alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 14, 2015

Mr. Jay Jablonski

Vice President

Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company

One State Street

Hartford, CT 06103

Dear Mr. Jablonski :

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

§ § 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a) and (b), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c)

91.121, 91.151(a)(1) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (a)(2), and 91. 417(a)

and (b) of 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 n o t Process Your Request

We entered your May 13, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of Hartford Steam Boiler

Inspection and Insurance Company into the public docket (No. FAA− 2015

− 1904 ), but we are

unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t 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 reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

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

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outli nes in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

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.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notif ying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles J. Schwartz, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Nassau County, dated October 10, 1961 (and entered Oct. 13, 1961) which denied, without a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered March 17, 1961 upon his plea of guilty, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, and imposing sentence. Order affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hill, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                         767,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,164,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                104,576,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           112,193,000
<PP&E>                                      24,216,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,442,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             137,830,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       73,404,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,411,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               137,830,000
<SALES>                                    143,324,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           143,324,000
<CGS>                                       83,600,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               83,600,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            56,308,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,461,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,607,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   682,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            925,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   925,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
1845-0084 v4 – Affected Public – Private Institutions 11/7/2014

The regulations in 686.4 require an institution that ceases to participate or becomes ineligible to 

participate in the TEACH Grant program during an award year to report to the Department of 

Education within 45 days after the effective date of the loss of eligibility. The report must 

include the name of each TEACH Grant eligible student, the amount of the TEACH Grant funds 

paid to each student for that award year, and the amount of TEACH Grant funds due each 

eligible student through the end of the payment period. Also, the institution must provide an 

accounting of all TEACH Grant expenditures for that award year to the date of termination.

 # of # of Total

Respondents Responses hours

Not-for-profits 2 2 17

The regulations in 686.11 establish that in addition to meeting the student eligibility

requirements, in order to receive a TEACH Grant the applicant must submit the designated 

application, sign a TEACH Grant agreement to serve (this burden is captured under OMB 

Control Number 1845-0083), and enroll in a TEACH Grant eligible institution. In addition, the 

grant recipient must either maintain a cumulative grade point average of 3.25 on a 4.0 scale 

during each payment period or score above the 75th percentile on at least one of the battery of 

nationally- normed standardized test.

 # of # of Total

Respondents Responses hours

Not-for-profits 519 110,771 6,800

The regulations in 686.32 require an institution to provide initial, subsequent, and exit counseling 

to each TEACH Grant recipient and maintain documentation substantiating the counseling 

requirements. 

 # of # of Total

Respondents Responses hours

Not-for-profits 519 519 7,292

The regulations in 686.34 require the institution to promptly provide written notification to a 

student requesting repayment of any overpayment that the institution does not have responsibility 

to repay. The regulations also require that the institution refer the student to the Department if 

the student does not take positive action to promptly resolve the TEACH Grant overpayment.

 # of # of Total

Respondents Responses hours

Not-for-profits 519 519 171

TOTALS

Responses 111,811

Respondents 519

Burden Hours 14,280
#### § 37.565 May I use a hybrid instrument that provides fixed support for only a portion of a project?

Yes, for a research project that is to be carried out by a number of participants, you may award a TIA that provides for some participants to perform under fixed-support arrangements and others to perform under expenditure-based arrangements. This approach may be useful, for example, if a commercial firm that is a participant will not accept an agreement with all of the post-award requirements of an expenditure-based award. Before using a fixed-support arrangement for that firm's portion of the project, you must judge that it meets the criteria in § 37.305.
#### § 1906.140 Employment.

No qualified individual with handicaps shall, solely on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the Agency. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1979 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/18/2011 12:17 PM

Subject: RE: Checking in on the CO NAAQS

I'll ask Margaret to work with you to schedule some time for tomorrow afternoon after 2 PM. 

Do you have a copy of the new EO you could send us? I haven't seen it yet, only heard about it. Thanks.
### SUBCHAPTER I—FINDINGS, POLICY, AND PURPOSE
#### STATE v. PRICE

No. 585A87-7

Case below: 337 N.C. 756

Motion by defendant for appropriate relief denied 5 February 1998.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2578

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. Jesus Francisco Ramirez-Garcia, * also known as Francisco Ramirez, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 4, 2011 Filed: February 9, 2011

___________ Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jesus Francisco Ramirez-Garcia appeal s the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to illegal reentry af ter deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Counsel seeks to withdraw, and has filed a brie f under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. Ramirez-Garcia has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that he recei ved ineffective assistance of counsel.

1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United Stat es District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.First, we decline to cons ider the ineffective-assist ance claim on direct appeal. SeeUnited States v. Cain , 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998) (ineffective-assistance claim should be raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 mo tion). Further, we conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in sentencing Ramirez-Garcia, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. SeeGall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural erro r, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-d iscretion standard); United States v. Haack , 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing ways in which court might abuse its discretion at sentencing). Having reviewed the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
<PAGE>
 
                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                      OF

                           CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION

                                      OF

                    TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNIQUES CO., LLC
                    --------------------------------------

                       Pursuant to Section 18-202 of the
                         Limited Liability Company Act
                           of the State of Delaware
                   ----------------------------------------

      TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNIQUES CO., LLC, a limited liability company
organized and existing under and by virtue of the Limited Liability Company Act
of the State of Delaware (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

      That the Certificate of Formation of the Company is hereby amended by
changing the name of the Corporation to DYNATECH, LLC.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, has caused this Certificate of Amendment
of Certificate of Formation to be executed by a duly authorized officer thereof
as of the 21st day of December, 1998.

                                        DYNATECH LLC


                                        By:/s/ Mark V.B. Tremallo
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Mark V. B. Tremallo
                                           Corporate Vice President and
                                               General Counsel
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 11
                     COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                   (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           QUARTER ENDED
                                                        5/03/97     5/04/96 
                                                        -------     ------- 
<S>                                                     <C>         <C>
Weighted average of shares outstanding                                      
    during quarter ...............................       10,877      10,867 
                                                                            
Weighted average common equivalent                                          
    shares attributable to stock options                                    
    granted, computed using the treasury                                    
    stock method on a fully diluted basis ........          489           0 
                                                                            
Weighted average common and common                                          
    equivalent shares ............................       11,366      10,867 
                                                                            
Net income applicable to common stock ............      $ 1,788     $ 1,027 
                                                                            
Net income per common and common                                            
    equivalent share .............................      $  0.16     $  0.09 
</TABLE>









                                      8
November 13, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EX PARTE MARIA A. MA RTINEZ

NO. 14

- 14

- 00253

- CR

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
March 31 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RODNEY TOW, TRUSTEE FOR THE ESTATE OF PE TERSON GROUP, INC. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00181

- CV V.
PATEL ERVIN PLLC F/K /A PATEL & WARREN, P LLC AND HIREN PATEL , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on January 21, 2015. Having considered the

m otion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Rodney Tow, Trustee for the Estate of Peterson Group, Inc. We further order that mandate be issued imme diately. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 13.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elron Electronic Industries, Ltd. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Ari Bronshtein, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(i)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.




Date: March 11, 2014
/s/Ari BronshteinAri BronshteinChief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1128 

Recognizing the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, commending a month of 

fasting and spiritual renewal, and extending best wishes to Muslims 

in the United States and across the globe for a joyous and meaningful 

observance of Eid al-Fitr. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 10, 2024 

Mrs. DINGELL (for herself, Ms. TLAIB, Mr. CARSON, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

CA ́RDENAS, Ms. OMAR, and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, commending a month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and 

extending best wishes to Muslims in the United States 

and across the globe for a joyous and meaningful observance of Eid al-Fitr. 

Whereas Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual 

renewal for Muslims worldwide; 

Whereas this month of sacrifice and contemplation began on 

March 10, 2024, based on the visual sightings of the 

crescent Moon; 

Whereas Muslims in the United States and around the world 

observe Ramadan by fasting, emphasizing self-discipline, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 1128 IH 

worship, charity, and reading the Holy Quran to improve 

patience, humility, and spirituality; 

Whereas Ramadan continued until the celebration of Eid alFitr; 

Whereas Eid al-Fitr begins each year with the sighting of the 

new Moon, signifying a month-long end to fasting and reflection for all Muslim followers; 

Whereas it is estimated that there are approximately 

1,900,000,000 Muslims worldwide; 

Whereas over 9,514 Muslims serve on active duty and over 

6,622 Muslims serve as selected reserve personnel in the 

United States Armed Forces; 

Whereas there are over 200 elected officials who identify as 

Muslim; 

Whereas it is estimated that there are 1,200,000 Muslim voters in the United States; 

Whereas the Muslim population has been growing in the 

United States and today’s American Muslim population 

is a tapestry of ethnic, racial, linguistic, social, and economic groups; 

Whereas American Muslims have contributed to every part of 

society to make advancements in medicine, science, engineering, economics, sports, education, and the law; and 

Whereas the observance of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan has concluded with Eid al-Fitr, a 3-day celebration: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) demonstrates solidarity with and support 

3 for members of the community of Islam in the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HRES 1128 IH 

1 United States and throughout the world, the House 

2 of Representatives recognizes the importance of the 

3 Islamic faith; and 

4 (2) in observance of and out of respect for 

5 Ramadan tradition, the Muslim holy month of fast6 ing and spiritual renewal, offers its best wishes to all 

7 Muslims celebrating Eid al-Fitr, the conclusion of 

8 Ramadan, while also expressing its deepest respect 

9 to Muslims in the United States and worldwide on 

10 this important occasion. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### § 260.7 Information requirements.

Within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year, the DoD Components shall forward to the PDUSD(P&R) the total number of applications for vending facility locations received from State licensing agencies, the number accepted, the number denied, the number still pending, the total amount of vending machine income collected (as defined in § 260.3 of this part, excluding income exempt from the income sharing requirements by § 260.6(d)(3) of this part), and the amount of such vending machine income disbursed to State licensing agencies in each State. These reporting requirements have been assigned Report Control Symbol DD-P&R(A)2210, according to DoD 8910.1-M, “Department of Defense Procedures for Management of Information Requirements.”[3]

###### Footnotes -
  260.7

[3] Available from *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/891001m.pdf.*
#### The People of the State of New York v. Wheeler Gordon.

Order of this court entered on November 9, 1961, assigning Warren Zweibach, Esq., as counsel for the defendant-appellant, is vacated, and Robert F. Martin, Esq., of 80 Pine St., New York, N. Y. is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant in the place and stead of Warren Zweibach, Esq. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.8
                                                                    ------------

             AMENDMENT TO SUTRON CORPORATION STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS

Pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in the Sutron Corporation Stock
Option Agreements dated November 1, 1996 and October 18, 2002 (the "Agreement")
between Daniel W. Farrell and Sutron Corporation, and the Sutron Corporation
1996 Stock Option Plan and 2002 Stock Option Plan (the "Plans"), you were
granted options to purchase 40,200 shares and 90,000 shares of Sutron
Corporation Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.125 and $.55. Your options
originally vested over a five year period.

On December 22, 2005, the Board of Directors of Sutron Corporation approved
amendments to all outstanding stock option agreements whereby Sutron accelerated
the vesting of all unvested options issued under the Plan, including your
options. As a result of such acceleration, effective December 22, 2005, all of
your options to purchase Sutron Corporation Common Stock that were not then
vested became immediately vested and exercisable. Accordingly, effective
December 22, 2005 all of your options to purchase Sutron Corporation Common
Stock are immediately vested and exercisable. All other terms and conditions of
your Agreements remain unchanged.

This Amendment is effective as of December 22, 2005. As amended by this letter,
all of the provisions of the Agreement are hereby approved, confirmed and
ratified. Please acknowledge your agreement to the foregoing terms by signing in
the space provided below and returning the originally executed letter.

SUTRON CORPORATION
By:      /s/ Raul S. McQuivey
         --------------------------------
         Raul S. McQuivey

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO THIS 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2005
By:      /s/ Daniel W. Farrell
         -------------------------
         Daniel W. Farrell
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 Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy
Carolinas) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Rogers, Chief Executive Officer of Duke Energy Carolinas,
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 Carolinas.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ JAMES E. ROGERS    
|James E. Rogers        
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 13, 2008