alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 079 1 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 026 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. 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 sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. 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 o

f 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 w ith 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, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18U.S.C SECTION 1350)**

 

The undersigned, as theChief Executive Officer of Video Display Corporation, certifies that, to thebest of his knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended May 31, 2005 (the “Report”), which accompanies thiscertification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Video Display Corporation at the dates and for the periodsindicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not berelied upon for any other purpose.

 
| This 15th day  of July, 2005 |   /s/ Ronald  D. Ordway    |   |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   Ronald D.  Ordway        |
|                         |   Chief  Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to Video Display Corporation and will beretained by Video Display Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
Editorial Note on Part 91
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 91 appear at 61 FR 51350, Oct. 2 1996.

§ 91.40 Fees for courier service and facsimile of the analysis report. ( a ) The Science and Technology laboratories have a courier charge per trip to retrieve the sample package. The courier service charge is determined from the established single standard mileage rate and from the total authorized distance based on the shortest round trip route from laboratory to sample retrieval site. Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (a) (1) of § 5704 of Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), the automobile reimbursement rate cannot exceed the single standard mileage rate established by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
( b ) The faxing of laboratory analysis reports or certificates is an optional service for each S&T facility offered at a fee specified in table 8 in § 91.37.
[65 FR 64314, Oct. 26, 2000]
#### Gondoliers, Inc., Respondent, v. State Liquor Authority, Appellant.

— In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review appellant’s determination which disapproved respondent’s applications for a number of caterer’s liquor permits, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 19, 1970, which directed appellant to issue a caterer’s permit to petitioner upon one of the applications. (The proceeding was withdrawn as to all the other applications.) Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and petition dismissed as to the application upon whieli the judgment directed issuance of a permit, on the merits and without costs.' In our opinion, appellant’s action was not arbitrary or capricious and there- was a reasonable basis in law and on the evidence to sustain appellant’s action (cf. *Matter of Gambino*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*4 A D 2d 37, affd. 4 N Y 2d 997). Christ, P. J., Hopkins, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
2917.000 Scope of part.       This part implements polices and procedures stated in FAR part 17.    **Parent topic:** PART 2917 - SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
Form 10-KSB
8888 Acquisition Corp.
File No. 0-52251

          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 Annual Report of 8888  Acquisition  Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended  August 31, 2007 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Glenn A. Little,
Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  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 the
       Company.


Date: September 19, 2007                      By: /s/ Glenn A. Little
      ------------------                         -------------------------------
                                                                 Glenn A. Little
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to 8888  Acquisition  Corp.  and will be  retained by 8888  Acquisition
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
161 So.2d 276

#### J. B. THOMAS , v. FROMHERZ ENGINEERS et al.

No. 47141.

March 11, 1964.

In re: J. B. Thomas applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Terrebonne. 159 So.2d 612.

Writ refused. There appears no error of law in its judgment.
#### In the Matter of Willie B. Black, Respondent, v Philip Toia, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Appellant, and Fred Buscaglia, as Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to State Department of Social Services for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding Special Term vacated and annulled a decision after fair hearing by the State Department of Social Services which affirmed a determination of the county department of social services to recoup a lump-sum Social Security grant received by petitioner on behalf of two of her children. The issue to be resolved at the fair hearing was whether petitioner willfully withheld information from the county agency. This involved fact questions concerning her receipt of a check which were not *717fully developed. The evidence failed to establish when the questioned check was spent, what it was spent for, whether the county agency had an opportunity to recover the money before it was spent and whether petitioner spent the money in a good faith belief that she was entitled to do so (see *Matter of Avery v Berger,*56 AD2d 725). Similarly not established or explored was the question of whether petitioner’s children’s grants were reduced by recoupment absent a showing of lack of need, notwithstanding their parents’ possible willful actions (see *Matter of Gunn v Blum,*48 NY2d 58). In a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a substantial evidence question, the court’s determination must be limited to evidence produced at the hearing *(Matter of Simpson v Wolansky,*38 NY2d 391) but significantly the pleadings before the court in this case appear to contain admissions of matters not proved at the fair hearing but which support the commissioner’s decision. These admissions may not be relied upon in this CPLR article 78 proceeding to support the commissioner’s decision but because of them we remit the matter to the commissioner for a further hearing to fully develop the record. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court—CPLR art 78.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
**Exhibit 21**

 

**Subsidiaries of MXenergy Holdings Inc.**

 
| **Subsidiary Name**                 | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of  Incorporation** |
|------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                     |       |                                    |
| MXenergy Capital Holdings Corp.          |       | Delaware                                |
| MXenergy Capital Corp.                   |       | Delaware                                |
| MXenergy Gas Capital Holdings Corp.      |       | Delaware                                |
| MXenergy Electric Capital Holdings Corp. |       | Delaware                                |
| MXenergy Gas Capital Corp.               |       | Delaware                                |
| MXenergy Electric Capital Corp.          |       | Delaware                                |
| MXenergy Inc.                            |       | Delaware                                |
| MXenergy Electric Inc.                   |       | Delaware                                |
| Online Choice Inc.                       |       | Delaware                                |
| MXenergy Services Inc.                   |       | Delaware                                |
| Infometer.com Inc.                       |       | Delaware                                |
| MXenergy (Canada) Ltd.                   |       | Nova Scotia                             |

 

1

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

GENE COGGINS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv687-WHA

 )

GLORIA SINCLAIR, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This case is before the court on the Motion to Remove the Appointed Magistrate Judge,

Delores R. Boyd, From Any Part of This Case (Doc. #15). 

The motion states no legal basis for the removal of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

DONE this 25th day of September, 2006.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00687-WHA-DRB Document 17 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6173

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HAROLD STEVEN JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:02-

cr-00396; 8:06-cv-01372-PJM)

Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 27, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold Steven Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Harold Steven Jackson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as

untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because

the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days

after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order,

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is

“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,

434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361

U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

July 25, 2006. The notice of appeal was dated October 24, 2006,

and filed on November 29, 2006. Because Jackson failed to file a

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of

the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7323

BOBBY R. KNOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ARTHUR DAVIS, Doctor; MS. COLDSMITH, Supervisor of Nurses; 

MS. SIMMONS, Head Nurse; SUSAN COLLIER, Administrative 

Programs; KEITH A. KUHNE, Doctor; MS. L. GALLAWAY, Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:11-ct-03266-F)

Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby R. Knox, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby R. Knox seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) for failure to state a claim. On 

direct appeal, this court affirmed the district court’s order. 

Knox v. Davis, 516 F. App’x 287 (4th Cir. 2013) (No. 12-8149). 

In August 2013, Knox filed another notice of appeal of the 

district court’s order. However, because we have previously 

affirmed the district court’s judgment, we dismiss the appeal as 

duplicative and untimely. We also deny Knox’s pending motions, 

including his motions for protective order, motion to appoint 

counsel, and motion for transcripts at the government’s expense. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 15





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The Board of Directors


RRsat Global Communications Network Ltd.:





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No. 333-140936) on Form S-8 of RRsat Global Communications Network Ltd. (the "Company") of our report dated March 21, 2011 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2009 and 2010, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which report appears in the December 31, 2010 Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company.




Somekh Chaikin




Certified Public Accountants (Israel)




Member Firm of KPMG International




Tel-Aviv, Israel


March 21, 2011
#### § 986.35 Secretary.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, or any other officer or employee of the United States Department of Agriculture who is, or who may be, authorized to perform the duties of the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States.
§ 906.38 Marketing policy. Prior to or at the same time as initial recommendations are made pursuant to § 906.39, the committee shall submit to the Secretary a report setting forth the marketing policy it deems desirable for the industry to follow in shipping fruit from the production area during the ensuing season. Additional reports shall be submitted from time to time if it is deemed advisable by the committee to adopt a new or modified marketing policy because of changes in the demand and supply situation with respect to fruit. The committee shall publicly announce the submission of each marketing policy report and copies thereof shall be available at the committee's office for inspection by any producer or handler. In determining each such marketing policy the committee shall give due consideration to the following: ( a ) Market prices of fruit, including prices by grade, size, and quality in different packs, and such prices by foreign competing areas;
( b ) Supply of fruit, by grade, size, and quality in the production area, and in other production areas, including foreign production areas;
( c ) Trend and level of consumer income;
( d ) Marketing conditions affecting fruit prices; and
( e ) Other relevant factors.
sfy_ex101-5122009.htm


    AMENDMENT
NO. 2

    TO
THE

    SWIFT
ENERGY COMPANY

    FIRST
AMENDED AND RESTATED

    2005
STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN

    


    SWIFT
ENERGY COMPANY, a Texas corporation (the “Company”), pursuant to the authority
granted in Section 14(b) of the Swift Energy Company First Amended and Restated
2005 Stock Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), hereby amends the Plan, effective as
of May 12, 2009, as follows:

     

    WITNESSETH:

     

    WHEREAS, the Plan provides for
the maximum aggregate number of shares of the Company’s common stock in respect
of which Awards may be granted under the 2005 Plan as 2,850,000 shares (“Plan
Maximum”); and

     

    WHEREAS, the Board of
Directors of the Company and the requisite number of the Company’s shareholders
have approved the Plan Maximum to be increased by up to an additional 1,250,000
shares:

     

    NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall
read as follows:

     

    
      	
              1.  

            	
              Existing
      Section 5(b) of the Plan shall remain in its entirety except
      that “2,850,000” be deleted and “up to 4,100,000” be substituted in its
      place.

            


    

     

    
      	
              2.  

            	
              Except
      as amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full
  effect.

            


    

     

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plan
is amended effective as of the day and year first above written.

     

    
      	 
      	
              SWIFT
      ENERGY COMPANY

            
	 
      	
              By:

            	
              /s/
      Alton D. Heckaman, Jr.

            
	 
      	 
      	
              Alton
      D. Heckaman, Jr.

              Executive
      Vice President 

              and
      Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

OSVALDO MIGUEL PEREZ,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00024

- CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#20120D01211)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge), Chew, C.J. (Senior Judge)

Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment

Chew, C.J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment
Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 33 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 33 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 33 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 1 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 2 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 3 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 4 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 5 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 6 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 7 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 8 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 9 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 10 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 11 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 12 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 13 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 14 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 15 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 16 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 17 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 18 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 19 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 20 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 21 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 22 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 23 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 24 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 25 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 26 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 27 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 28 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 29 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 30 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 31 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 32 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 33 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 34 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 35 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 36 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 37 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 38 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 39 of 40
Case 2:06-cv-00679-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 40 of 40