alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
f^ Lufthansa Technik 

.:pABTIvlENTOF 

^AM?;P0RTAT10N ^ 

1/5 VJ ^ 11:53 

Lufthansa Technik AG 

Postfach 63 03 00, D-22313 Hamburg 

Docket Management Facility 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Ihre Zeichen 

Your Reference 

Unsere Zeichen/Datum 

Our Reference/Date 

HAM TT/L sy 

23. Dez. 10 

Telefon/Telefax 

Telephone/Telefax 

+49-40-

50708532 

Petition for Exemption - FAR 26.11 for a/c in "private use only" 

STC No. ST02675NY on 737-700iGW, l\/ISN 35959 

To whom It may concern, 

Lufthans Technik AG (LHT) herewith requests exemption from 14GFR 26.11 for 

STC No. ST02675NY on 737-700IGW, MSN 35959. 

Reason: 

Subj. STC is restricted to private use only, as stated in the limitation section of the STC or related 

exemptions. A/C operation is neither performed under §121 or §129, nor will the operator adopt 

maintenance requirements specified In §121.1109. 

Considerations: 

Subj. STC Is related to a VIP cabin Installation. The airplane Is not configured to be operated as an 

air carrier or for common carriage. The private operator would not be required to incorporate the DT 

data, nor is It likely that he will do so In future. 

Granting the petition for exemption would be In public interest because it would significantly reduce 

workload on FAA side. Furthermore the generation of the DT data for this aircraft would be very 

costly to LHT, with no perspective of compensation. 

Gesellschaflsrechtliche Angaben, 
HAM TT/L sy/23. Dez. 10 STC No. ST02675NY on 737-700IGW, MSN 35959 Page 2 

A change from private to commercial operation would require an amendment to the operationally 

limited STC. This process would be followed by the FAA and would consequently result Into consideration of FAR 26 requirements. 

An exemption would not adversely affect safety in the context of the 14CFR 26.11 requirements. 

Please confirm that FAA can grant an exemption for a.m. STC limited to "private" and "not for hire" 

use. 

Sincerely 

Manager Certification 

Lufthansa Technik Office of Ain/vorthlness 

1
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-LC22

 

Per the Pooling and Administration Agreement dated as of September 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 25, 2016

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith 

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7320** 

ROGER L. ERVIN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. BOBBY P. SHEARIN, Warden; SERGEANT FINK , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Ellen L. Hollander , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 03337

- ELH )

Submitted : March 30, 2015 Decided: April 2, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Roger Len Ervin, Appellant Pro Se. Nichole Cherie Gatewood, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Roger L
. Ervin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying in part his motion for discovery . This C ourt may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
U.S.C . § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order Ervin seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Nor could it have been certified fo r immediate appealability under Rule 54(b). In re Bryson , 406 F.3d 284, 287

- 88 (4th Cir. 2005); Equip. Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers , 973 F.2d 345, 347

- 48 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We di spense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this C ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Jack K. Lai, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:
5. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
6. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
7. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and
8. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
9. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
10. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 15, 2004



|/s/ Jack K. Lai                                                                            
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Jack K. Lai
Vice President Finance & Administration, 
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Zacchaeus Archie v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00282

- CR

Trial court case number: 1683895

Trial court: 174th District Court of Harris County

On Ma y 23, 2022, Appellan t Zacchaeus Archie filed a third motion for extension of time to file his brief, requesting an extension until July 5, 2022

.

A ppellant ’ s brief originally was due on August 27, 202 1 . On August 30, 2021, Appellant ’ s counsel requ est ed a 49

- day extension of time in which to file Appellant ’ s brief “ d ue to the length of the record and the complexity of the issues. ” The Court granted the motion

exten ding the deadline to file Appellant ’ s brief to Octo b er 15, 2021.

On October 18, 2021, A ppellant filed a second motion for exten sion of time to file his brief, asking for a 35

- day extension “ d ue to the length of the record and the complexity of the

issues. ” Appellant ’ s co un sel noted in the motion tha t he had prepared two petitions for

discre tionary review and two letter br ief s in the p rece ding thirty days. The Court granted the

second motion extending the deadline t o file Appellant ’ s brief to November 1 9 , 2021 “ with no

furthe r ex tensions ” t o be granted.

In his third motion for extension of time, filed May 23, 2022, Appellant now requests a

4 3

- day extension of time to file his a ppellate brief. In the motion, Appellant ’ s counsel s tates that

“ [f]or some reason, this case was not calendared ” and “ fell off the radar. ” He requests Appellant be g iven until July 5, 202 2 to file hi s brief

.

A ppellant ’s motion for third extension of time is granted. Given the various extension s that have been granted and that 312 days will have expired since the brief wa s originally due, n o f urther extensio ns will b e granted. If Appellant ’s brief is not filed by July 5, 2022, the

case will be abated and remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine (a) whether

A ppellant desires to prosecute his appeal; (b) wh ether A ppellant ’ s counsel has a bandoned the

appea l ; ( c ) t he reason for the failure to file a brief; and ( d ) if the A ppellant desires to continue the appeal, a date certain when A ppellant’s brief will be filed

. T EX

. R. A PP . P. 38.8(b)

.It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veroni ca Rivas

- Molloy

Acting in dividually

Date: June 2, 2022
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as Amended

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted), James B. Boyd, the Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of
his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the
Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the
11thday of August, 2008.



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|                                                  
|/S/ JAMES B. BOYD                                 
|James B. Boyd                                     
|Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
|Officer                                           

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, has been provided to Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. and will be retained by Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to
be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
Today in Energy

June 9, 2011

Average utilization of the nation's natural gas combined-cycle power plant fleet is

rising

Average capacity factors for the Nation's fleet of natural gas combined-cycle power plants have increased steadily since 2005.

Increased use of these plants means that facilities that previously served peaking or more often intermediate load needs now

contribute more significantly to baseload electricity needs.

The chart shows that the average utilization of natural gas combined-cycle power plants has increased across hours of the day.

Between 2005 (purple line) and 2010 (red line) average capacity factors for natural gas plant operations between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

rose from 26% to 32%. For peak hours—from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.—capacity factors averaged about 50% (the red line) on a

national basis in 2010 compared to about 40% in 2005.

Both increasing domestic supply of natural gas and lower natural gas prices, together with the high efficiency of combined-cycle

power plants, have contributed to their increased use.

Average utilization of the nation's natural gas combined-cycle power plant... http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=1730#

1 of 1 8/31/2015 8:47 AM
EXHIBIT 32



                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



     To my knowledge,  this report on Form 10-Q (the  "Report")  for  Tri-County
Financial  Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003, fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  and the  information  contained  in this  Report  fairly
presents,  in all material respects,  the consolidated  financial  condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                        TRI-COUNTY FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                                        By:/s/ Michael L. Middleton
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Michael L. Middleton
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer



                                        By:/s/ William J. Pasenelli
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           William J. Pasenelli
                                           Executive Vice President and Chief
                                           Financial Officer

Date:  August 12, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Statement of Financial  Condition at June 30, 1997 (unaudited) and the Statement
of Income for the nine months ended June 30, 1997  (unaudited) sand is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1

        
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS         
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997                    
<CASH>                                               0 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0 
<INVENTORY>                                          0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   600 
<PP&E>                                               0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     600 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,503 
<BONDS>                                              0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                           600 
<OTHER-SE>                                           0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,903 
<SALES>                                              0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0 
<CGS>                                                0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (316) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                     (316) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0 
                                                              
        

</TABLE>
* 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

April 17, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60785

Conference Calendar

ROY LEE FAIRLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ADRIAN KEYS, Correctional Officer, Mississippi Department of

Corrections K-9; TERRY JOHNSON, Correctional Officer,

Mississippi Department of Corrections K-9; DOUG SMITH,

Correctional Officer, Mississippi Department of Corrections

K-9; MICHAEL McLENDON,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississppi

USDC No. 2:03-CV-228

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Roy Lee Fairley, Mississippi prisoner # 22518, applies for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the judgment

for one defendant following a jury trial and judgment as a matter

of law for the remaining defendants in Fairley’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action. The district court certified that Fairley’s appeal was

not taken in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 
No. 06-60785

-2-

Fairley also moves for appointment of counsel; his motion is denied.

Fairley lists possible issues for appeal, but he makes no

effort to discuss the facts of his case or how any of the law he

cites applies to those facts. He has failed to brief any issues

for appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). His appeal is without

arguable merit and is frivolous, see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d

215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983), and we deny IFP and dismiss the appeal. 

See Baugh v. Taylor, 119 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997);

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

This court’s dismissal of Fairley’s appeal counts as a

strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Fairley

previously had an action dismissed in the district court for

failure to state a claim. See Fairley v. Keaton, No.

4:03-CV-00271-WAP (N.D. Miss. Mar. 26, 2004). Fairley is warned

that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be

allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while

he is detained or incarcerated in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

IFP DENIED; APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED;

SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q of Biopure Corporation
for the period ended January 31, 2004, I, Francis H. Murphy, Chief Executive
Officer, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   the Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2004, 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 Form 10-Q for the period ended
          January 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
          financial condition and results of operations of Biopure Corporation.

/s/ Francis H. Murphy
---------------------
Francis H. Murphy
Chief Executive Officer

March 15, 2004
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00249-CR

Ex parte Juan Valenzuela-Rodriguez

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 62936-A, THE HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief was originally due June 6, 2013. This Court’s clerk sent notice to

appellant’s counsel, Leonard Martinez, informing him that the brief was overdue. In response,

Martinez filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief, which this Court granted. 

Appellant failed to timely file a brief and has now filed a second motion requesting an extension of

time to file the brief.

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is granted. Appellant’s

counsel, Leonard Martinez, is ordered to tender a brief in this cause no later than November 8, 2013. 

No further extensions will be granted. Failure to file the brief by that date will result in counsel

being called before this Court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating

this order.

It is so ordered on this the 10th day of October, 2013.

Before Justices Puryear, Rose, and Goodwin

Do Not Publish