alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dear Mr. Salinas :

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing fro m your petition (Docket No. FAA−2015

− 3679 )

. This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to
proce ed without this manual and remove closed

- set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non

- proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov

. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information ), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e

- mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 11/12/15 . I f we do not receive the information

, we will close the dock et without notifying you further.

If you ha ve any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

– 4549

. Sincerely, /S/ Michael J. Cameron Program Analyst
#### § 3560.5 State, local or tribal laws.

Borrowers must comply with all applicable state and local laws, and laws of Federally-recognized Indian tribes to the extent they are not inconsistent with this part.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 129 ) IV-E-2 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:54

PM Sheet 129 of 242

### <? i0 

### l u 

### %. P.2 

### R-Qn-mXlL UZ —L-r-Olr

# if*'. SE P I I 198

7 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5 OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : FROM : TO : THRU : Discussio n Wit h the Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y

Boar d Regardin g EPA' s Onboar d Proposa l Kathlee n A . Steilen , Chemica l Enginee r ^a*AJLee/' n Ct. ^fceii^vj Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h Th e Recor d Glenn W . passavant , Senio r Projec t Manage r */> JL^^. LStandard s Developmen t an d Sapport^Branc h A \nc Cheste r J . France , Chie f Standard s Developmen t a n S " ^ ' TCr-t-mmtASJOmrrmA;

On Augus t 25 , 1987 , I had a coupl e conversation s wit h Dr . Merrit t Birk yo f Transportatio n Safet yBoard concerning EPA' s controlling refueling emissions . Dr . Birk yha s EPA' s analysi s o f refueling emissio n control s genera l question s regarding thi s analysis . o f telephon e th e Nationa l proposa l fo r bee n studyin g an d ha d some Mor e specifically , Dr . Birk ywa s intereste d i n EPA' s evaluatio n o f fue l bladder s a s a n alternativ e refueling contro l approac h an

d an analysi s o f fue l tank-relate d fires . H e wante d t o knowho wfar EPA' s fue l bladde r investigatio n ha s progresse d an d had some genera l concern s regarding possibl e bladde r material s an

d designs . I explaine d t o hi m tha t EPA' s analysi s o f fue l bladder s i s onl ypreliminaryi n natur e an d tha t we hav e no t performe d an

yactua l testing o f bladder s t o date . A t hi s request , I gav e hi mthe name s o f two contact s fro m3 M wit h whom w e hav e discusse d potentia l bladde r materia l an d it' s necessary properties . I n addition , Dr . Birk yhad som

e question s on EPA' s compariso n o f onboar d an d stag e I I refueling controls . On e specifi c concer n wa s the basi s o f EPA' s assumptio n tha t onboar d contro l system s ar e "maintenance-free. " I n response , I offere d t o sen d hi m copie s o f ou

r onboar d proposa l an d th e majo r regulatorysuppor t document s whic h explai n EPA' s positio n entirely . A t the clos e o f our conversation , I tol d hi mt o fee l fre e t o contac t m e i f h e had an yfurthe r question s o n our analysi s an

d t o writ e a lette r t o th e docke t fo r an ycomment s o r concern s regarding the proposal . cc : Docke t A-87-1 1
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:89cr4004-WS

STEVEN DEAN,

Defendant.

 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before the court is the defendant’s request for a certificate of appealability. Doc.

849. The court having already entered an order denying the defendant a certificate of

appealability, doc. 847, and finding no reason to change that order, it is ORDERED:

The defendant’s request (doc. 849) for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this July 18, 2005.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:89-cr-04004-WS-WCS Document 852 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 1
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 MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 29, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sang Park, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Sang Park                       
|Sang Park                           
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
|August 12, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald Davis, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, rendered April 6, 1979, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, plea vacated and case remanded to Criminal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. Under the circumstances of this case it was an inappropriate exercise of *585discretion not to permit the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### § 3201.9 [Reserved]
#### § 29.1117 Rule 11.

Interpretations, the use of specifications, and the meaning of terms shall be in accordance with determinations or clarifications made by the Chief of the Marketing Programs Branch and approved by the Director.
## SERVEDAPRI L1,201 1 - -./r- r nr-^rnM]r,i

- \ 

### :i ! 

### :n|
. 

### _ u 

### A10

^ 

### 3 0

U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C
I NTH EMATTERO F 

## GOJE T AIRLINES , LI C FA A DOCKE T No
. CP10CE|O0 3 

### (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No
. FAA-2010-00 2

# 1 I NTH EMATTERO F 

## GOJE T AIRLINES , LL C FA A DOCKE T No
. CP10CE000 4 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S No
. FAA-2010-019 0 

## ORDE REXTENDIN GTIM E T O FIL EREBUTTA LBRIE F

### Fo r goo dcaus e shown , th e motio nof th e Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n ("Complainant" ) fo r

a n extensio no f

tim e t o Apri l 14 , 201 1 t o fil e it s Rebutta l Brie f i n thes e matter s (t o whic hResponden t GoJe t Airlines , LL C doe s no t

object ) i s GRANTED
. Th e Pos t Hearin g Briefin g Schedul e i s hereb y amende da s follows : Th e Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio nshal l fil e it s Rebutta l Brie f o no r before Apri l 14 , 2011
.

^ ^(r^^4;i^^t^'-^- ^ Richar dC
. Goodwi n U.S
. Administrativ e Law Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t Nos
. CP10CE000 3 & CP10CE000 4 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Mr
. Richar dA
. Leac h GoJe t Airlines , LLC , Responden t 1149 5 Navai dRoad , Suit e 30 3 St
. Louis , M O 6304 4 Davi dJ
. A
. Haye s III , Respondent' s Counse l Vice-Presiden t

& Genera l Counse l Tran s State s Holdings , Inc
. 1149 5 Navai dRoa d Bridgeton , M O 6304 4 TEL : 314-222-431 6 .FAX : 314-222-431 1 Davi dB
. Kessler , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l Centra l Region , ACE- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n DO T Buildin g 90 1 Locust , Roo m50 6 Kansa s City , M O 64106-264 1 TEL : 816-329-376 3 FAX : 816-329-377 1 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Legal Assistan t

' Service was b

y U.S
. Mail
. For

servic e in person or

b y expeditedcourier , us e the following address : Federa l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430
.
Editorial Note on Part 3401
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3401 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3401.10 Other Federal statutes and regulations that apply. ( a ) The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) issued guidance on Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200 on December 26, 2013. In 2 CFR 400.1, the Department adopted OMB's guidance in subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 200, as supplemented by 2 CFR part 400, as the Department's policies and procedures for uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for federal awards. As a result, this regulation contains references to 2 CFR part 200 as it has regulatory effect for the Department's programs and activities.”
( b ) Several other Federal statutes and/or regulations apply to grant proposals considered for review or to research project grants awarded under this part. These include but are not limited to:
2 CFR part 200—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, And Audit Requirements For Federal Awards. 2 CFR part 180 and Part 417—OMB Guidelines To Agencies On Government-Wide Debarment And Suspension (Nonprocurement) And USDA Nonprocurement Debarment And Suspension 7 CFR part 1c—USDA implementation of the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. 7 CFR 1.1—USDA implementation of Freedom of Information Act. 7 CFR part 3—USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-129 regarding debt collection. 7 CFR part 15, subpart A—USDA implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 7 CFR part 3407—NIFA procedures to implement the National Environmental Policy Act; 29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 7 CFR part 15B (USDA implementation of statute)—prohibiting discrimination based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs; and 35 U.S.C. 200 *et seq.*—Bayh-Dole Act, controlling allocation of rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in Federally assisted programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR part 401).
[79 FR 75998, Dec. 19, 2014]
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 Silver Pearl Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of 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:



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 operation of the Company.





Dated:  November 16, 2006



/s/ Denise Smith

Name: Denise Smith

Title:  Chief Executive Officer







Dated:  November 16, 2006



/s/ Denise Smith

Name: Denise Smith

Title:  Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-10 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-10 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
10.13(a)


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO SITEL
CORPORATION


2001
NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLAN


 


As adopted by the
Board of Directors on December 10, 2004


 


The Board hereby amends
the SITEL Corporation 2001 Nonemployee Director Compensation Plan (the “Plan”)
as follows:


 


Section 7.4
of the Plan is amended, effective January 1, 2005, to read in its entirety
as follows:


 


“7.4  Commencement of Payments.


 


(a)                                  The
provisions of this Section 7.4(a) shall apply to Compensation
deferred on or before December 31, 2004 (and any earnings thereon).  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in a Participant’s Election Agreement or this Plan, no payments shall
be made under this Plan prior to that date which is six (6) months from
the date of Participant’s Election Agreement (or any amendment thereto with
respect to the form of benefit payment). 
All payments shall be made as of the first day of the calendar month.


 


(b)                                 The
provisions of this Section 7.4(b) shall apply to Compensation
deferred on or after January 1, 2005 (and any earnings thereon).  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in a Participant’s Election Agreement or this Plan, no payments shall
be made under this Plan prior to that date which is six (6) months after
such Participant’s termination of service as a director of the Company.  All payments shall be made as of the first
day of the calendar month.  Any payments
delayed pursuant to this Section 7.4(b) shall be made on the first
day of the calendar month which is at least six (6) months after such
Participant’s termination of service as a director of the Company.”
97- 1664.

#### State ex rel. Simpson v. Neff Co., Chenielle Products.

Franklin App. No. 96APD09-1203. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal, IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
#### Lorain County Bar Association *v.*Parobek.

[Cite as *Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Parobek*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 325.]

(No. 98-829

Submitted June 10, 1998

Decided September 30, 1998.)

*326
      *Stephen P. Bond,*for relator.

*Craig Wright,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### Estate of Mary M. Towler, by its Administrator, John J. Towler, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, *v.*Fordham Fuel Oil Corp. et al., Appellants-Respondents.

—Judgment in favor of plaintiff unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the verdict vacated and a new trial granted, without costs and without disbursements, unless plaintiff stipulates to accept $35,000 in lieu of award by verdict in the wrongful death action for $57,000, in which event the judgment is modified to that extent and is affirmed as thus modified, without costs or disbursements. It is evident that the jury verdict in the wrongful death action is grossly excessive and that any award in excess of the amount indicated is not warranted by the record. Settle order on notice. Concur—Stevens, Steuer, Capozzoli, Rabin and MoNally, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. ANDREW LAUD BARNETT, AKA Anthony Andrew Delrossey,

Defendant

- Appellant. No s

. 23

- 1078 23

- 1082 23

- 1081 D.C. No s

. 3:12

- cr - 00441

- HZ

- 1

3:08

- cr - 00165

- HZ

- 1 3:11

- cr - 00386

- HZ

- 1 MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hern á ndez , District Judge , Presiding
Submitted December 12, 2023 **

Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Andrew Laud Barnett appeals from the district court’s judgments and challenges the aggregate sentence imposed upon the second revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 1078

We dismiss in part and affirm in part. During the pendency of this appeal, Barnett completed his term of imprisonment. Because Barnett is not serving a term of supervised release in Appeal Nos. 23

- 1082 and 23

- 108 1 , these appeals are moot. See United States v. King , 891 F.3d 868, 8 6 9

- 70 (9th Cir. 2018)

. In Appeal No. 23

- 1078 , Barnett contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his arguments and adequately explain its sentencing decision. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010) , and conclude that there is none. The record
reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 35 8 3( e ) factors and
Barnett’s arguments for a time

- served sentence , and sufficiently explained that the
five

- month sentence was warranted in light of Barnett’s repeated failure to comply with the terms of his supervision despite repeated admonishments by the court

. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992

- 93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Moreover , the below

- Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the § 35 8 3( e ) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Barnett’s repeated
breach es of the court’s trust, his history and characteristics, and the need for
deterrence. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)

. We do not reach Barnett’s argument that the district court relied on an impermissibl e sentencing factor, which he raised for the first time in his reply3 23

- 1078

brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 98 5 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

. Appeal Nos. 23

- 1081 and 23

- 1082 DISMISSED ; Appeal No. 23

- 1078 AFFIRMED.
1

 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No. 4:02-CR-029-SPM

DONALD SHANE CHANDLER,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the magistrate judge's Report

and Recommendation (doc. 134) dated June 21, 2007. The parties have been

furnished a copy and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections. 

Defendant filed his objections (doc. 135) on July 2, 2007.

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have made

a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been made. 

Even in light of the “Haines rule”1

 cited by Defendant, which prescribes a liberal

construction of pro se inmate filings, Defendant’s claims lack merit. The

magistrate judge carefully considered the factual history available to him in

Case 4:02-cr-00029-RS-AK Document 137 Filed 07/11/07 Page 1 of 2
2

making his decision, and even considering all facts in the light most favorable to

Defendant, the motion fails to state a claim for relief. Defendant’s objections do

not rise to the level of showing entitlement to any relief. Defendant has not

demonstrated any error in the magistrate’s report or the findings contained

therein. In addition, the Court specifically finds that neither Defendant’s trial

counsel nor his appellate counsel were ineffective. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 134) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s §2255 post-conviction motion (doc. 133) is hereby

denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this eleventh day of July, 2007.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00029-RS-AK Document 137 Filed 07/11/07 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.3103 Rules.

The application of these official standard grades shall be in accordance with the following rules.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00889-CV

Jose M. PELAYO,

Appellant

v.

Adriana C. 

Adriana C. PELAYO,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 1, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CVG000070 C1

Honorable Alvino (Ben) Morales, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ 

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of 

appeal are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED January 8, 2014.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice