alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-10-139-E 

February, 23, 2010 

 Exemption No. 9703A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-0181 

Mr. Harold Estes 

Solid Edge Aviation, LLC. 

1225 Airport Road 

Sedona, AZ 86336 

Dear Estes: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 9703. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

On February 4, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

Solid Edge Aviation, LLC. (Solid Edge), for an extension of Exemption No. 9703. That 

exemption from part 121, appendices I and J of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows 

Solid Edge, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safetysensitive employees under one testing program. 

Although you requested relief from part 121, appendices I and J, the FAA recognizes that 

Solid Edge now requireS relief from part 120. On May 14, 2009, the FAA published the 

“Drug and Alcohol Testing Program” final rule in the Federal Register (74 FR 22649). A 

copy is enclosed for your information. 

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 Solid Edge. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9703 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

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. Employees of Solid Edge are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Solid Edge part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9703 to June 30, 2012, unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9703 remain the same. This letter must be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9703. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. 

Federal Air Surgeon
### §320302. Permits

(a) Authority To Grant Permit.—The Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Secretary of the Army may grant a permit for the examination of ruins, the excavation of archeological sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity on land under their respective jurisdictions to an institution that the Secretary concerned considers properly qualified to conduct the examination, excavation, or gathering, subject to such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe.

(b) Purpose of Examination, Excavation, or Gathering.—A permit may be granted only if—

(1) the examination, excavation, or gathering is undertaken for the benefit of a reputable museum, university, college, or other recognized scientific or educational institution, with a view to increasing the knowledge of the objects; and

(2) the gathering shall be made for permanent preservation in a public museum.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3260.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 320302 | 16 U.S.C. 432 (1st sentence). | June 8, 1906, ch. 3060, §3, 34 Stat. 225; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501. |

Section

In subsection (a), section 205(a) of the National Security Act of 1947 (ch. 343, 61 Stat. 501) was repealed by section 53 of the Act of August 10, 1956 (ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 676). Section 1 of the Act of August 10, 1956 (70A Stat. 1), enacted Title 10, "Armed Forces", and under sections 3010 to 3013 of title 10, the Department of the Army remains under the administrative supervision of the Secretary of the Army.
#### § 37.1285 Expenditure-based award.

A Federal Government contract or assistance award for which the amounts of interim payments or the total amount ultimately paid (*i.e.,* the sum of interim payments and final payment) are subject to redetermination or adjustment, based on the amounts expended by the recipient in carrying out the purposes for which the award was made. Most Federal Government grants and cooperative agreements are expenditure-based awards.
§ 778.11 Providing applicant and operator information. ( a ) You, the applicant, must provide in the permit application— ( 1 ) A statement indicating whether you and your operator are corporations, partnerships, associations, sole proprietorships, or other business entities;
( 2 ) Taxpayer identification numbers for you and your operator.
( b ) You must provide the name, address, and telephone number for— ( 1 ) The applicant.
( 2 ) Your resident agent who will accept service of process.
( 3 ) Any operator, if different from the applicant.
( 4 ) Each business entity in the applicant's and operator's organizational structure, up to and including the ultimate parent entity of the applicant and operator; for every such business entity, you must also provide the required information for every president, chief executive officer, and director (or persons in similar positions), and every person who owns, of record, 10 percent or more of the entity.
( c ) For you and your operator, you must provide the information required by paragraph (d) of this section for every— ( 1 ) Officer.
( 2 ) Partner.
( 3 ) Member.
( 4 ) Director.
( 5 ) Person performing a function similar to a director.
( 6 ) Person who owns, of record, 10 percent or more of the applicant or operator.
( d ) You must provide the following information for each person listed in paragraph (c) of this section— ( 1 ) The person's name, address, and telephone number.
( 2 ) The person's position title and relationship to you, including percentage of ownership and location in the organizational structure.
( 3 ) The date the person began functioning in that position.
( e ) We need not make a finding as provided for under § 774.11(g) of this subchapter before entering into AVS the information required to be disclosed under this section; however, the mere listing in AVS of a person identified in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section does not create a presumption or constitute a determination that such person owns or controls a surface coal mining operation.
[65 FR 79668, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 68031, Dec. 3, 2007]
(Mark One)

[X]    ANNUALREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

      

 

or

 

[ ]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTOF 1934

      

 

 

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of theSecurities Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)of the Exchange Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the preceding 12 months (or for suchshorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2)has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No []

 

Indicate by check mark ifdisclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (229.405 of this chapter) containedherein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant's knowledge indefinitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part IIIof this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [ ]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of“large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company”in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of theExchange Act). Yes [ ] No [X]

 

State the aggregate marketvalue of the voting and non-voting partnership interests held by non-affiliatescomputed by reference to the price at which the partnership interests were lastsold, or the average bid and asked prices of such partnership interests as ofthe last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscalquarter.  No market exists for the limited partnership interests of theRegistrant, and, therefore, no aggregate market value can bedetermined.

 

**DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE**

**None**
### §101932. Award of commercial services contracts

(a) Competitive Selection Process.—Except as provided in subsection (c), commercial services contracts shall be awarded by the Secretary through a competitive selection process.

(b) Solicitation of Proposals.—Before awarding a new commercial services contract, the Secretary shall publicly solicit proposals for the contract, except as provided in subsection (c). In connection with such solicitation, the Secretary shall prepare a request for proposals and shall publish notice of its availability.

(Added Pub. L. 114–289, title VII, §701, Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1493.)
#### § 277.3 Policy.

It is DoD policy to redress fraud in DoD programs and operations through the nonexclusive use of Pub. L. 99-509. All DoD Components shall comply with the requirements of this part in using this new remedy. Changes or modifications to this part by implementing organizations are prohibited. Implementing regulations are authorized only to the extent necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of this part.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 on Form 10-Q of
Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Morgan K. OBrien, as Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WITNESS the due execution hereof this 9thday of August, 2004.



/s/ Morgan K. OBrienMorgan K. OBrienPresident and Chief Executive Officer




This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original
of this certification required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company, who will retain it and furnish a copy to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



43
#### LEONARD, Respondent, v. DONOGHUE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 22, 1903.)

Action by Julia Leonard, by David Leonard, her guardian ad litem, against Francis X. Donoghue.

No opinion. Appeal dismissed, without costs; a new trial having been ordered in No. 507e.
Exhibt 10.2


 


Confidential


 


AMENDMENT TO THE PATENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN

EACCELERATION CORP. AND MOUNT HAMILTON PARTNERS, LLC


 


THIS AMENDMENT (hereinafter “Amendment”) is
made and entered into as of January 31, 2006, by and between eAcceleration Corp., a Delaware corporation with an address
at 1050 NE Hostmark St., Suite 100B Poulsbo, WA 98370 (“Seller”) and Mount Hamilton Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation, with an office at 650 Castro Street, Suite 120-333, Mountain View,
CA 94041 (“Purchaser”).


 


WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser entered into a
Patent Purchase Agreement effective November 21, 2005, (the “Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the
Agreement as more specifically set forth below;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual
covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration,
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as
follows:


 


1.                                       Capitalized
terms used in this Amendment that are defined in the Agreement shall have the
same meaning as in the Agreement unless expressly stated otherwise.


 


2.                                       As
of the Effective Date of this Amendment, the Agreement is amended by:


 


Section 7.1 is removed and replaced by the following text:


 


“7.1                           Nonexclusive
License Grant-Back. Upon receipt of executed Assignment of Patent Rights (Exhibit B hereto), Purchaser shall
grant Seller a non-transferable, non-exclusive worldwide right and license
under the Patents to make, have made, import, use, sell or offer for sale any
of Seller’s products and/or services covered by the Patents, all without the
right to sublicense.”


 


3.                                       With
respect to the matters set forth herein, this Amendment amends and supplements
the Agreement and supersedes all prior negotiations and writings. In all other
respects the Agreement shall remain unchanged. In the event that a conflict
arises between this Amendment and the Agreement, this Amendment shall take
precedence over the language of the Agreement. All unmodified terms and
conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
executed this Second Amendment as of the date first set forth above.


 


 


	
  Mount Hamilton Partners, LLC

  	
  eAcceleration Corp.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Rakesh Ramde

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Clint Ballard

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name:

  	
  Rakesh Ramde

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Clint Ballard

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Officer

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  CEO

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
  Jan. 31, 2006

  	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
  2/1/06

  	
   

  
											



 


1
#### FISHER, Respondent, v. BECKER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

Action by Margaret J. Fisher against Charles H. Becker. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, unless voluntarily modified.

Townsend, Dyett & Levy, for appellant. Phillips & Avery, for respondent.

MacLEAN, J.

Curiosity arises, upon perusing the case, as to why the action brought by a wife for services and material rendered and furnished by her husband should not have been brought by a trustee in bankruptcy. But that was not mooted by either side. When both rested, it was admitted that the plaintiff should have judgment for something. What that should be depended upon whose version would be accepted of two agreements. One, the price of certain work on a house in Morris Park defendant testified was $25 less than the plaintiff’s husband said it was; the other, the price of putting the husband through bankruptcy, the husband said was $75 less than the sum defendant said was agreed upon. Whatever and however the versions be taken, it is impossible to harmonize the judgment with them. The judgment should be reversed, therefore, unless the respondent consent to modify it by a reduction of at least $75. Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, unless the respondent consent to modify it by a reduction of $75, in which case the judgment, as modified, is affirmed without costs on this appeal. All concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) on 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, Paul M. Anderson, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Duke Energy, 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 Duke Energy.



|                     |  |                            
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2004 |  | /s/ PAUL M. ANDERSON       
|                     |  | Paul M. Anderson           
|                     |  | Chairman of the Board      
|                     |  | and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11

                 NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 Statement re computation of per share earnings

                                                          For the Year
                                                         Ended December 31
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                     2002      2001      2000
                                                    -------   -------   -------

Net Earnings                                        $12,118   $10,362   $ 7,889
                                                    =======   =======   =======

Average common shares outstanding                    15,005    15,005    15,005
                                                    =======   =======   =======

Basic and diluted earnings per share                $   .81   $   .69   $   .53
                                                    =======   =======   =======
#### § 2004.42 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6054
EMORY ALVIN MICHAU, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus EDSEL T. TAYLOR; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.

No. 04-6056
EMORY ALVIN MICHAU, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus EDSEL T. TAYLOR; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-03-851-6-08AK) Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: April 1, 2004- 2 - Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Michau 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
EAGLE EXPLORATION COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

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

I, Paul M. Joeckel, the Secretary/Vice President Operations of Eagle Exploration Company, (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated February 17, 2009



/s/ Paul M. JoeckelName: Paul M. JoeckelTitle: Secretary/Vice President Operations