alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-12-510-E October 12, 2012 Exemption No. 8840C Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26744

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. 8840, 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 U5ET092K) for an extension of Exemption No. 8840, 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 regarding 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. 8840, 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Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8840, as amended, to February 28, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8840 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8840.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
§ 82.1307 D&C Red No. 7. ( a ) The color additive D&C Red No. 7 shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 74.1307 (a)(1) and (b) of this chapter.
( b ) The color additive D&C Red No. 7 may be safely used for coloring drugs such that the combined total of D&C Red No. 6 and D&C Red No. 7 does not exceed 5 milligrams per daily dose of the drug.
[47 FR 57691, Dec. 28, 1982]
Order entered May 29, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 15 - 00054 - CV BARBARA MEREDITH, Appellant V. OXFORD TOWNHOMES, LL C , ET AL. , Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 10 - 07847 - B 

### O RDER We GRANT appellant’s May 27, 2015 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file a brief by JUNE 26, 2015
. We GRANT cross - appellant Oxford Townhomes Addition Homeowner’s Association, Inc.’s May 27, 2015 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Cross

- appellant shall file a brief by JUNE 8, 2015
. /s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
# C_2014212EN.01004601.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/46

---

Action brought on 16 May 2014 — ZZ v Council

(Case F-44/14)

2014/C 212/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Council not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 and, secondly, the grant of damages and interest for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision not to promote her to grade AD 13 as is evident from the list published on 26 September 2013 and the Appointing Authority’s response to the complaint dated 7 February 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision not to promote her to grade AD 13 as is evident from the list published on 26 September 2013 and the Appointing Authority’s response to the complaint dated 7 February 2014;

| — | Grant an amount of EUR 10  000 on the basis of the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant an amount of EUR 10  000 on the basis of the non-material harm suffered;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during the proceedings.

---
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8916-8917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3649]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC)

[[Page 8917]]

will meet in Willows, California. Agenda items covered include: (1) 
Introductions, (2) Approve Minutes, (3) RAC Admin Updates, (4) Public 
Comment, (5) FY08 and FY09 New Project Presentations and Voting if Time 
Allows, (6) FY10 New Project Presentations and Voting if Time Allows, 
(7) General Discussion, (8) Meeting Schedule, (9) Adjourn.

DATES: The meeting will be held on April 26, 2010, from 1:30 p.m. and 
end at approximately 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Mendocino National Forest 
Supervisor's Office, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. 
Individuals who wish to speak or propose agenda items send their names 
and proposals to Eduardo Olmedo, DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 
95988.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Trombley, Glenn/Colusa RAC 
Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger 
District, P.O. Box 160, Stonyford, CA 95979 (530) 963-3128 e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#78140c0a17151a141d01381e0b561e1d1c560d0b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6cad2d4c9cbc4cac3dfe6c0d588c0c3c288d3d5">[email protected]</span></a>. Eduardo Olmedo, District Ranger, USDA, Mendocino 
National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, 825 N. Humboldt St., 
Willows, CA 95988 (530) 934-3316 e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ff9a9093929a9b90bf998cd1999a9bd18a8c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="197c7675747c7d76597f6a377f7c7d376c6a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public. 
Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee 
members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of 
the Committee will file written statements with the Committee staff 
before or after the meeting. Public input sessions are provided and 
individuals who made written requests by April 12, 2010 have the 
opportunity to address the committee at those sessions.

    Dated: February 9, 2010.
Eduardo Olmedo,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 2010-3649 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2015016EN.01003902.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/39

---

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Bos and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-23/14) (1)

(Action for annulment - Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Substantial reduction in the number of days of annual leave for officials and other servants serving in a third country - Lack of individual concern - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2015/C 016/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Mark Bos (Ankara, Turkey); Estelle Kadouch (Jerusalem, Israel); Siegfried Krahl (Lago Sul, Brazil); and Eric Lunel (Dakar, Senegal) (represented by: F. Krenc, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and E. Taneva, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment brought under Article 263 TFEU against point 70 of Article 1 of Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in so far as it amends Annex X to Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962, 45, p. 1385).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mark Bos, Estelle Kadouch, Siegfried Krahl and Eric Lunel shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mark Bos, Estelle Kadouch, Siegfried Krahl and Eric Lunel shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | There is no need to give a ruling on the application for leave to intervene by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to give a ruling on the application for leave to intervene by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

---
<PAGE>
                    [Letterhead of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu]


                                                                    Exhibit 11.2

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-97162 and 333-07946) of Deswell Industries, Inc. of our
report dated June 28, 2002, relating to the consolidated financial statements
of Deswell Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2002 and for the
year ended March 31, 2002 and 2001 (which report expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes modifications to the first paragraph concerning the
inclusion of the transitional disclosures required by Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" included
in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements and the revisions to related
per share and number of shares information as a result of the three-for-two
stock split described in Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements),
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Deswell Industries, Inc. for the
year ended March 31, 2003.

/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Hong Kong
September 15, 2003
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD I. FINE; MARYELLEN 

OLMAN-FINE, 

Petitioners-Appellants, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-71042 

Tax Ct. No. 23553-15L 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted March 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Richard I. Fine and Maryellen Olman-Fine appeal pro se from the Tax 

Court’s summary judgment upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s 

determination sustaining a proposed collection action for tax years 2010, 2011, and 

2012. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. 

 

* 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

MAR 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 17-71042 

Sollberger v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

Because the record shows that the appeals officer did not abuse his 

discretion in sustaining the proposed collection action for tax years 2010, 2011, 

and 2012, the Tax Court properly granted summary judgment for the government. 

See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(3) (setting forth matters an appeals officer must consider 

in making a determination to sustain a proposed collection action).

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Fines’ motion to 

set aside the order and decision because the Fines failed to demonstrate any ground 

for relief. See Parkinson v. Comm’r, 647 F.2d 875, 876 (9th Cir. 1981) (setting 

forth standard of review); see also Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. 

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for relief 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

We reject as without merit the Fines’ contentions regarding due process, 

fraud upon the Tax Court, their entitlement to take depositions, evidentiary 

objections, tax years other than the ones at issue in this action, Richard Fine’s 

whistleblower claims, and purported credibility determinations.

We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised 

and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th 

Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2015381EN.01006001.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/60

---

Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

(Case T-598/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 381/79)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       3,334,000               4,021,000
<SECURITIES>                                 8,994,000              30,822,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               25,868,000              22,940,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,681,000               1,380,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,179,000              59,514,000
<PP&E>                                      13,052,000               8,815,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,935,000               2,993,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,691,000              69,370,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,419,000              18,782,000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       131,000                 124,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,089,000              48,299,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,691,000              69,370,000
<SALES>                                     28,857,000              29,904,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            62,708,000              53,966,000
<CGS>                                        3,982,000               3,880,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,459,000              20,078,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            56,876,000              24,297,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               264,000               1,140,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (571,000)               (179,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (21,320,000)               8,630,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,613,000)               1,883,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (19,707,000)               6,747,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                              (19,707,000)               6,747,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.50)                     .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
# C_2015381EN.01003701.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/37

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 — Slovakia v Commission

(Case T-779/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Own resources of the European Union - Financial responsibility of the Member States - Obligation to pay the Commission the amount corresponding to a loss of own resources - Letter from the Commission - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 381/43)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt, A. Tokár and M. Wasmeier, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for the annulment of the alleged decision of the Directorate-General for Budget of the Commission, contained in letter BUDG/B/03MV D (2014) 3139078 of 24 September 2014, by which the Commission formally demanded the Slovak Republic to make funds available to the Commission for the gross amount of EUR 1 4 53  723,12 (of which 25 % should be deducted to cover expense incurred in collection) corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources, at the latest by the first working day following the 19th day of the second month after the letter was sent.

th

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Holds that there is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene of the Federal Republic of Germany and Romania. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Holds that there is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene of the Federal Republic of Germany and Romania.

| 3. | Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | Orders the Slovak Republic, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany and Romania each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Slovak Republic, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany and Romania each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

1

---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CHAZ CUMMINGS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-2265

LT Case No. 2018-102348-CFDL

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 23, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Volusia County,

Dawn D. Nichols, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, 

and Robert J. Pearce, III, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean 

Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, 

Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
2

In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm Chaz Cummings’ judgment and 

sentence with one exception. The trial court erred in assessing investigative 

costs under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2021), in the absence of a 

request from the State. See Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574, 577 (Fla. 

2020) (“[T]he State must request investigative costs to make a defendant 

liable for those costs . . . .” (citation omitted)). We remand for the trial court to 

enter an amended judgment without including these investigative costs. In all 

other respects, we affirm. See State v. Dortch, 317 So. 3d 1074, 1084 (Fla. 

2021) (“[T]here is no fundamental-error exception to the preservation 

requirement of [Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure] 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c).”).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.

JAY, HARRIS and MACIVER, JJ., concur.

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
§ 524.1044e Gentamicin spray. ( a ) *Specification.* Each milliliter of sterile aqueous solution contains gentamicin sulfate equivalent to 1.07 milligrams of gentamicin.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 000061 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.300 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use in cattle* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Hold the sprayer upright 3 to 6 inches from the affected eye, with the opening directed towards the eye, and pump once. Treat once daily for up to 3 days.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the treatment of pinkeye in cattle (infectious bovine keratoconjunctivitis) caused by *Moraxella bovis.*
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Conditions other than bacterial infections of the bovine eye and infectious keratoconjunctivitis caused by *Moraxella bovis* may produce similar signs. If conditions persists or increases, discontinue use and consult a veterinarian. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[48 FR 41157, Sept. 14, 1983, as amended at 52 FR 7833, Mar. 13, 1987; 79 FR 10969, Feb. 27, 2014; 84 FR 32993, July 11, 2019; 88 FR 27700, May 3, 2023]
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 CEC  Entertainment,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  September 28, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned  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 operations
          of the Company.



                                              /s/ Richard M. Frank
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Richard M. Frank
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              November 12, 2003



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