alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
November 12, 2015 

Dear Mr. Peraza: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−1487). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) to process your petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the 

maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the 

aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 12/27/15. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 4, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41247 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FIDEL RODRIGUEZ-REQUENO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-331

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Fidel RodriguezRequeno raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Dwight Antonio PITTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-7577.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2007.

Decided: May 1, 2007.

Dwight Antonio Pitts, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, Michael Clayton Hanlon, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dwight Antonio Pitts seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pitts 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.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alonzo Singleton, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 15, 1976, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, indictment dismissed, and case remitted to the Criminal Term for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. This record reveals a failure of proof with respect to identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. That defect cannot be cured or waived by the defendant’s willful absenting of himself from the trial. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Margett, JJ., concur.
#### § 1300.6 Office location.

The principal offices of the Millennium Challenge Corporation are located at 875 Fifteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-2221.
### §16362. Barrow Geophysical Research Facility

#### (a) Establishment

The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretaries of Energy and the Interior, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall establish a joint research facility in Barrow, Alaska, to be known as the "Barrow Geophysical Research Facility", to support scientific research activities in the Arctic.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretaries of Commerce, Energy, and the Interior, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for the planning, design, construction, and support of the Barrow Geophysical Research Facility, $61,000,000.

(Pub. L. 109–58, title IX, §998, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 916.)
§ 146.520 Job classification and structure. A recipient shall not: ( a ) Classify a job as being for males or for females;
( b ) Maintain or establish separate lines of progression, seniority lists, career ladders, or tenure systems based on sex; or
( c ) Maintain or establish separate lines of progression, seniority systems, career ladders, or tenure systems for similar jobs, position descriptions, or job requirements that classify persons on the basis of sex, unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the positions in question as set forth in § 146.550.
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


Description of
Director and Executive Compensation Arrangements


 


A.                         Non-Employee Director Compensation.


 


Annual Retainer for Service on the Board - $40,000, payable in quarterly installments plus
1,000 shares of restricted stock are automatically granted on March 31 of
each year, vesting over three years.


 


Board Meeting Fees - $1,000 for each meeting attended and $500 for each telephonic
meeting attended.


 


Committee Meetings - $1,000 for each meeting attended and $500 for each telephonic meeting
attended, unless the committee meeting is held on the day of a meeting of the
Board of Directors.


 


Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Audit Committee - $20,000.


 


Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Compensation Committee - $10,000.


 


Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance
Committee – Twice
the amount of any meeting fees paid to the committee members.


 


Initial Restricted Grant – Upon joining the Board of Directors, 500 shares
of restricted stock are granted, vesting over three years.


 


Each grant of restricted stock is made pursuant to the Company’s 2003
Equity Incentive Plan.  In addition, the
Director Phantom Stock Plan offers non-employee directors the opportunity to
defer cash compensation for up to three years and to receive that compensation
(to the extent that it is actually earned by service during that period) in
shares of common stock rather than in cash after termination of service or a
predetermined period. Such compensation includes the annual retainer, regular meeting
fees and special meeting fees payable by the Company to a non-employee
director.  Every non-employee director
during his or her term of service has elected to receive such compensation in
common stock.


 


 

















 


B.                           Executive Officers.


 


The base salaries for the Company’s executive officers who are named
executive officers in the Company’s Proxy Statement effective as of January 1,
2006 are as follows:


 


	
  Mace Siegel, Chairman

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  350,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Arthur M. Coppola, President and Chief
  Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  750,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dana K. Anderson, Vice Chairman

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  300,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Edward C. Coppola, Senior Executive Vice
  President and Chief Investment Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  525,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  David J. Contis, Executive Vice President
  and Chief Operating Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  500,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Thomas E. O’Hern, Executive Vice President,
  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  450,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Richard A. Bayer, Executive Vice President,
  Chief Legal Officer and Secretary

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  400,000
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Quarterly Report
of Internet Infinity, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Morris, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
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)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  August
20, 2009





/s/
George Morris


George Morris


Chief Financial Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Internet Infinity, Inc. and will be retained by Internet Infinity, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### § 1424.2 Who may file a petition.

A petition for review of a negotiability issue may be filed by the exclusive representative which is a party to the negotiations.
§ 242.504 Notification to associated persons. A broker or dealer shall notify any person with whom that broker or dealer is associated who publishes, circulates, or provides research reports: ( a ) Whether the broker or dealer maintains and enforces written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the broker or dealer, any controlling persons, officers (or persons performing similar functions), or employees of the broker or dealer from influencing the activities of research analysts and the content of research reports prepared by the associated person; and
( b ) Whether the associated person has any officers (or persons performing similar functions) or employees in common with the broker or dealer who can influence the activities of research analysts or the content of research reports and, if so, the identity of those persons.
###### Editorial Note on Part 249

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 249 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 249.312 Form 10-D, periodic distribution reports by asset-backed issuers.

This form shall be used by asset-backed issuers to file periodic distribution reports pursuant to § 240.13a-17 or § 240.15d-17 of this chapter. A distribution report on this form pursuant to § 240.13a-17 or § 240.15d-17 of this chapter shall be filed within 15 days after each required distribution date on the asset-backed securities, as specified in the governing documents for such securities.

[70 FR 1626, Jan. 7, 2005]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form 10-D, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
#### In the Matter of Jacqueline Rochford, Appellant, v Howard Safir, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[715 NYS2d 844]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), entered February 18, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner an accident disability retirement pension, or, in the alternative, to compel respondents to return her to full duty, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination that petitioner suffers from a disabling seizure disorder is supported by some credible evidence *(see, Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*88 NY2d 756, 761), namely, the report of the Medical Board’s neurologist that petitioner continues to be susceptible to a significant risk of seizures *(see, id.,*at 761, citing *Matter of Tobin v Steisel,*64 NY2d 254, 258-259). With respect to petitioner’s claim for an accident disability pension, the IAS Court correctly held that respondents could rationally reject petitioner’s claim that she sustained a head injury in the line of duty, or, assuming she did, could rationally conclude that she failed to sustain her burden of establishing a causal relationship between such injury and her seizure disorder *(see, Matter of Duggan v Ward,*160 AD2d 532; *Matter of Bevers v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*179 AD2d 489, *lv denied*79 NY2d 758). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 161
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 161 appear at 85 FR 32296, July 13, 2020.

§ 161.2 Policy. It is the policy of the Department of State to use all practicable means, consistent with the Department's statutory authority, available resources and national policy, to: ( a ) Protect and enhance the quality of the environment;
( b ) Ensure that environmental amenities and values are appropriately considered in Departmental actions;
( c ) Integrate planning and environmental review procedures with the Department's decisionmaking process;
( d ) Invite and facilitate, when appropriate, Federal, State and local governmental authorities and public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the environment; and
( e ) Recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental concerns and, when consistent with the foreign policy of the United States, lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of the world environment.
HGR-P 4 mm CALCULATION SHEET

DATE: 05/10/2012

CUSTOMER: ERG, Inc

LOCATION: Morrisville, NC

NOTES: Fixed bed for wet "exhaust streams"

CCC Ref# Hg050412-1

PROCESS CONDITIONS:

FLOW: 15.22 MMNCFD (10,000 SCFM)

PRESSURE: 1 ATM ABSOLUTE

TEMPERATURE: 150 Degrees F

COMPRESS. FACTOR: 1

HG CONCENTRATION

INLET 3 ug/Nm3 (assume Hgo

)

OUTLET 0.1 ug/Nm3

VESSEL DESIGN:

SURFACE AREA OF FIXED BED FILTER: 346 Square Feet

BED DEPTH/VESSEL: 1.1 Ft.

NUMBER OF BEDS/TRAIN: 1

NUMBER OF TRAINS IN PARALLEL: 1

CARBON REQUIREMENTS: PER VESSEL TOTAL

POUNDS: 9626 9626

KILOGRAMS - (APPROXIMATE) 4367 4367

CUBIC FEET 98952 98952

TOTAL DRUMS HGR-P 4 mm 42.8 42.8

PRESSURE DROP (Carbon Beds Only):

UNIT 0.509 IN WATER / FOOT

TOTAL 0.536 INCHES WATER

TOTAL 0.00132 ATM

BED LIFE: 1200 Years

CONTACT TIME: 1.76 SECONDS

VELOCITY: 35.8 FT/MIN

0.19 m/Sec
§ 1506.7 How does USADF process claims involving fraud? ( a ) The CFO will refer claims involving fraud, the presentation of a false claim, or misrepresentation on the part of the debtor or any party having an interest in the claim to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Office of Inspector General (OIG), which has statutory jurisdiction over USADF. The OIG has the responsibility for investigating or referring the matter, where appropriate, to the Department of Justice (DOJ), and/or returning it to USADF for further action.
( b ) The CFO will not administratively compromise, terminate, suspend or otherwise dispose of debts involving fraud, the presentation of a false claim or misrepresentation on the part of the debtor or any party having an interest in the claim without the approval of DOJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,894
<SECURITIES>                                   454,140
<RECEIVABLES>                                  367,190
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,527
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               901,764
<PP&E>                                       1,425,305
<DEPRECIATION>                                 758,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,809,630
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          409,477
<BONDS>                                        317,873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,311
<OTHER-SE>                                     928,252
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,809,630
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,734,988
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,274,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,684
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                340,149
<INCOME-TAX>                                   128,414
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            211,735
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   211,735
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.62


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. (the “Company”),on Form 10-Q as amended by this Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Ted S. Smith, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ TED S. SMITH |   |
|------------------|--------|

 

Ted S.Smith

Chief Accounting Officer

 

October 20,2005

----
#### Joseph B. Lamp, Appellant, v Daniel W. Joy, as Commissioner of Rent & Housing Maintenance, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of Rent and Housing Maintenance, which, after a "conference hearing”, denied petitioner’s protest of an order of the district *548rent director which decontrolled a certain apartment, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 24, 1976, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements jointly to respondents. Special Term properly concluded that there is a rational basis in the record to support the commissioner’s determination that the petitioner does not utilize the subject apartment as his primary residence (see *Matter of Colton v Berman,*21 NY2d 322). The fact that no transcript or recording was made by the hearing officer does not render the proceeding improper, since the City Rent and Rehabilitation Law does not require an evidentiary or quasi-judicial hearing in this matter (see Administrative Code of City of New York, § Y518.0, subd c). Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3931

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Missouri.

Dwight Rhodes, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 28, 2005

Filed: November 3, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dwight Rhodes challenges the district court's1

 judgment and sentence, entered

after a jury found him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). For reversal, Mr. Rhodes argues (1) the district court erred

in admitting his prior convictions into evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence

404(b); and (2) his sentence – imposed under a mandatory Guidelines system –

violates the Sixth Amendment. We affirm.
-2-

Any error in the admission of Mr. Rhodes's past convictions was rendered

harmless by the district court's limiting instruction. See Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S.

307, 324 n.9 (1985) (except in extraordinary circumstances, court assumes jurors

follow instructions); United States v. Lothridge, 332 F.3d 502, 504 (8th Cir. 2003)

(limiting instruction cured any unfair prejudice caused by introduction of prior

convictions under Rule 404(b)). Similarly, any error in treating the Guidelines as

mandatory was also harmless, because the district court indicated that it would have

imposed the same sentence even if the Guidelines were not mandatory, see United

States v. Thompson, 403 F.3d 533, 536 (8th Cir. 2005), and it sentenced Mr. Rhodes

near the top of the applicable Guidelines range, see United States v. Perez-Ramirez,

415 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding error harmless where district court "left

unused some of its discretion to sentence [defendant] to a more favorable sentence

under the mandatory, pre-Booker guidelines").

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
Case 3:08-cv-01687-CRB   Document 11   Filed 04/08/10   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:08-cv-01687-CRB   Document 11   Filed 04/08/10   Page 2 of 2
### §1500c. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title I, §126(b)(3)], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1175

Section, Pub. L. 87–70, title VII, §704, June 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 185; Pub. L. 89–117, title IX, §909(d), Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 497; Pub. L. 90–19, §18(c), May 25, 1967, 81 Stat 25; Pub. L. 91–609, title IV, §401, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1782, related to conversion to other uses.
#### § 239.900 Form C.

This form shall be used for filings under Regulation Crowdfunding (part 227 of this chapter).

[80 FR 71550, Nov. 16, 2015]