alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTONDC
AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF ) AMERICA, INC. d/b/a AIRLINES FOR ) AMERICA, ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., ) AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., ATLAS AIR, ) INC., FEDEX EXPRESS AIRLINES, ) HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., JETBLUE ) AIRWAYS INC., SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., ) UNITED AIRLINES, INC., UNITED PARCEL ) SERVICE CO., andAIR CANADA, ) Complainants,
v. PORT OF PORTLAND, OREGON Respondent. ) 

# ? ) ) ) ) ) 

### FAA Docket No. 

### 16-16-04

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint,filed in accordance with FAA Rules ofPractice for FederallyAssisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 

### 14 CFR Part 

### 16. Pursuant to 

### 14 CFR Part 

### 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to December 

### 16, 2016. Anextension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.



# .



# ~~I) -\=o;L

Kevm C. W11l1s, D1rector Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis

I 

### 10

## }lc1 J

## 2-9?

## \L.

r DateCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 20, 2016, I caused to be placed inthe United States Mail a true copy ofthe FAA's Notice ofExtension ofTime for FAA Docket No. 16-16-04 addressed to: For Complainants David Berg, Esq., Vice President & General Counsel Doug Mullen, Esq., Assistant General Counsel Air TransportAssociation ofAmerica, Inc. d/b/aAirlines for America 1275 PennsylvaniaAvenue, NW, Ste 1300 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 626-4234 Email: dberg@airlines.org dmullen@airlines.org For Respondent
Daniel Blaufus, Esq., General Counsel Ian Whitlock, Esq., Deputy General Counsel Wendy Hain, Esq., Assistant General Counsel The Port ofPortland 7200 NE Airport Way Portland, OR 97218 Email: dan.blaufus@portofportland.com ian.whitlock@portofportland.com wendy.hain@portofportland.com Phone: 503-415-6062 Fax: 503-944-7080 Copyto: FAAPart 16 Airport Proceedings Docket Roy Goldberg, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 429-8028 Email: rgoldberg@steptoe.com

Pablo 0. Niiesch, Esq. Spiegel &McDiarmid LLP 1875 Eye Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com Phone: 202-879-4000 Fax: 202-393-2866



### FAAAkport Compli"""ruill



## Mmg~'"' **Amly~:~**

# '

audia Roberts



# ~

2 Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 9:52 AM

To: 'jetemo1@comcast.net'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Drone Guys (Docket No. FAA-2015-1260)

July 27, 2015 

Dear Messrs. Temoshenko: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-1260). 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 and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If 

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by August 

10, 2015. 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) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEROLOGICALS
CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES' CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 27, 1998 AS SET FORTH IN ITS FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE SUCH TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1998
<CASH>                                          34,940
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,856
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (784)
<INVENTORY>                                     13,441
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,016
<PP&E>                                          26,406
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,074
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,852
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           243
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,331
<SALES>                                        123,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,072
<CGS>                                           81,242
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,644
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (846)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,032
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,687
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,345
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,345
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.36

FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT entered into effective as of the
30th day of September, 2006 (the Effective Date), by and between A&A Urban Renewal Company, a New Jersey general partnership (Landlord), and Michael Foods, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Minnesota (Tenant).

W-I-T-N-E-S-S-E-T-H:

WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into a lease dated as of February 26, 1997 (the Lease) respecting 100 Trumbull Street, Elizabeth, New Jersey, as described in Exhibit A of the Lease (the
Premises);

WHEREAS, Article 35 of the Lease provides that Tenant is granted the right to extend the term of the Lease for two
period(s) of five (5) years each (the Option Period(s));

WHEREAS, Tenant exercised the first of the Option Periods;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements set forth herein, and other considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Annual Rent During First Option Period. The Annual
Rent payable by Tenant pursuant to Article 2 of the Lease during the first Option Period shall be as set forth below:

Years 11-15,
inclusive, of the First Option Period:

Six Hundred Forty Eight Thousand Dollars ($648,000) payable in equal monthly installments of
Fifty Four Thousand Dollars ($54,000) in advance on or before the first day of each calendar month, which is 135% of the Annual Rent for the 12 months immediately preceding the commencement of the first option period.

2. Ratification. Except as expressly modified and amended by this Agreement, all of the terms and conditions of the Lease shall remain
unaltered and in full force and effect and Landlord and Tenant each hereby ratify and confirm the same as of the date hereof.

3.
Miscellaneous. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile signatures shall have the same force
and effect as original signatures for purposes of this Amendment. Words and phrases having defined meanings in the Lease shall have the same respective meanings when used herein, unless otherwise expressly defined herein. This Agreement shall be
binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective permitted successors and assigns.



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above
written.



|                          |  |                     |  |        |  |                  
|------------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------
|Landlord                |  | Tenant           
|                          | 
|A&A Urban Renewal Company |  | Michael Foods, Inc.
|                          |  |                     | 
|By:                       |  | /s/Arthur Papetti   |  | By:    |  | /s/ Mark Westphal
|Title:                    |  | Manager             |  | Title: |  | SVP-Finance
### Part A—National Preparedness System
§ 200.320 Determinations regarding the amount of penalties and assessments. In considering the factors listed in § 200.140: ( a ) It should be considered a mitigating circumstance if all the items, services, or violations included in the action brought under this part were of the same type and occurred within a short period of time; there were few such items, services, or violations; and the total amount claimed or requested for such items or services was less than $5,000.
( b ) Aggravating circumstances include— ( 1 ) The violations were of several types or occurred over a lengthy period of time;
( 2 ) There were many such items, services, or violations (or the nature and circumstances indicate a pattern of claims or requests for payment for such items or services or a pattern of violations);
( 3 ) The amount claimed or requested for such items or services or the amount of the remuneration was $50,000 or more; or
( 4 ) The violation resulted, or could have resulted, in harm to the patient, a premature discharge, or a need for additional services or subsequent hospital admission.
#### § 1803.4 Suggestions and complaints.

NACIC welcomes suggestions or complaints with regard to its administration of the mandatory declassification review program established under Executive Order 12958. Letters of suggestion or complaint should identify the specific purpose and the issues for consideration. NACIC will respond to all substantive communications and take such actions as determined feasible and appropriate.
June 9, 2015 

Mr. Chris Petty 

Precision Management and 

 Consulting, Inc. 

P.O. Box 316 

Mayfield, KY 42066 

Dear Mr. Petty: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your March 13, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Precision Management and 

Consulting, Inc. into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0649), but we are unable to process 

your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of 

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
LILBURN NUNNELLEE, II,

Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM BOYETTE, WILLIAM 

BOYETTE, AS PERSONAL 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 

ESTATE OF LINDA CASH 

BOYETTE, DECEASED,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-5341

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 5, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Linda L. Nobles, Judge.

Lilburn Nunnellee, II, pro se, Appellant.

Michael W. Kehoe of Fuller, Johnson, Kehoe, Horky & Rettig, LLC., Pensacola, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1084
ROGER C. MENNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-16-MC) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger C. Menner, Appellant Pro Se. Gary R. Allen, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his petition to quash third-party summonses of the Internal RevenueService. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Menner v. United States , No. CA95-16-MC (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 1995). We grant the Government's motion to file an informal brief out of time. 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.

AFFIRMED
Opinion filed October 21, 2010

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00218-CV

__________

ANDREW McCORMACK, Appellant

V.

VICTORIA DIANE (McCORMACK) TORRES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 318th District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. FM 50,246

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Andrew McCormack has filed in this court a motion to dismiss his appeal. McCormack 

states that all disputes and controversies have been resolved. The motion is granted, and the 

appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

October 21, 2010

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
#### Charles Albert, Appellant, v. New York Telephone Company et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Yalente and Bergan, JJ.
----

| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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 as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | (signed) Steven Curtis                 |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Steven Curtis, Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Caledonia Mining Corporation Plc       |

| 1 | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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 as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | (signed) **Mark Learmonth**             |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Mark Learmonth, Chief Financial Officer |
|   | Caledonia Mining Corporation Plc        |

----
#### Carl P. Sorby, defendant in error, v. Kristian Baun, for use of Dansk Tidende, garnishee, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 29,132.

Garnishment process on judgment against defendant. Judgment against garnishee. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Asa G. Adams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed February 11, 1925.

C. W. Larsen, for plaintiff in error; F. J. Karasek, of counsel.

Sumner C. Palmer and Waldemar A. Bauer, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §610. Periodic review of rules

(a) Within one hundred and eighty days after the effective date of this chapter, each agency shall publish in the Federal Register a plan for the periodic review of the rules issued by the agency which have or will have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. Such plan may be amended by the agency at any time by publishing the revision in the Federal Register. The purpose of the review shall be to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules upon a substantial number of such small entities. The plan shall provide for the review of all such agency rules existing on the effective date of this chapter within ten years of that date and for the review of such rules adopted after the effective date of this chapter within ten years of the publication of such rules as the final rule. If the head of the agency determines that completion of the review of existing rules is not feasible by the established date, he shall so certify in a statement published in the Federal Register and may extend the completion date by one year at a time for a total of not more than five years.

(b) In reviewing rules to minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on a substantial number of small entities in a manner consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, the agency shall consider the following factors—

(1) the continued need for the rule;

(2) the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public;

(3) the complexity of the rule;

(4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and

(5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.

(c) Each year, each agency shall publish in the Federal Register a list of the rules which have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which are to be reviewed pursuant to this section during the succeeding twelve months. The list shall include a brief description of each rule and the need for and legal basis of such rule and shall invite public comment upon the rule.

(Added Pub. L. 96–354, §3(a), Sept. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 1169.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The effective date of this chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), is Jan. 1, 1981. See Effective Date note set out under section 601 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1981, see section 4 of Pub. L. 96–354, set out as a note under section 601 of this title.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, John S. Chen, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofSybase, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered bythis report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.
Date: March 23, 2004
/s/ JOHN S. CHEN
### Part H—Miscellaneous Provisions