alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 135.617 Pre-flight risk analysis. ( a ) Each certificate holder conducting helicopter air ambulance operations must establish, and document in its operations manual, an FAA-approved preflight risk analysis that includes at least the following— ( 1 ) Flight considerations, to include obstacles and terrain along the planned route of flight, landing zone conditions, and fuel requirements;
( 2 ) Human factors, such as crew fatigue, life events, and other stressors;
( 3 ) Weather, including departure, en route, destination, and forecasted;
( 4 ) A procedure for determining whether another helicopter air ambulance operator has refused or rejected a flight request; and
( 5 ) Strategies and procedures for mitigating identified risks, including procedures for obtaining and documenting approval of the certificate holder's management personnel to release a flight when a risk exceeds a level predetermined by the certificate holder.
( b ) Each certificate holder must develop a preflight risk analysis worksheet to include, at a minimum, the items in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Prior to the first leg of each helicopter air ambulance operation, the pilot in command must conduct a preflight risk analysis and complete the preflight risk analysis worksheet in accordance with the certificate holder's FAA-approved procedures. The pilot in command must sign the preflight risk analysis worksheet and specify the date and time it was completed.
( d ) The certificate holder must retain the original or a copy of each completed preflight risk analysis worksheet at a location specified in its operations manual for at least 90 days from the date of the operation.
EXHIBIT 3.3
                                   -----------

                             CERTIFICATE OF DECREASE

                                       OF

                                SHARES DESIGNATED

                                       AS

                       CLASS A CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK


         Legend  Mobile,  Inc., a corporation  organized and existing  under the
General  Corporation  Law of the State of Delaware (the  "Corporation"),  hereby
certifies as follows:

    o    that a certificate of the powers, designations,  and preferences of the
         Class A convertible  preferred  stock of the Corporation was filed with
         the  Secretary  of State of the State of  Delaware on February 1, 2000;
         and

    o    that the board of directors of the  Corporation,  by written consent of
         the sole  director,  duly adopted a resolution  directing a decrease in
         the number of shares  designated as the Class A  convertible  preferred
         stock of the  Corporation,  from  300,000  shares to 2,225  shares,  in
         accordance   with  the   provisions  of  section  151  of  the  General
         Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

         This certificate is being signed on June 24, 2004.



                                                     /s/Peter Klamka
                                                     ---------------
                                                     Peter Klamka
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09** 
**- 7564** 

ORLANDO DAVID ALMOND , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JAMES M. SISK, Manager, Intake & Legal Services , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States Distri ct Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. M. Hannah Lauck , Magistrate Judge. ( 3:08

- cv
- 00138

- MHL )

Submitted : March 30, 2010 Decided: April 2 , 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published p er curiam opinion

.

Orlando David Almond, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Bland Curwood, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Orlando David Almond appeals t he magistrate judge’ s

order **∗**

AFFIRMED dismissing as untimely filed Almond’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(200 6 ) complaint . We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Almond v. Sisk , No. 3:08

- cv
- 00138

- MHL
(E.D. Va. Aug. 6, 2009) . 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.

**∗** The parties consented t o the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3916 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion 

for educational assistance programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8, 2020 

Mrs. LOEFFLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the exclusion for educational assistance programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Workforce 

5 Development Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN EXCLUSION FOR EDUCATIONAL AS7 SISTANCE PROGRAMS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 127(a) 

9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strikVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:58 Jun 24, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3916.IS S3916

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3916 IS

1 ing ‘‘$5,250’’ each place it appears in the text and the 

2 heading and inserting ‘‘$11,500’’. 

3 (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Section 127(c) of 

4 such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 

5 new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(8) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any cal8 endar year after 2019, each dollar amount in 

9 subsection (a)(2) shall be increased by an 

10 amount equal to— 

11 ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

12 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de13 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal14 endar year in which such taxable year be15 gins by substituting ‘calendar year 2017’ 

16 for ‘calendar year 2016’ in subparagraph 

17 (A)(ii) thereof. 

18 ‘‘(B) ROUNDING.—If any increase deter19 mined under subparagraph (A) is not a multiple 

20 of $50, such increase shall be rounded to the 

21 next lowest multiple of $50.’’. 

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

24 December 31, 2019. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### § 171.41 Scope.

This subpart sets forth minimum requirements for the approval and operation of non-Federal Instrument Landing System (ILS) Facilities that are to be involved in the approval of instrument flight rules and air traffic control procedures related to those facilities.

[Doc. No. 5034, 29 FR 11337, Aug. 6, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 171-2, 31 FR 5408, Apr. 6, 1966; Amdt. 171-7, 35 FR 12711, Aug. 11, 1970]
§ 1206.701 Actions on appeals. ( a ) Except as provided in § 1206.403, the Administrator or designee, or in the case of records as specified in § 1206.805, the Inspector General or designee, shall make a final determination on an appeal and notify the appellant thereof, within 20 working days after the receipt of the appeal by the Administrator's Office.
( b ) In “unusual circumstances” as defined in § 1206.403, the time limit for a final determination may be extended, but not to exceed a total of 10 working days in the aggregate in the processing of any specific appeal for an Agency record. The extension must be taken before the expiration of the 20 working day time limit. The appellant will be notified in writing in accordance with § 1206.403.
( c ) If processing time will exceed or is expected to exceed 30 working days, the appellant will be notified of the delay in processing and the reason for the delay.
( d ) If the final determination reverses in whole or in part the initial determination, the record requested (or portions thereof) shall be made available promptly to the requester, as provided in the final determination.
( e ) If a reversal in whole or in part of the initial determination requires additional document search or production, associated fees will be applicable in accordance with fee guidance in this regulation.
( f ) If the final determination sustains in whole or in part an adverse initial determination, the notification of the final determination shall: ( 1 ) Explain the basis on which the record (or portions thereof) will not be made available;
( 2 ) Include the name and title of the person making the final determination;
( 3 ) Include a statement that the final determination is subject to judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4);
( 4 ) Provide a statement regarding the mediation services of the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation; and
( 5 ) Enclose a copy of 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4).
( g ) Before seeking a review by a court of a FOIA office's adverse initial determination, a requester must generally submit a timely administrative appeal in accordance with this part.
§ 161.105 Requirements for new entrants. ( a ) Within 45 days of the publication of the notice of a proposed restriction by the airport operator under § 161.103(b) of this part, any person intending to provide new air service to the airport within 180 days of the proposed date of implementation of the restriction (as evidenced by submission of a plan of operations to the airport operator) must notify the airport operator if it would be affected by the restriction contained in the proposed agreement, and either that it— ( 1 ) Agrees to the restriction; or
( 2 ) Objects to the restriction.
( b ) Failure of any person described in § 161.105(a) of this part to notify the airport operator that it objects to the proposed restriction will constitute waiver of the right to claim that it did not consent to the agreement and render that person ineligible to use lack of signature as ground to apply for sanctions under subpart F of this part for two years following the effective date of the restriction. The signature of such a person need not be obtained by the airport operator in order to comply with § 161.107(a) of this part.
( c ) All other new entrants are also ineligible to use lack of signature as ground to apply for sanctions under subpart F of this part for two years.
Room Air Conditioner CEER Standard Level Calculation for all Product Classes

The following table illustrates the calculation of DOE's new CEER Standard Levels for room air conditioners. DOE first selected an EER standard 

level for each product class (extrapolating efficency levels from the analyzed product class cost-efficiency curves from the DFR engineering 

analysis). DOE then used the representative capacity (identified during the engineering analysis) to calculate the representative active power 

level from the EER standard level. Finally, DOE selected a standby power level of either 1.4 W or 0.7 W for each product class, consistent with 

both the identified standby energy levels in the TSD's engineering analysis section. Selection of the standby energy levels were consistent with 

the cost-efficiency curves in the engineering analysis. The representative capacity, active power level, and standby power level were used to 

calculate the CEER standard level for each product class. The formula for CEER is found below the table.

Additional details on the values used in these calculations and on the CEER metric are available in Chapter 5 of the AHAM-2 DFR Technical 

Support Document: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/aham2_dfr_ch05_engineering_2011-04-

13.pdf

Product 

Class Product Class Description

Representative 

Capacity 

(Btu/h)

EER 

Standard 

Level 

(Btu/Wh)

Representative 

Active Power 

Level (W)

Standby 

Power Level 

(W)

CEER 

Standard 

Level 

(Btu/Wh)1

1 With Louvers, Without Reverse Cycle, < 6,000 Btu/h 5000 11.2 446 1.4 11.0

2 With Louvers, Without Reverse Cycle, 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h 6000 11.2 536 1.4 11.0

3 With Louvers, Without Reverse Cycle, 8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h 10000 11.0 909 1.4 10.9

4 With Louvers, Without Reverse Cycle, 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h 18000 10.8 1667 1.4 10.7

5a With Louvers, Without Reverse Cycle, 20,000 to 27,999 Btu/h 24000 9.4 2553 1.4 9.4

5b With Louvers, Without Reverse Cycle, > 28,000 Btu/h 28000 9.0 3111 1.4 9.0

6 Without Louvers, Without Reverse Cycle, < 6,000 Btu/h 5000 10.2 490 1.4 10.0

7 Without Louvers, Without Reverse Cycle, 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h 6000 10.2 588 1.4 10.0

8a Without Louvers, Without Reverse Cycle, 8,000 to 10,999 Btu/h 8000 9.7 825 1.4 9.6

8b Without Louvers, Without Reverse Cycle, 11,000 to 13,999 Btu/h 12000 9.6 1250 1.4 9.5

9 Without Louvers, Without Reverse Cycle, 14,000 to 20,000 Btu/h 14000 9.4 1489 1.4 9.3

10 Without Louvers, Without Reverse Cycle, > 20,000 Btu/h 20000 9.4 2128 1.4 9.4
11 With Louvers, With Reverse Cycle, < 20,000 Btu/h 12000 9.9 1212 1.4 9.8

12 Without Louvers, With Reverse Cycle, < 14,000 Btu/h 10000 9.4 1064 1.4 9.3

13 With Louvers, With Reverse Cycle, > 20,000 Btu/h 14000 9.4 1489 1.4 9.3

14 Without Louvers, With Reverse Cycle, > 14,000 Btu/h 14000 8.8 1591 1.4 8.7

15 Casement-only 10000 9.6 1042 1.4 9.5

16 Casement-slider 10000 10.5 952 1.4 10.4

1

: CEER = (Capacity × Active_Mode_Hours) / (Active_Power × Active_Mode_Hours + Standby_Mode_Hours × Standby_Power)

NOTE: Active_Mode_Hours = 750 Hours, Standby_Mode_Hours = 5115 Hours
EXHIBIT A

RECEIPTS OF DRIVETRAIN, LLC DURING APPLICATION PERIOD

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 1 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 2 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 3 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 4 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 5 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 6 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 7 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 8 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 9 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 10 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 11 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 12 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 13 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 14 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 15 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 16 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 17 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 18 of 19
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2737-2 Filed:03/19/18 Entered:03/19/18 18:32:09 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 19 of 19
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6050

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DION LEVERING WILLIAMS, a/k/a Tion Williams, a/k/a Scroll, a/k/a Squirrel,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cr-00047-HEH-RCY-4; 3:14-cv00342-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 22, 2017

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for 

Appellant. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dion Levering Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. 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
terms of use privacy notice team ! " © 2022 Kroll. All rights reserved.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

Case No. 17-03283

case info / claims

! " Page 1 of 1 # $

! " Page 1 of 1 # $

+ Case Navigation

+ Quick Links

21372 05/25/2018 Empresas Omajede Inc. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico $0.00

21372 advanced % &

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

PRIME CLERK IS NOW KROLL RESTRUCTURING ADMINISTRATION. ALL PRIME CLERK URLS AND EMAIL ADDRESSES ARE AUTOMATICALLY REDIRECTED. ×

MMEENNUU

CCrreeddiittoorr DDaattaa DDeettaaiillss -- CCllaaiimm ## 2211337722

CCrreeddiittoorr

Empresas Omajede Inc.

1608 Calle Bori, Suite 218

San Juan, PR 00927

DDeebbttoorr NNaammee

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

DDaattee FFiilleedd

05/25/2018

CCllaaiimm NNuummbbeerr

21372

SScchheedduullee NNuummbbeerr

n/a

Claim Amounts

Objection History

CCllaaiimm NNaattuurree SScchheedduullee AAmmoouunntt CC**UU**DD** AAsssseerrtteedd CCllaaiimm AAmmoouunntt CC**UU**FF** CCuurrrreenntt

CCllaaiimm VVaalluuee CCllaaiimm SSttaattuuss

General Unsecured $338,503.37 $0.00 Expunged

Priority

Secured

503(b)(9) Admin Priority

Admin Priority

Total $0.00 $338,503.37 $0.00

*C=Contingent, U=Unliquidated, D=Disputed, F=Foreign

DDaattee

FFiilleedd OObbjjeeccttiioonn MMoottiioonn DDaatteeFFiilleedd OObbjjeeccttiioonn OOrrddeerr BBaassiiss SSttaattuuss

03/12/2021 Debtor's Omnibus Objection to Claims Two

Hundred ...

05/28/2021

ORDER GRANTING THE 16018 TWO HUNDRED

NINETY-EIGHT...

Amended

Claims

Ordered

Kroll Restructuring Administration (formerly known as Prime Clerk) maintains this website for the public's convenience and for general informational purposes only. Anyone using this website is cautioned NOT 

to rely on any information contained on this Website, and any user of this website should not take or refrain from taking any action based upon anything included or not included on this website. We are not a 

law firm or a substitute for an attorney or law firm. Users of this website may want to seek legal counsel on the particular facts and circumstances at issue. All search results provided through this website are 

qualified in their entirety by the official register of claims and the Schedules of Assets and Liabilities ("Schedules") and Statements of Financial Affairs (“Statements”) filed in the bankruptcy case/s of the 

Debtor/s. 

Nothing contained on this Site or in the Debtors’ Schedules and Statements shall constitute an admission or a waiver of any of the Debtors’ rights to assert claims or defenses. Any failure by a Debtor to 

designate a claim listed on the Schedules as "disputed", "contingent", or "unliquidated" does not constitute an admission that such amounts are not "disputed", "contingent", or "unliquidated." For the avoidance 

CLOSE

Kroll Restructuring Administration https://cases.ra.kroll.com/puertorico/Home-ClaimInfo

1 of 1 10/16/22, 11:09 AM

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24818-1 Filed:07/31/23 Entered:07/31/23 14:18:32 Desc:

Exhibit 1 - Initial POC Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM XOX CORPORATION'S BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>         0000798122
<NAME>                    XOX CORPORATION
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                         1,939,298
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    344,448
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               2,497,926
<PP&E>                                                           544,684
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   361,658
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 2,817,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            252,337
<BONDS>                                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<COMMON>                                                          73,285
<OTHER-SE>                                                    12,237,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   2,817,539
<SALES>                                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 331,611
<CGS>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    833,843
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                13,266
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (488,910)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          0
        

</TABLE>