alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-14-279-E September 18, 2014

Exemption No. 11056 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0313

Mr. Herman F. Gillis, III Director of Operations Dynamic Airways

701 North Terminal Service Road Greensboro, NC 27409

Dear Mr. Gillis:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

On May 12, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Dynamic Airways (Dynamic), for an exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, permits Dynamic Airways to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. Dynamic Airways has requested the relief be extended to operations outside the

United States.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Dynamic.

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 10430 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a level of safety equivalent to the rule. The petitioner has limited experience as a part 121 carrier and needs to monitor and validate the training program for a newly added aircraft,2

one B-767. To date, Dynamic has expanded opera tions to include four B-767s and has not received final approval for its training program.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10430;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10430 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, Dynamic Airways is hereby denied an exemption from 14 CFR 121.434(c)(1)(ii).

Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
### §114. United States

In this title, the term "United States", when used in a geographic sense, means the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §4, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1487.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 114 | 46:2101(44). | |
| | 46 App.:1244(g). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title IX, §905(g), 49 Stat. 2016; as added Pub. L. 96–453, §3(b), Oct. 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 2008. |

Section

The language in 46 App. U.S.C. 1244(g) relating to the areas and installations in the Republic of Panama is omitted because those areas and installations were turned over to Panama by the end of 1999.
#### § 3280.205 Carpeting.

Carpeting shall not be used in a space or compartment designed to contain only a furnace and/or water heater. Carpeting may be used in other areas where a furnace or water heater is installed, provided that it is not located under the furnace or water heater.
§ 267.3 Base risk retention requirement. ( a ) *Base risk retention requirement.* Except as otherwise provided in this part, the sponsor of a securitization transaction (or majority-owned affiliate of the sponsor) shall retain an economic interest in the credit risk of the securitized assets in accordance with any one of §§ 267.4 through 267.10. Credit risk in securitized assets required to be retained and held by any person for purposes of compliance with this part, whether a sponsor, an originator, an originator-seller, or a third-party purchaser, except as otherwise provided in this part, may be acquired and held by any of such person's majority-owned affiliates (other than an issuing entity).
( b ) *Multiple sponsors.* If there is more than one sponsor of a securitization transaction, it shall be the responsibility of each sponsor to ensure that at least one of the sponsors of the securitization transaction (or at least one of their majority-owned or wholly-owned affiliates, as applicable) retains an economic interest in the credit risk of the securitized assets in accordance with any one of §§ 267.4, 267.5, 267.8, 267.9, or 267.10.
§ 232.830 Definition of default. ( a ) If the borrower fails to make any payments due under or provided to be paid by the terms of the note or security instrument, the note shall be considered in default for the purposes of this subpart.
( b ) The failure to perform any other covenant under the note or security instrument shall be considered a default, provided the lender, because of such default, has exercised its rights under the note or security instrument and accelerated the debt.
( c ) If such defaults as defined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section continue for a period of 30 days, the lender shall be entitled to receive the benefits of insurance hereinafter provided.
§ 881.211 Audit. ( a ) Where a non-Federal entity (as defined in 2 CFR 200.69) is the eligible owner of a project or a contract administrator under § 881.505 receiving financial assistance under this part, the audit requirements in 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, shall apply.
[80 FR 75941, Dec. 7, 2015]
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-137677) pertaining to the Bare
Escentuals, Inc. 2004 Equity Incentive Plan and 2006 Equity Incentive Award Plan, of our reports dated February 27, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Bare
Escentuals, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Bare Escentuals, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 30, 2007.



San
Francisco, California
February 27, 2008

---



QuickLinks
##### 



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
  (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.
 Date:  March 31, 2008
    /s/ Robert K. MoskovitzName:
    Robert K. MoskovitzTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Gordon Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of Kimber Resources Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Kimber Resources Inc.



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:



(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 company, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(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 companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.



Date: September 25, 2006





Gordon Cummings

______________________­­________

Gordon Cummings, Chief Financial Officer
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tengion, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven Nichtberger, MD, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date:  March 30, 2011
  /s/ Steven NichtbergerSteven Nichtberger, MDPresident and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
§ 886.120 Responsibility for contract administration. ( a ) HUD is responsible for administration of the Contract. HUD may contract with another entity for the performance of some or all of its Contract administration functions.
( b ) The Contract shall contain a provision to the effect ( 1 ) that if HUD determines that the Owner is not in compliance under the Contract, HUD shall notify the Owner of the actions required to be taken to restore compliance and of the remedies to be applied by HUD including abatement of Housing Assistance Payments and recovery of overpayments, where appropriate; and
( 2 ) that if he fails to comply, HUD has the right to terminate the Contract or to take other corrective action. A default under the Regulatory Agreement shall be treated as non-compliance under the Contract.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 02-12-00013-CR

NOS. 02-12-00014-CR

BYRON PINCKNEY APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Byron Pinckney filed pro se notices of appeal in these cases 

following his plea of guilty to criminal mischief in trial court cause number 

1249140D and his plea of true to the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt for 

possession of more than one but less than four grams of cocaine in trial court 

cause number 1074269D. The trial court sentenced Appellant to six months in 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

state jail in cause number 1249140D and three years’ confinement in cause 

number 1074269D. Subsequently, however, Appellant orally expressed at a 

hearing in the trial court on January 18, 2012, that he understood that he could 

not appeal following his guilty plea in cause number 1249140D and that, because 

he could not appeal in cause number 1249140D, he no longer wished to appeal 

either case. Accordingly, on our own initiative, we suspend the requirements of 

rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure, and we dismiss these appeals. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: February 16, 2012
§ 51.202 Approval of HUD-assisted projects. ( a ) The Department will not approve an application for assistance for a proposed project located at less than the acceptable separation distance from a hazard, as defined in § 51.201, unless appropriate mitigating measures, as defined in § 51.205, are implemented, or unless mitigating measures are already in place.
( b ) In the case of all applications for proposed HUD-assisted projects, the Department shall evaluate projected development plans in the vicinity of these projects to determine whether there are plans to install a hazardous operation in close proximity to the proposed project. If the evaluation shows that such a plan exists, the Department shall not approve assistance for the project unless the Department obtains satisfactory assurances that adequate mitigating measures will be taken when the hazardous operation is installed.
[49 FR 5103, Feb. 10, 1984, as amended at 61 FR 13334, Mar. 26, 1996]
### River Chemistry and Solute Flux in Yellowstone National Park

By: Shaul Hurwitz**Sean EaganHenry HeaslerDan MahonyMark A. HuebnerJacob B. Lowenstern**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds278

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

OF CONNECTICUT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MURPHY INVESTMENTS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 09-02022 JSW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On February 18, 2010, this Court granted a Stipulation for Disbursement of Funds, and

order that once the funds were disbursed, the remaining parties were to submit a Stipulation and

Proposed Order of Dismissal. Because the Court had not yet received a stipulation from the

remaining parties, on June 11, 2010, it issued an Order to Show Cause directing the parties to

show cause why this case should not be dismissed. The parties’ response to the Order to Show

Cause or a Stipulation of Dismissal was due by no later than June 25, 2010. The parties have

not filed either a response to the Order to Show Cause or a stipulation of dismissal. 

This matter is HEREBY DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02022-JSW Document 58 Filed 06/29/10 Page 1 of 1
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS PATRICK GILTON NO. 

### 2023 KW 1190



### FEBRUARY 16, 2024

In Re: Patrick Gilton, 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs, 

### 17th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafourche, No. 612067.

BEFORE: WELCH, WOLFE, AND STROMBERG, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Appeals are 

### constitutionally guaranteed. See La. Const. art. V, § 

### 5 and § 

### 10. Appeals are 

### favored in the law and should not be dismissed 

## on a mere technicality. See Williams v. 

## Hosp. Serv. 

### Dist. 

### No.1 of Tangipahoa Parish, 

### 2018-1386 ( La. 

### 12/17/18), 258 

### So.3d 584, 585 ( per curiam) . 

### Furthermore, 

## adefendant's failure to specify which rulings 

### he 

### desires to reserve for appeal 

### may limit the scope of appellate review but should not preclude review altogether. See State v. Becnel, 

### 2020-0587 ( La. 

## App. 1st Cir. 4/ 

### 16/21) , 323 So.3d 408, 411. See also State v. Joseph, 

### 2003- 315 ( La. 

### 5/ 16/03) , 847 

### So.2d 

### 1196 ( per curiam) . 

## Accordingly, the writ application 

### is granted, 

### in part, for the purpose of 

## transferring to the 

### district court for consideration as a request to reinstate relator' s right to appeal. The 

### district court 

### is 

## orderedto holdan evidentiaryhearing todetermine if relator 

### is entitled to an out -of -time appeal under Roe v. Flores -

Ortega, 

### 528 U. S. 

### 470, 

### 120 S.Ct. 1029, 1035, 145 

### L.Ed.2d 985 ( 

### 2000) and State v. Counterman, 475 

### So.2d 336, 339 ( La. 1985) and to appoint counsel 

### for the 

## hearing if relator 

### is 

### indigent. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 

### 930.7. In all other respects, 

### the writ application is denied. JEW EW TPS
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDISK CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 LSI CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

LSI CORPORATION AND AGERE

SYSTEMS, INC.,

Counterclaimants,

 v.

SANDISK CORPORATION,

Counterdefendants. /

No. C 09-02737 WHA

REQUEST TO POTENTIAL

RULE 706 EXPERTS

In addition to the fee proposals requested at yesterday’s hearing, the two Rule 706 expert

candidates should advise the Court (in the same letter) whether they have written any previous

expert reports or provided expert testimony that, in their view, would unduly restrict their

freedom of movement in arriving at an opinion in this case. The candidates should also advise the

Court if they have any pending expert arguments in other matters that would do likewise. The

parties shall ensure that the two expert candidates receive this request in due time.

Dated: March 4, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02737-WHA Document 104 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 1
### §617m. Reclamation law applicable

This subchapter shall be deemed a supplement to the reclamation law, which said reclamation law shall govern the construction, operation, and management of the works herein authorized, except as otherwise therein provided.

(Dec. 21, 1928, ch. 42, §14, 45 Stat. 1065.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The reclamation law, referred to in text, is defined in section 617k of this title.
```

[House Report 105-45]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     105-45
_______________________________________________________________________

 
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

                                _______
                                

   April 8, 1997.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

    Mr. Dreier, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 107]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 107, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

               brief summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides that suspensions will be in order 
on Wednesday, April 9, 1997, and Thursday, April 10, 1997. It 
further provides that the Speaker or his designee will consult 
with the Minority Leader or his designee on any suspension 
considered under this resolution.

                                

```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3241 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3241

            To reduce temporarily the duty on myclobutanil.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 12, 2005

  Mr. Buyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To reduce temporarily the duty on myclobutanil.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MYCLOBUTANIL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.91 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to myclobutanil) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``1.9%'' and inserting ``3.0%''; and
            (2) by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/
        2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21.1

<TABLE>
                                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<CAPTION>
                                                      Jurisdiction of
                     Entity                            Organization           Name Under Which Subsidiary Does Business
--------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                       <C>           <C>
Alaska United Fiber System Partnership                    Alaska        Alaska United Fiber System Partnership, Alaska
                                                                        United Fiber System, Alaska United

Fiber Hold Co., Inc.                                      Alaska        Fiber Hold Co., Inc., Fiber Hold Company

GCI Communication Corp.                                   Alaska        GCI, GCC, GCICC, GCI Communication Corp.

GCI, Inc.                                                 Alaska        GCI, GCI, Inc.

GCI Cable, Inc.                                           Alaska        GCI Cable, GCI Cable, Inc.

GCI Fiber Co., Inc.                                       Alaska        GCI Fiber Co., Inc., GCI Fiber Company

GCI Holdings, Inc.                                        Alaska        GCI Holdings, Inc.

GCI Satellite Co., Inc.                                   Alaska        GCI Satellite Co., Inc., GCI Satellite Company

GCI Transport Co., Inc.                                   Alaska        GCI Transport Co., Inc., GCI Transport Company

Potter View Development Co., Inc.                         Alaska        Potter View Development Co., Inc.

GCI Cablesystems of Alaska, Inc.                          Alaska        GCI Cablesystems of Alaska, Inc., Rogers Cable

GCI American Cablesystems, Inc.                           Delaware      GCI American Cablesystems, Inc.

GCI Fiber Communication, Co., Inc.                        Alaska        GCI Fiber Communication, Co., Inc., GFCC,  Kanas

WOK 1, Inc.                                               Alaska        WOK 1

WOK 2, Inc.                                               Alaska        WOK 2
</TABLE>