alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-12-111-E January 13, 2012

Exemption No. 10011A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9791

Mr. Eugene A. Nock

President NockAir Helicopter, Inc.

711 Tarawitt Drive Longboat Key, FL 34228

Dear Mr. Nock:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 10011. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated Decem ber 4, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of NockAir Helicopter, Inc. (NockAir), for an extension of Exemption No. 10011. That exemption from § 133.43(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allowed NockAir to use its helicopters to perform aerial trapeze acts without using an approved external-load attachment or quick-release device for carrying persons on a trapeze

bar.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Nockair.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10011 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the2

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. NockAir may only use this grant of exemption for carrying person(s) who are practicing or performing trapeze acts in an airshow or a special event.

2. Before carrying person(s) on the trapeze, NockAir must provide a copy of this grant of exemption to those persons.

3. NockAir must inform the pilot that the trapeze equipment is not attached to the quickrelease device.

4. Before each performance and practice of an aerial trapeze act, the pilot and trapeze artist(s) will discuss and agree on actions of the pilot and trapeze artist(s) on emergencies procedures.

5. NockAir may only exercise the privileges of this grant of exemption while within sterile areas that allow an emergency landing without undue hazard to person(s) or property on the surface, that are not directly associated with the operations.

6. This exemption is not valid for operations outside of the United States.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 10011 to March 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 10011 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 10011.

Sincerely,

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2382

In Re: AARON POSLEY, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cr-00295-LO-1)

Submitted: February 12, 2009 Decided: March 11, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Aaron Posley, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Aaron Posley petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging the district court has unduly delayed adjudicating his 

appeal from a judgment entered in a criminal case by a 

magistrate judge. He seeks an order from this court directing 

the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet 

reveals that the district court issued its final decision on 

December 23, 2008, shortly after Posley filed his mandamus 

petition. Accordingly, because the district court has recently 

decided Posley’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 

We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
Order filed, November 29, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00893-CR

____________

EDUARDO PEREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1171619

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due November 16, 2012. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed 

timely, we issue the following order.

We order Cantrece Addison, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Fluid Filtration Manufacturing Corp. ) ASBCA No. 63241

)

Under Contract No. SPMYM4-19-P-0423 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Christopher S. Young, Esq.

Erin D. Brooks, Esq.

 Business & Technology Law Group

 Columbia, MD

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Daniel K. Poling, Esq.

 DLA Chief Trial Attorney

Julie K. Phillips, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

 DLA Land and Maritime 

 Columbus, OH

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: October 27, 2022

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63241, Appeal of Fluid Filtration 

Manufacturing Corp., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: October 28, 2022

CHRISTOPHER M. MCNULTY

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in theevent that publications are no longer available from the original publishingagency site. (Historical purposes)

**Title:**  Early Training Estimation System (ETSES)final report

Final report(includes appendixes A - E), Appendix F, Appendix G, Appendix H, Appendix I, Appendix J

 
SuDoc:D 101.60/9:84-
Item Number:0330-E-04(online)
CGP system Number:001018152
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Dellipizzi, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered April 1, 1976, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law, § 160.15) and sexual abuse (Penal Law, § 130.65) and sentencing him thereunder, is unanimously affirmed. No question is raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence on the robbery charge. As to the sexual abuse charge, a factual question was presented which the jury resolved against the defendant on evidence which we deem wholly sufficient. In that connection, we note the evidence that the defendant said to the man in the car "let my friend do what he wants to your girl”; that during the sexual abuse of the girl by his accomplice, defendant required the man in the car to put his head on the steering wheel and put his hands on the dashboard and held what appeared to be a gun to the man’s head; that the accomplice, questioned as to whether there was any previous discussion with the defendant as to the act of sexual abuse that the accomplice intended to perform, said, "it was already known * * * From association * * * Q. From prior things that happened? A. Yes.” However, in the course of a supplemental charge with respect to acting in concert, the Trial Justice said: "Upon the question of intent, you may infer that a person intends that which is a natural and necessary and probable consequence of the act done by him, and *unless the act was done under circumstances to preclude the existence of such intent*you have a right to find from the results produced an intention to effect it.” (Italics supplied.) Apart from the inappropriateness of this portion of the charge in the present case, we are disturbed by the use of the phrase which we have italicized. While we are not prepared to say that the use of this phrase is necessarily error, we think a jury might conceivably misunderstand that phrase as shifting to defendant to some extent the burden of proof with respect to intent. We take this opportunity to caution the trial bench to avoid the use of this phrase. The defendant’s intent is to be judged in the light of all the circumstances, including the permissible inference referred to, where appropriate, and is to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the present case, the charge read as a whole, as well as the jury’s questions, make clear that the burden of proof was not shifted. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Silverman, Markewich and Sandler, JJ.
Appeal No. 76-172.

#### Jean-Yves Drans *v.*Providence College.

*Abedon, Stanzler, Biener, Skolnik & Lipsey, Milton Stanzler,*for plaintiff.

*William F. McMahon,*for Providence College.

*William B. Harvey,*for Trustees of Boston University, amicus curiae, for defendant.

The motion of Trustees of Boston University to file an amicus curiae brief is granted.
§ 33.33 Allowable limits of dust concentration. ( a ) The concentration of dust determined by the control sample shall be subtracted from the average concentration of dust determined by the test samples collected at each drill operator's position, and the difference shall be designated as the net concentration of airborne dust. Calculations of the average concentration of dust determined from the test samples shall be based upon the results of not less than 80 percent of each set of test samples.
( b ) Under each prescribed test condition, the net concentration of airborne dust at each drill operator's position shall not exceed 10 million particles (5 microns or less in diameter) per cubic foot of air when determined in accordance with the method given in § 33.32(a).
[Sched. 25B, 25 FR 6473, July 9, 1960, as amended at 26 FR 2599, Mar. 28, 1961]
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79218-79219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26975]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to The National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Electrified Vehicle and Energy Storage 
Evaluation

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 1, 2020, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Electrified Vehicle and 
Energy Storage Evaluation (``EVESE'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances.

[[Page 79219]]

Specifically, ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA, has been added as a party to 
this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and EVESE intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On September 24, 2020, EVESE filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on October 15, 2020 (85 FR 65423).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 20, 
2020. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on November 19, 2020 (85 FR 73750).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-26975 Filed 12-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
EERE Information Center

Programs and Offices

Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version

Commercial Clothes Washers Supplemental Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking Analysis Spreadsheets

This page presents the analytical spreadsheets that provide rulemaking findings and

interactive tools for the life-cycle cost analysis, national impact analysis, the

government regulatory impact model, and regulatory impact analysis for commercial

clothes washers. Instructions for using the life-cycle cost analysis and national

impact analysis spreadsheets can be found in the Supplemental Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking Technical Support Document.

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (Excel 520 KB)

National Impact Analysis (Excel 1 MB)

Government Regulatory Impact Model (Excel 1.4 MB)

Regulatory Impact Analysis (Excel 1.9 MB)

Contact Information

Stephen Witkowski, P.E.

Project Manager

202-586-7463

Printable Version

Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 11/06/2009

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Commercial Clothes ... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/...

1 of 1 11/10/2009 9:08 AM

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 66.3
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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, Gary Johnson, the President and Chief Executive Officer of PortalPlayer, Inc. (the Company), and Svend-Olav Carlsen, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:



| | (i) | the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 18, 2005

|                                                                      |  |  |  |                                                                     |  |  |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                                                                      |  | 
|/s/    GARY
JOHNSONGary Johnson President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | /s/    SVEND-OLAV
CARLSENSvend-Olav
Carlsen Chief Financial Officer
#### § 552.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to implement the provisions of section 26 of the Act (43 U.S.C. 1352). This part supplements the procedures and requirements contained in 30 CFR parts 250, 251, 550, and 551 and provides procedures and requirements for the submission of oil and gas data and information resulting from exploration, development, and production operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to the Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. In addition, this part establishes procedures for the Director to make available certain information to the Governors of affected States and, upon request, to the executives of affected local governments in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the Act.
§ 906.9 Title restrictions and encumbrances on properties sold under a homeownership program. ( a ) If the property is subject to indebtedness under the Annual Contributions Contract (ACC), HUD will continue to make any debt service contributions for which it is obligated under the ACC, and the property sold will not be subject to the encumbrance of that indebtedness.
( b ) Upon sale of a public housing unit to a public housing tenant or eligible family, or to a PRE operating the units as non-public housing, in accordance with the HUD-approved homeownership program, HUD will execute a release of the title restrictions prescribed by the ACC. Because the property will no longer be subject to the ACC after sale, it will cease to be eligible for public housing Operating Fund or Capital Fund payments.
Docket number: FAA-2014-0748
### §24702. Transportation requested by States, authorities, and other persons

(a) Contracts for Transportation.—Amtrak may enter into a contract with a State, a regional or local authority, or another person for Amtrak to operate an intercity rail service or route not included in the national rail passenger transportation system upon such terms as the parties thereto may agree.

(b) Discontinuance.—Upon termination of a contract entered into under this section, or the cessation of financial support under such a contract by either party, Amtrak may discontinue such service or route, notwithstanding any other provision of law.

(Added Pub. L. 110–432, div. B, title II, §201(b)(1), Oct. 16, 2008, 122 Stat. 4910.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 24702, Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 923; Pub. L. 104–287, §5(48), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3393, related to carrying out plan to improve intercity rail passenger service prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–134, title I, §101(b), Dec. 2, 1997, 111 Stat. 2572.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Access to Amtrak Equipment and Services

Pub. L. 110–432, div. B, title II, §217, Oct. 16, 2008, 122 Stat. 4930, as amended by Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title XI, §11006(b)(1), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1624, provided that: "If a State desires to select or selects an entity other than Amtrak to provide services required for the operation of an intercity passenger train route described in section 24102(7)(D) or 24702 of title 49, United States Code, the State may make an agreement with Amtrak to use facilities and equipment of, or have services provided by, Amtrak under terms agreed to by the State and Amtrak to enable the State to utilize an entity other than Amtrak to provide services required for operation of the route. If the parties cannot agree upon terms, and the Surface Transportation Board finds that access to Amtrak's facilities or equipment, or the provision of services by Amtrak, is necessary to carry out this provision and that the operation of Amtrak's other services will not be impaired thereby, the Surface Transportation Board shall, within 120 days after submission of the dispute, issue an order that the facilities and equipment be made available, and that services be provided, by Amtrak, and shall determine reasonable compensation, liability, and other terms for use of the facilities and equipment and provision of the services. Compensation shall be determined, as appropriate, in accordance with the methodology established pursuant to section 209 of this division [49 U.S.C. 24101 note], if available."
### §47529. Nonaddition rule

(a) General Limitations.—Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and section 47530 of this title, a person may operate a civil subsonic turbojet aircraft with a maximum weight of more than 75,000 pounds that is imported into the United States after November 4, 1990, only if the aircraft—

(1) complies with the stage 3 noise levels; or

(2) was purchased by the person importing the aircraft into the United States under a legally binding contract made before November 5, 1990.

(b) Exemptions.—The Secretary of Transportation may provide an exemption from subsection (a) of this section to permit a person to obtain modifications to an aircraft to meet the stage 3 noise levels.

(c) Aircraft Deemed Not Imported.—In this section, an aircraft is deemed not to have been imported into the United States if the aircraft—

(1) was owned on November 5, 1990, by—

(A) a corporation, trust, or partnership organized under the laws of the United States or a State (including the District of Columbia);

(B) an individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

(C) an entity that is owned or controlled by a corporation, trust, partnership, or individual described in subclause (A) or (B) of this clause; and

(2) enters the United States not later than 6 months after the expiration of a lease agreement (including any extension) between an owner described in clause (1) of this subsection and a foreign carrier.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1292.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 47529 | 49 App.:2158. | Nov. 5, 1990, Pub. L. 101–508, §9309, 104 Stat. 1388–384; Oct. 31, 1992, Pub. L. 102–581, §136(b), 106 Stat. 4889. |

Section
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.106 What standards will the Director use to regulate lease operations? The Director will regulate all operations under a lease, right-of-use and easement, or right-of-way to: ( a ) Promote orderly exploration, development, and production of mineral resources;
( b ) Prevent injury or loss of life;
( c ) Prevent damage to or waste of any natural resource, property, or the environment; and
( d ) Cooperate and consult with affected States, local governments, other interested parties, and relevant Federal agencies.