alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-0650 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2010-NM-257-AAD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

Yes Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Solera Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), each of the undersigned chief executive officer and chieffinancial officer of the Company, certifies, to the best knowledge and beliefof the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and

 

2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  Tony Aquila            |       | /s/  Jack Pearlstein        |
|-----------------------------|------------|-----------------------------|
| **Tony Aquila**             | ** ** | **Jack Pearlstein**         |
| **Chief Executive Officer** | ** ** | **Chief Financial Officer** |
|                        |       |                        |
| Date: May 13, 2008          |       | Date: May 13, 2008          |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**     I, Jeff D. Morris, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alon USA Energy, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich 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 effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date: November 10, 2005         /s/  Jeff D. Morris  Jeff D. Morris   President and Chief Executive Officer
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

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-K/A (the "Report") of ANTs software
inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), for the period ended December 31,
2008:

     1. Fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

     This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not
to be deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be "filed" for any
purpose whatsoever.

Date:  May 22, 2009

                                        /s/ Joseph Kozak
                                        ----------------
                                        Joseph Kozak, Chairman, Chief Executive
                                        Officer and President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company, and will be
retained by the Company, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
upon request.
================================================================================

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 Nova Resources Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended May 31,  2006 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 his 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 results of operations of
         the Company.


Date:  July 24, 2006


/s/ Alexander Craven
---------------------------------
Alexander Craven, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)
§ 3570.83 Audits. ( a ) An audit will be conducted in accordance with 2 CFR part 200 subpart F, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400, except as provided in this section. The audit requirements apply only to the years in which grant funds are expended.
( b ) Grantees who are not required to submit an audit report will, within 60 days following the end of the fiscal year in which any grant funds were expended, furnish RHS with annual financial statements, consisting of a verification of the organization's balance sheet and statement of income and expense report signed by an appropriate official of the organization or other documentation as determined appropriate by the approval official.
[62 FR 16469, Apr. 7, 1997, as amended at 79 FR 76013, Dec. 19, 2014]
#### The State ex rel. Cincinnati, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Lowe et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Cincinnati, Inc. v. Lowe,*109 Ohio St.3d 80, 2006-Ohio-1927.]

*81(No. 2005-0546

Submitted March 14, 2006

Decided May 3, 2006.)

Dinsmore & Shohl, L.L.P., Gary E. Becker, and Theresa M. Muhic, for appellant.

Weisser & Wolf and Lisa M. Clark, for appellee Robert W. Lowe.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Kevin J. Reis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio.

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
§ 3555.307 Assistance in natural disasters. ( a ) *Policy.* Servicers must utilize general procedures available under this subpart for servicing borrowers affected by natural disasters, as supplemented by Rural Development, to minimize delinquencies and avoid foreclosure.
( b ) *Evaluating the damage.* Servicers are expected to inspect a security property whenever they have reason to believe the property has been damaged.
( c ) *Special relief measures.* The servicer must evaluate on an individual case-by-case basis a mortgage that is (or becomes) seriously delinquent as the result of the borrower's incurring extraordinary damages or expenses related to the natural disaster. The servicer should document its individual mortgage file regarding all servicing actions taken during this time period. The lender must consider all special relief alternatives for disaster assistance available to the borrower prior to suspending collection and foreclosure activities. The suspension of servicing actions will expire 90 days from the declaration date of the natural disaster, unless otherwise extended by the Agency.
( d ) *Insurance claim settlements.* Prior to release of hazard insurance proceeds because of damage caused by a natural disaster, servicers must complete a cost and benefit analysis on a case-by-case basis to determine if the property can be repaired or rebuilt. The servicer's actions must be based on the status of the mortgage, the amount of insurance proceeds, and the length of time required repairing or reconstructing the property, and the market conditions in the area. If the property will not be repaired or rebuilt, the insurance proceeds must be applied to the unpaid principal loan balance.
[78 FR 73941, Dec. 9, 2013, as amended at 81 FR 6430, Feb. 8, 2016]
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Richard Heyse,
certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Innophos, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided Innophos, Inc. and will be retained by Innophos, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to
update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: November 4, 2008

| |  |  |  |                   |  |                                                                                       
| |  |  |  | ----------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | 
| |  |  |  | /s/ RICHARD HEYSE
| |  |  |  |                   |  | Richard Heyse Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 20 11 - 1158 Directorate ID : 20 10 - SW - 018 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model Model AS350B, B1, B2, B3, BA, C, D, D1, AS355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP Helicopters Number of He licopters (U.S. Operators): 936 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this proposed AD are intended to prevent failure of the control rod, loss of tail rotor control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs: We estimate that labor costs average $85 a work - hour. We estimate, per helicopter, it will take minimal work - hours to do the check, 1 work - hour to measure the bearing play , and 1 work - hour to replace 1 control rod. Required parts will cost about $1,724 to replace a control rod per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators is minimal for the check. Measuring the bearing play , if needed, would cost $85 per helicopter, and replacing 1 control rod would cost $1,809 per helicopter.

Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Robert Grant
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WILLIAM FORREST MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5470/MCR/ZCB

JEREMY KYLE SOUTHERN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________/

ORDER

The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on December 29,

2022. (Doc. 48). The Court furnished the plaintiff a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). There have been no timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the record, I have 

determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 48) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with an order of the Court.

Case 3:20-cv-05470-MCR-ZCB Document 49 Filed 04/05/23 Page 1 of 2
2

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of April 2023.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05470-MCR-ZCB Document 49 Filed 04/05/23 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 10-1



July 18, 2001




Mr. Terrence McCarthy, Vice President & Treasurer
ASA International Ltd.
10 Speen Street
Framingham, MA 01701


Dear Terry:

    This is to advise that the working capital line of credit in the amount of
$1,500,000.00 has been renewed until June 30, 2002 under the terms and
conditions of our financing agreements and any subsequent revisions. This
renewal is based on performance covenants reestablished on an annual basis. For
this fiscal year they are as follows:


                                   Actual at         Required at       Testing
                                   ---------         -----------       -------
                                   FYE 2000          FYE 2001          Frequency
                                   --------          --------          ---------

Minimum TNW                        $6,993M           $6,800M           Quarterly
Maximum Debt/TNW                   1.27:1            2.00:1            Quarterly
Min. Debt Service Coverage         4.55x             1.25x             Annual
Equity must increase by            ($525M)           75%               Annual
75% of Net Income


    Please acknowledge below and return to me as soon as possible.


Very truly yours,


/s/ John R. O'Brien
Vice President




Acknowledged and Agreed:

ASA International Ltd.


/s/ Terrence C. McCarthy                                July 23, 2001
Vice President & Treasurer                                  Date
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7596
JIMMIE WASHINGTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM DAVIS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.

No. 98-6623
JIMMIE WASHINGTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM DAVIS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-1801-2-8AJ)2 Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 30, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmie Washington, 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: In these consolidated appeals, Appellant first appeals thedistrict court’s order denying his motion to reconsider a nonexistent dismissal order. Appellant also filed a notice of appeal after the court’s order extending the time for the respondents to reply to Appellant’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998),petition and noting that the matter could be considered by a magistrate judge with the parties’ consent. We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals as interlocutory. Appellant’s motion to place these appeals in abeyance is denied. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Elvis B. Tillman, Appellant, v Warden, Respondent.

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 9, 1976, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs and without disbursements. Counsel’s motion to be relieved as assigned counsel is denied. No opinion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Bloom, Markewich, Silverman and Ross, JJ.
1 ... S itt ing b y a ssig n m e n t.

i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 51 9- CV J ose A. VA LD EZ , J r., Appellant
v . Gustavo GU EVARA , J r., City Secre tary and The City

of L are do, Appellee s Fr om the 111th J udicial District Court, Webb County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CVQ-000288D 2 Honora ble David Pee ples , J udg e Presiding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Justi ce

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Dece mber 23, 2008 DI SMI SSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTI ON On No ve mbe r 1 7, 20 08 , n oti c e wa s g ive n to the a pp e lla nt t hat th is a pp e a l w a s su

bje c t to dismiss al for failing to f

ile a brie f. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38. 8( a )( 1)
. Ap pe lla nt wa s g ive n te n d a y s to
e xpla in w hy

th e ca us e sh ou ld n ot b e dis mis se d f or his fa ilure to f

ile a br ie f. To date , n o r e sp on se has bee n rec eived. The re be ing no satisfactory explanation f

or appellant’ s failure to timely file the04
- 08
- 00 51 9- CV

- 2- brief, the appea l is di s m i s s ed for want of prose cution. See id. ; 42.3. Costs of appe al ar e taxed
a g a ins t th e a

pp e lla nt. PER C URI AM
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-61091

Summary Calendar

DAVID FERNELLI SACHICA RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONAZLES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

--------------------

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A78 600 034

--------------------

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Fernelli Sachica Rodriguez (Sachica), a native and

citizen of Colombia, petitions this court to review the decision

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming without

opinion the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application

for asylum and withholding of removal. 

Sachica argues that the IJ applied the wrong legal standard

and erroneously determined that he did not suffer past

persecution and did not have a well-founded fear of future

persecution.
No. 05-61091

-2-

Sachica’s asylum claim is based on his numerous contacts

with various guerrilla groups, which occurred while he was flying

missions for National Helicopters of Colombia. We conclude from

a review of the record that the BIA’s decision is supported by

substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a conclusion

contrary to the IJ’s findings that the encounters with the

guerrillas do not rise to the level of persecution and that

Sachica failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution. 

See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187 (5th Cir. 2004);

Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 1997). 

The petition for review is DENIED. Sachica’s motion for

appointment of counsel is also DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Canning, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 10, 1980 affirmed. No opinion. This case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.