that:

1.       Bancorp's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March
         31, 2006 (the "Form 10-QSB") fully complies with the requirements of
         Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
         amended; and

2.       Information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         Bancorp.




Date: May 12, 2006                     By: /s/ JOHN O. BROOKS
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John O. Brooks
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: May 12, 2006                     By: /s/ ROBERT E. BLOCH
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Robert E. Bloch
                                           Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief financial Officer
                                           (Principal Financial and
                                           Accounting Officer)



         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Service 1st Bancorp and will be retained by Service 1st Bancorp
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

                                       26
#### Sophia Niedjialkowski, an Infant, etc., Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton, Mills, and Rich, JJ.
#### Siegal Law Offices, LLC, Appellant, v Jean C. Tulin, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 350]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Spargo, J.), entered August 15, 2005 in Albany County, which granted defendant’s cross motion to join this action with another action pending in Saratoga County, and (2) from an order of said court (Sise, J.), entered December 15, 2005 in Saratoga *597County, which partially granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff, a law firm, commenced this action in Albany County seeking fees of over $59,000 (including interest) that purportedly accrued from the firm’s representation of defendant in a matrimonial matter in Saratoga County. Defendant, proceeding pro se, requested that the action be transferred to the judge in Saratoga County who was presiding over the matrimonial proceedings, which had not yet been completed. Supreme Court, Albany County, granted the transfer to Saratoga County, prompting plaintiffs first appeal. Subsequently, Supreme Court, Saratoga County, determined that the fair and reasonable fees for plaintiffs professional services was $30,000, plus disbursements* paid by plaintiff. Since defendant had previously paid $17,000 in legal fees, the court awarded a judgment of $15,308, plus interest. Plaintiff appealed from such order and we now consider the two appeals together.

We affirm. The pro se litigant’s papers were sufficient to place plaintiff on notice that defendant was seeking a change of venue and to have the dispute over legal fees placed before the same judge in which the underlying matrimonial action was still pending. Such decisions are vested within the sound discretion of the trial court *(see generally Gray v Serbalik,*264 AD2d 934, 935 [1999]; *Nellegar v Cote,*255 AD2d 821, 821 [1998]; *Matter of Hurst v Board of Educ. for Ithaca City School Dist.,*242 AD2d 130, 132 [1998], *appeal dismissed*92 NY2d 914 [1998]), and we find no abuse of discretion in this case.

Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court (Sise, J.) should have awarded the entire amount it sought as counsel fees. We cannot agree. Although the court acknowledged that plaintiff rendered considerable services, it also observed that many tactics employed by plaintiff unnecessarily delayed resolution of issues. Supreme Court was clearly in a “far superior position to judge those factors integral to the fixing of counsel fees” *(Shrauger v Shrauger,*146 AD2d 955, 956 [1989], *appeal dismissed*74 NY2d 844 [1989]) and, upon review of the record, we find the award reasonable under the circumstances and well within the court’s discretion *(see Hinman v Jay’s Vil. Chevrolet,*239 AD2d 748, 748-749 [1997]).

The remaining arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with costs.

*

 Although disbursements are stated to be $2,358, it appears that this amount includes a typographical error and the correct amount is $2,308.
Exhibit 99.3

GRAPHIC

COMMENTS BY AUDITORS FOR U.S. READERS  ON CANADA - U.S. REPORTING DIFFERENCE

In
the United States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when there is a change in accounting principles that
has a material effect on the comparability of the company's financial statements, such as the changes described in Note 1(n) (stock-based compensation) to the Leitch Technology Corporation
consolidated financial statements as at April 30, 2004 and 2003 and for each of the years in the three year period ended April 30, 2004. Our report to the shareholders dated
June 4, 2004, is expressed in accordance with Canadian reporting standards, which does not require a reference to such changes in accounting principles in the auditors' report when the change
is properly accounted for and adequately disclosed in the financial statements.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Chartered
Accountants
Toronto, Canada
June 4, 2004

---



QuickLinks
# Cover

# Table 1

# Table 2

# Table 2a

# Table 2b 

# Table 3

# Table 4

# Symbols

# Historical Note
#### §§ 1034.171-1034.999 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                            WOIZE INTERNATIONAL LTD.
                 FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2006
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I am the Chief Executive Officer and Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer
of  Woize  International  Ltd.,  a  Nevada  corporation  (the  "Company").  I am
delivering  this  certificate in connection  with the Form 10-QSB of the Company
for the  quarter  ended  September  30, 2006 and filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission ("Form 10-QSB").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information  contained
in the Form 10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




November 20, 2006                   /s/ Anders Halldin
                                    -----------------------
                                    Anders Halldin
                                    Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Principal
                                    Financial  and Accounting Officer
IN RESPONSE, PLEASE 

REFER TO: M150416 

April 21, 2015 

MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Satorius 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – MEETING WITH THE 

ORGANIZATION OF AGREEMENT STATES (OAS) AND THE 

CONFERENCE OF RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM 

DIRECTORS (CRCPD), 9:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2015, 

COMMISSIONERS’ CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT 

NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC 

ATTENDANCE) 

The Commission was briefed by representatives of the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) 

and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) on a number of topics, 

including Reactor Decommissioning; RadResponder/RadNet; NRC/OAS Training; Source 

Security; Web Based Licensing/License Verification System; and the Integrated Materials 

Performance Evaluation Program. 

There were no requirements identified for staff action. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OIG 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
#### § 306.7 Recordkeeping.

You must keep records of how you determined automotive fuel ratings for one year. They must be available for inspection by Federal Trade Commission and Environmental Protection Agency staff members, or by people authorized by FTC or EPA.

[58 FR 41374, Aug. 3, 1993]
---

---

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Acro Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), we, Gadi Aner, President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director of the Company, and Gabby Klausner, Treasurer and Chief 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, to our knowledge, 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.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | By: /s/ Gadi AnerGadi AnerPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | By: /s/ Gabby KlausnerGabby KlausnerTreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 23, 2009



---

---