alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-13-026-E

This letter corrects the December 10, 2012, letter we sent granting your petition for 

Exemption No. 8843C. Although the grant for an extension was covered by Exemption 

No. 8843C, a correction was made to the first page. Exemption No. 8843C was corrected to 

change the Air Agency Certificate from V18T077K to U5DT571K. We have made the 

correction in our records as of January 14, 2013.

December 10, 2012 

Exemption No. 8843C

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26738

Mr. David L. Jones

Corporate Aviation Education Director

Aviation Institute of Maintenance

4455 South Boulevard

Virginia Beach, VA 23452

Dear Mr. Jones:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8843,

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated August 22, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Technical Educational Services, Inc., d.b.a. Aviation Institute of Maintenance 

(Aviation Institute) (operating under Air Agency Certificate V18T077K) for an extension of 

Exemption No. 8843, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations allows Aviation Institute to administer the aviation mechanic general 

written test to students immediately following their successful completion of the general 

curriculum but before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77.

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. The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent,

and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aviation Institute.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8843, as

amended, 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.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8843, as amended, to

February 28, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8843 remain the same. This letter must be

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8843.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards

 Service
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, James F.Cleary, Jr. and Mary Patricia B. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to our knowledge:
|        | (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 result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods  expressed in the Report. |

 

February 5, 2007
| /s/  James F. Cleary, Jr.     |     |
|-------------------------------|----------|
| James F. Cleary, Jr.          |     |
| *Chief Executive Officer*     | * * |
|                          |     |
|                          |     |
| /s/ Mary Patricia B. Thompson |     |
| Mary Patricia B. Thompson     |     |
| *Chief Financial Officer*     | * * |

 

----
§ 2500.024 Evaluation criteria. ( a ) *General.* To ensure any project receiving funds from OAO is consistent with the broad goals of the funding program, the content of each proposal submitted to OAO will be evaluated based on a pre-determined set of review criteria as indicated in the RFP.
( b ) *Guidance for reviewers.* In order that all potential applicants for a program have similar opportunities to compete for funds, all reviewers will receive an orientation from the Program Leader of the review criteria. Reviewers are instructed to use those same evaluation criteria, and only those criteria, to judge the merit of the proposals they review.
#### Ernest R. ELLIS, Sr., Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2007-7116.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 27, 2007.

Ernest R. Ellis, Sr., pro se.

Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and PROST, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss Ernest R. Ellis, Sr.’s appeal from the order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in *Ellis v. Nicholson,*06-1963, 2006 WL 8007964 (Vet.App.2006), for lack of jurisdiction. Ellis opposes.

Ellis filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Ellis requested that the court order his claim to be expedited before the regional office. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims directed the Secretary to respond concerning the status of the regional office proceeding. The Secretary informed the court of the status of the case and when the process would be completed. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that Ellis had not shown that issuance of a writ was warranted and that there “is currently no showing that reliance upon the adjudication and appellate review process will prove inadequate.”

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, this court has limited jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. *See Forshey v. Principi,*284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc). This court “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

Ellis’s arguments concerning whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims correctly‘decided that he had not shown entitlement to a writ are challenges to factual determinations concerning the status of the proceedings. Because we do not have jurisdiction to consider such arguments, we must dismiss this appeal.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretaras motions are granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
**Exhibit 23.3**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Board of Directors

CKX, Inc. (formerly Sports Entertainment Enterprises, Inc.)

New York, New York

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements of CKX, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-1130712)and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-127119) of our report datedMarch 25, 2005, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, onthe consolidated financial statements of CKX, Inc. and Subsidiaries forthe year ended December 31, 2004.

PIERCYBOWLER TAYLOR & KERN

CertifiedPublic Accountants & Business Advisors

A Professional Corporation

LasVegas, Nevada

March 1, 2007

 

----
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.14  


 
 

REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP
  SUMMARY OF
  DIRECTOR COMENSATION ARRANGMENTS    
    



        Directors who are employees of Regal Entertainment Group or its subsidiaries receive no additional cash or equity compensation for service on the Regal
Entertainment Group Board of Directors. All Directors are reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses related to attendance at Board of Director and Board of Director
committee meetings. Directors who are not employees of Regal Entertainment Group also receive an annual cash retainer for Board of Director service of $40,000. 


        Directors
do not receive additional cash or equity compensation for service on committees of Regal Entertainment Group's Board of Directors. 











QuickLinks


REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMENSATION ARRANGMENTS
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification
      a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b.
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: August 6, 2009
    /s/ G. Gary YetmanChief Executive Officer and President
MEMO

From:   Robert W. Weaver
To:     W. Clif Lawson
Date:   June 2, 2004

The stated term of your employment contract expires June 30, 2004.  The contract
contains an option to extend your employment for 12 months to June 30, 2005.  By
way  of  this correspondence the Company is exercising the option to extend your
employment.

                                      -61-
<PAGE>
#### § 1786.166 Approvals.

The borrower shall be responsible for obtaining all approvals necessary to consummate the transaction as required by the prepayment agreement, including such approvals as may be required by regulatory bodies and other lenders.
#### §§ 1755.1-1755.2 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF QUINTANA MARITIME LIMITED

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March
31, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul J. Cornell, Chief Financial Officer of Quintana Maritime Limited (the Company), hereby certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Paul J. CornellPaul J. CornellChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


Date: May 9, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to: 

McCombs, 7:20cv94

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 76

Juror Questionnaires

By May 10, 2021, the completed juror questionnaires—minus all personal 

identifying information—will be e-mailed to counsel of record in this case.

1

 Each 

questionnaire will be sequentially numbered, which will allow counsel to match 

individual questionnaires to individual prospective jurors by name on the morning 

of jury selection. 

On the morning of jury selection, counsel of record will receive paper copies 

of the questionnaires showing the names and addresses of the prospective jurors and 

their spouses. All copies of these questionnaires must be returned to the courtroom 

deputy immediately following jury selection. No person (lawyer or otherwise) will 

be permitted to leave the courtroom with any questionnaire and no person(s) will be 

permitted to have electronic devices in the courtroom during jury selection including 

1 The Court has reconsidered its prior oral ruling regarding counsel’s access to juror 

questionnaires in advance of jury selection and determined that advanced disclosure one week 

prior to jury selection will facilitate a more efficient jury selection process.

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 94 Filed 05/02/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO. 7:20cv94/MCR/GRJ

cell phones, iPads, laptops, etc. All lawyers and persons in the courtroom are

prohibited from copying, photographing or in any way recording by hand or 

otherwise information contained on the juror questionnaires.

Counsel of record are permitted to share the redacted questionnaires only with 

their trial teams, a trial consultant, and their client(s). Counsel of record, members 

of their trial teams, a trial consultant, and/or client(s) are prohibited from sharing 

prospective juror information and from conducting any investigation, or attempted 

investigation, of any prospective juror or family member. Counsel of record are 

responsible for ensuring compliance with this Order by others. To this end, all 

counsel of record who had access to the juror questionnaires must certify compliance 

with this Order by executing the Certification of Compliance, attached as Exhibit 

A.2

 One completed Certification per party must be filed on the MDL docket and in 

each individual case no later than 8AM on May 18, 2021. Any counsel who fails to

comply with this Order or falsely certifies compliance with the Order will be the 

subject of a show cause contempt order.

SO ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 The parties may request a word document version of the certification form for completion

electronically.

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 94 Filed 05/02/21 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-MD Document 598 Filed 03/24/08 Page 1 of 11Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-MD Document 598 Filed 03/24/08 Page 2 of 11Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-MD Document 598 Filed 03/24/08 Page 3 of 11Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-MD Document 598 Filed 03/24/08 Page 4 of 11Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-MD Document 598 Filed 03/24/08 Page 5 of 11Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-MD Document 598 Filed 03/24/08 Page 6 of 11Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-MD Document 598 Filed 03/24/08 Page 7 of 11Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-MD Document 598 Filed 03/24/08 Page 8 of 11Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-MD Document 598 Filed 03/24/08 Page 9 of 11Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-MD Document 598 Filed 03/24/08 Page 10 of 11Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-MD Document 598 Filed 03/24/08 Page 11 of 11
###### Editorial Note on Part 1955

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1955.21 Exception authority.

The Administrator may, in individual cases, make an exception to any requirement or provision of this subpart or address any omission of this subpart which is not inconsistent with the authorizing statute or other applicable law if the Administrator determines that the Government's interest would be adversely affected or the immediate health and/or safety of tenants or the community are endangered if there is no adverse effect on the Government's interest. The Administrator will exercise this authority upon the request of the State Director with recommendation of the appropriate program Assistant Administrator; or upon request initiated by the appropriate program Assistant Administrator. Requests for exceptions must be made in writing and supported with documentation to explain the adverse effect, propose alternative courses of action, and show how the adverse effect will be eliminated or minimized if the exception is granted.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv4698-TKW-HTC

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS and RAYME

EDLER,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon due consideration of Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for extension of time 

(Doc. 34), it is

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff shall have until June 

8, 2020, to file his response(s) to Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 35 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MARCAUREL A PIERRE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv4786-LC-HTC

WARDEN J KOLODZEIJ,

et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated June 9, 2020 (ECF No. 11). The parties have been furnished 

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity 

to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No 

objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that 

it should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF Doc. 11) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-04786-LC-HTC Document 12 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv4786-LC-HTC

2. Th petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply 

with a Court order and failure to state a claim.

3. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2020.

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

s/L.A. Collier 

Case 3:20-cv-04786-LC-HTC Document 12 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.'s 333-135239, 333-134379,
333-133470, 333-130848, 333-130846, 33-60173 and 333-70408) pertaining to the Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. Investment Savings
Plan, SkyWest, Inc. 2006 Long Term Incentive Plan, 2004 Restatement of the SkyWest, Inc. Employees' Retirement Plan, SkyWest, Inc. 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
SkyWest, Inc. 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, SkyWest, Inc. 2001 Allshare Incentive Stock Option Plan and SkyWest, Inc. Executive Stock Incentive Plan, respectively, of
SkyWest, Inc. and subsidiaries, of our reports dated February 22, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of SkyWest, Inc. and subsidiaries, and
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of SkyWest, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

Salt
Lake City, Utah
February 22, 2008

---



QuickLinks
Case 3:96-cv-00274-LC-SMN Document 245 Filed 12/17/99 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:96-cv-00274-LC-SMN Document 245 Filed 12/17/99 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:96-cv-00274-LC-SMN Document 245 Filed 12/17/99 Page 3 of 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

AASIM STIBBINS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 388 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
#### Ileana Adlerman, Appellant, v. Edwin J. Adlerman, Respondent.

Order entered August 13, 1965, denying plaintiff’s motion for an increase in *526alimony payments and payments for the infant issue, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.; McHally, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent. Plaintiff has alleged a change o£ circumstances. Her application should not be determined without a hearing. In this separation action the modified judgment of June 23, 1960 (10 A D 2d 945, affd. 8 N Y 2d 1100) provides for monthly support payments of $300 for the wife and $200 for the female child of the parties. The cause was tried in December, 1959, when the child was eight months. Plaintiff’s application is grounded largely on additional educational, medical and clothing needs of the child now six years. Defendant is a urologist. In 1959 his gross income was $30,000, net income $18,000 and assets about $200,000. Plaintiff alleges and defendant does not deny that his income has increased considerably and he is otherwise more affluent. Plaintiff itemizes educational, recreational, medical and clothing expenses for the child exceeding the amount awarded for her support exclusive of any allocation for rent and other apartment expenses. Defendant challenges some of the items as either unnecessary or unauthorized. Special Term denied the application without a hearing on the ground the plaintiff failed to show changed circumstances. It cannot be gainsaid that a female child circumstanced as is the child of the parties requires substantially more financial support at the age of six than she required at the tender age of eight months (see *Malamat*v. *Malamat,*264 App. Div. 795). It is not enough that the child has grown or for that matter there has been a general inflation of prices. *(Liebmann*v. *Liebmann,*19 A D 2d 821.) However, the fortuitous circumstance of the child’s maturation during an inflationary period inevitably tends to increase her financial support requirements. Defendant’s legal liability therefor subsists within the limits of his financial capacity. *(Kraunz*v. *Kraunz,*293 N. Y. 152; *Liebmann*v. *Liebmann,*22 A D 2d 663.) Here the plaintiff has itemized the needs of the child. The fact of general inflation simply serves to confirm that the sum presently required for the specific needs of the child is greater than was necessary or anticipated therefor in 1960 when the award was made, even if it be assumed it was made in the light of the present requirements of the child (see *Goodman*v. *Goodman,*12 A D 2d 591; *Clarke*v. *Clarke,*7 A D 2d 831; *Damsey*v. *Damsey,*39 Misc 2d 385, affd. 20 A D 2d 969). Issues as to the propriety of the items of support and the amounts required therefor should not be resolved without a hearing. At this time whether plaintiff has established a change in circumstances is to be determined on her allegations without attempting to resolve those disputed by defendant. *(Peters*v. *Peters,*14 A D 2d 778; cf. *Brody*v. *Brody,*22 A D 2d 646; *Liebmann*v. *Liebmann,*22 A D 2d 663.)
#### §§ 1910.54-1910.100 [Reserved]