alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 249.21 Preservation of records by public charter operators and overseas military personnel charter operators. Each operator authorized under parts 372 and 380 of this chapter shall retain the following records for 6 months after completion or cancellation of the flight or series of flights. The records shall be made available upon request of an authorized representative of the DOT. ( a ) All receipts and statements of travel agents and all other documents which show deposits made by each charter participant or which show refunds to charter participants.
( b ) All receipts and statements of travel agents and all other documents which show or reflect commissions received, paid to, or deducted by travel agents in connection with the flight or series of flights.
( c ) All statements, invoices, bills, and receipts from suppliers for furnishing of goods or services in connection with the tour or series of tours.
( d ) All customer reservations records for each flight.
( e ) All contracts with individual tour participants.
( f ) All bank statements and reconciliations for escrow bank accounts opened and maintained in accordance with DOT regulations.
[ER-1214, 46 FR 25415, May 6, 1981, as amended at 60 FR 66726, Dec. 26, 1995]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

PETER M. WENDT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DARLENE LEONARD, Individually;

RALPH THOMAS, JR., Individually;  No. 02-2374 ROY GITTINGS, Individually; JOHN

DOES, Individually; SEATOW SERVICES

OF CARTERET COUNTY, INCORPORATED;

JARRETT BAY BOAT WORKS,

INCORPORATED,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern.

Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.

(CA-02-135-4-H)

Submitted: March 21, 2003

Decided: April 3, 2003

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Peter M. Wendt, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Adinolfi, II, Assistant

Attorney General, William McBlief, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina;

Claud Roberson Wheatly, III, WHEATLY, WHEATLY, NOBLES,

WEEKS & WAINWRIGHT, Beaufort, North Carolina; Janet Marie

Lyles, DAVIS, MURRELLE & LUMSDEN, Beaufort, North Carolina; Robert Clifton Dodge, ROBERT C. DODGE, P.A., Beaufort,

North Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Peter Wendt appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint filed under 48 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and the denial of his

motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. Wendt asserted civil

rights claims against the Clerk of Carteret County Superior Court, the

Carteret County Sheriff, and others, for their actions in confiscating

his boat and other personal property when the North Carolina Department of Revenue obtained a tax judgment against him for failure to

pay taxes in 2002, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-242 (2002).

Wendt also sought to enjoin the sale of his property in satisfaction of

the judgment. 

On appeal, Wendt contends the district court was required to exercise subject matter jurisdiction because he has presented a federal

question by alleging violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment

rights. However, this court lacks jurisdiction over his claims under the

Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (2000). Lawyer v. Hilton Head

Pub. Serv. Dist. No. 1, 220 F.3d 298, 303-04 (4th Cir. 2000). Wendt

does not allege that North Carolina has failed to provide a "plain

speedy and efficient remedy." Furthermore, civil rights actions under

§ 1983 do not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal

courts, and may therefore be brought in North Carolina courts. See

Bacon v. Lee, 549 S.E.2d 840, 843 (N.C. 2001). Therefore we affirm

2 WENDT v. LEONARD
the district court’s order for the reasons stated in its opinion. See

Wendt v. Leonard, No. CA-02-135-4-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 23, 2002). 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. 

AFFIRMED

WENDT v. LEONARD 3
§ 151.63 Grant payments: Semifinal and final. ( a ) Whenever airport development on a project is delayed or suspended for an appreciable period of time for reasons beyond the sponsor's control and the allowability of the project costs of all airport development completed has been determined on the basis of an audit and review of all costs, a semifinal grant payment may be made in an amount large enough to bring the aggregate amount of all partial grant payments for the project to the United States share of all allowable project costs incurred, even if the amount is more than the 90 percent limitation prescribed in § 151.61(b). However, it may not be more than the maximum obligation of the United States as stated in the grant agreement.
( b ) Whenever the project is completed in accordance with the grant agreement, the sponsor may apply for final payment. The final payment is made to the sponsor if— ( 1 ) A final inspection of all work at the airport site has been made jointly by the Area Manager and representatives of the sponsor and the contractor, unless the Area Manager agrees to a different procedure for final inspection.
( 2 ) A final audit of the project account has been completed by appropriate personnel of the FAA; and
( 3 ) The sponsor has furnished final “as constructed” plans, unless otherwise agreed to by the Administrator.
( c ) Based upon the final inspection, the final audit, the plans, and the documents and supporting information required by § 151.57(a), the Administrator determines the total amount of the allowable project costs and pays the sponsor the United States' share, less the total amount of all prior payments.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Allan J. Marter,  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Golden
Star Resources Ltd., certify,  to the best of my knowledge,  based upon a review
of the Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the period  ended  December  31,  2005 of
Golden Star Resources Ltd. that:

(1) The  Annual  Report on Form 10-K fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained and incorporated by reference in the Annual Report
on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition
and results of operations of Golden Star Resources Ltd.



/s/ Allan J. Marter
-------------------
Allan J. Marter
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
March 27, 2006


                                      117
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2461

DAVID KEITH SUMRELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MOODY E. STALLINGS, JR.; MARY SUE TERRY,

Former Attorney General; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; DIXON L. FOSTER,

Honorable Judge, Retired; SUPREME COURT OF

VIRGINIA; RICHARD C. VORHIS, Assistant Bar

Counsel; VIRGINIA STATE BAR; GEORGE ALLEN,

Governor; OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-97-115-2)

Submitted: December 16, 1997 Decided: January 20, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

David Keith Sumrell, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Edward Martin-Gayle,

STALLINGS & RICHARDSON, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Grover C. Wright,

Jr., Virginia Beach, Virginia; Catherine Currin Hammond, Gregory E.

Lucyk, Peter Robert Messitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

petition for an order vacating his conviction. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Sumrell v. Stallings, No. CA-97-115-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 19,

1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### § 158.1 Applicability.

This part applies to passenger facility charges (PFC's) as may be approved by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and imposed by a public agency that controls a commercial service airport. This part also describes the procedures for reducing funds to a large or medium hub airport that imposes a PFC.

[Doc. No. FAA-2000-7402, 65 FR 34540, May 30, 2000]
§ 157.7 FAA determinations. ( a ) The FAA will conduct an aeronautical study of an airport proposal and, after consultations with interested persons, as appropriate, issue a determination to the proponent and advise those concerned of the FAA determination. The FAA will consider matters such as the effects the proposed action would have on existing or contemplated traffic patterns of neighboring airports; the effects the proposed action would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA; and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA) and natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal. While determinations consider the effects of the proposed action on the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft and the safety of persons and property on the ground, the determinations are only advisory. Except for an objectionable determination, each determination will contain a determination-void date to facilitate efficient planning of the use of the navigable airspace. A determination does not relieve the proponent of responsibility for compliance with any local law, ordinance or regulation, or state or other Federal regulation. Aeronautical studies and determinations will not consider environmental or land use compatibility impacts.
( b ) An airport determination issued under this part will be one of the following: ( 1 ) *No objection.*
( 2 ) *Conditional.* A conditional determination will identify the objectionable aspects of a project or action and specify the conditions which must be met and sustained to preclude an objectionable determination.
( 3 ) *Objectionable.* An objectionable determination will specify the FAA's reasons for issuing such a determination.
( c ) *Determination void date.* All work or action for which notice is required by this sub-part must be completed by the determination void date. Unless otherwise extended, revised, or terminated, an FAA determination becomes invalid on the day specified as the determination void date. Interested persons may, at least 15 days in advance of the determination void date, petition the FAA official who issued the determination to: ( 1 ) Revise the determination based on new facts that change the basis on which it was made; or
( 2 ) Extend the determination void date. Determinations will be furnished to the proponent, aviation officials of the state concerned, and, when appropriate, local political bodies and other interested persons.
§ 1261.317 Attorney-client privilege. ( a ) Attorneys employed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration participate in the process utilized for the purpose of determining whether the agency should request the Department of Justice to provide representation to a present or former agency employee sued, subpoenaed, or charged in his/her individual capacity, and attorneys employed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration provide assistance in obtaining representation of such an agency employee. In these roles, agency attorneys undertake a full and traditional attorney-client relationship with the employee with respect to application of the attorney-client privilege. If representation is authorized, National Aeronautics and Space Administration attorneys who assist in the representation of a present or former employee also undertake a full and traditional attorney-client relationship with that employee with respect to the attorney-client privilege.
( b ) Any adverse information communicated by the client-employee to an Agency attorney during the course of such attorney-client relationship shall not be disclosed to anyone, either inside or outside NASA, other than attorneys responsible for representation of the employee, unless such disclosure is authorized by the employee. Such adverse information shall continue to be fully protected whether or not representation is provided and even though representation may be denied or discontinued.
[53 FR 27483, July 21, 1988, as amended at 82 FR 29384, June 29, 2017]
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 09

- 00066

- CV

Antonio SALTON

, Appellant

v.

Alray JOHNSON and Tracey Johnson, Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006

- CI

- 08657 Honorable Fred Shannon , Judge Presiding

PER CUR IAM

Sitting: Rebecca S immons , Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 7, 2009

REVERSED AND REMANDED

The appellees have filed a motion, in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

42.1(a)(2 ), stating that the parties have resolved the dispute at issue and requesting this court

reverse the trial court and remand the matter for a new trial. The appellant has not notified this

court to the contrary. The motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is hereby04

- 09

- 00066

- CV

- 2

- reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.1(a)(2).

PER CURIAM
§ 252.11 Aircraft on the ground. ( a ) Air carriers shall prohibit smoking whenever the aircraft is on the ground.
( b ) With respect to the restrictions on smoking described in § 252.5, foreign air carriers shall prohibit smoking from the time an aircraft begins enplaning passengers until the time passengers complete deplaning.
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 9
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 9
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 9
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 9
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 9
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 9
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 9
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 9
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 9
Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Richard Rubin, CEO, CFO and
Chairman of Peregrine Industries, Inc, a Florida corporation, hereby makes the following
certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with
respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934: Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2008.

The undersigned certifies that the above
quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above report fairly presents, in
all respects, the financial condition of Peregrine Industries, Inc. and results of its
operations.

Date: September 29, 2008/s/ Richard RubinCEO, CFO and Chairman
#### § 152.201 Applicability.

This subpart contains the requirements for funding projects for airport development, airport master planning, and airport system planning.
EXHIBIT 32. - Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
              Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-K of Australian-Canadian Oil
Royalties Ltd. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Andre Sakhai, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mahnaz
Nourmand, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of their knowledge, 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 represents, in all
    material  respects,  the financial condition and result of operations of the
    Company.

Dated: April 8, 2011                 /s/ Andre Sakhai
                                     ------------------
                                     Andre Sakhai, President &
                                     Chief Executive Officer



Dated: April 8, 2011                 /s/ Mahnaz Nourmand
                                     --------------------
                                     Mahnaz Nourmand, Chief Financial Officer



This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT B

Summary of FTI Consulting, Inc. Hours Worked and Fees Incurred by Professional by 

Location

Mainland Fees On-island Fees Total Fees

Professional Position

Blended 

Billing Rate Hours Fees Hours Fees

Total

Hours

Total

Fees

Gibson, Wayne Senior Managing Director $ 695 7.2 $ 5,004.00 - $ - 7.2 $ 5,004.00

Gumbs, Sean Senior Managing Director 1,075 360.8 387,860.00 20.5 22,037.50 381.3 409,897.50

Malloy, Michael Senior Managing Director 815 44.1 35,941.50 - - 44.1 35,941.50

Simms, Steven Senior Managing Director 1,075 19.8 21,285.00 - - 19.8 21,285.00

Smith, Ellen Senior Managing Director 1,020 8.0 8,160.00 - - 8.0 8,160.00

Smith, Lawrence Senior Managing Director 910 1.0 910.00 - - 1.0 910.00

Maddox, Brian Senior Managing Director I 850 0.6 510.00 - - 0.6 510.00

Fish, Mark Managing Director 675 11.5 7,762.50 - - 11.5 7,762.50

Grunwald Kadar, Andrea Managing Director 915 232.2 212,463.00 2.5 2,287.50 234.7 214,750.50

Heeren, Ana Managing Director 700 30.6 21,420.00 - - 30.6 21,420.00

Mulkeen, Tara Managing Director 705 68.6 48,363.00 - - 68.6 48,363.00

Park, Ji Yon Managing Director 855 315.6 269,838.00 - - 315.6 269,838.00

Robertson, David Managing Director I 700 1.0 700.00 - - 1.0 700.00

Lee, Calvin Senior Director 765 123.0 94,095.00 - - 123.0 94,095.00

LaMagna, Matthew Director 450 1.5 675.00 - - 1.5 675.00

Chu, Josephine Senior Consultant 455 75.7 34,443.50 - - 75.7 34,443.50

Emerton, Charlie Senior Consultant 453 189.6 85,952.00 - - 189.6 85,952.00

Leese, Nicholas Senior Consultant 495 67.8 33,527.50 - - 67.8 33,527.50

Mossop, Julian Senior Consultant 580 236.0 136,880.00 - - 236.0 136,880.00

Sombuntham, Natalie Senior Consultant 493 533.0 262,517.00 - - 533.0 262,517.00

Garcia Pelaez, Andres Senior Consultant I 394 27.7 10,900.00 - - 27.7 10,900.00

Mann, Sarah Senior Consultant I 350 1.3 455.00 - - 1.3 455.00

Cherian, Ritika Consultant 304 135.8 41,334.00 - - 135.8 41,334.00

Elliott, Charles Consultant 312 134.3 41,844.00 - - 134.3 41,844.00

Locke, William Consultant 200 27.2 5,440.00 - - 27.2 5,440.00

Maassen, Thomas Consultant 350 121.7 42,546.00 - - 121.7 42,546.00

Miles, Edan Consultant 315 89.0 28,059.50 - - 89.0 28,059.50

Teixeira, Anabel Consultant I 250 72.3 18,075.00 - - 72.3 18,075.00

Hellmund-Mora, Marili Associate 270 43.5 11,745.00 - - 43.5 11,745.00

SUBTOTAL 2,980.4 $ 1,868,705.50 23.0 $ 24,325.00 3,003.4 $ 1,893,030.50

Less: 50% discount for non-working travel time (15,936.00) - (15,936.00)

TOTAL BEFORE WITHHOLDING 2,980.4 $ 1,852,769.50 23.0 $ 24,325.00 3,003.4 $ 1,877,094.50

Less: 7% withholding on on-island fees - (1,702.75) (1,702.75)

GRAND TOTAL 2,980.4 $ 1,852,769.50 23.0 $ 22,622.25 3,003.4 $ 1,875,391.75

(1): Professionals who were promoted during the Third Interim Fee Application period.

(2): Professionals whose rates were subject to periodic increases during the Third Interim Fee Application period.

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3543-2 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 16:17:41 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 1 of 1
PARTNER CASE STUDY

IDLING REDUCTION

Company Profile 

Headquarters Location: Huntingburg, Indiana 

Point of Contact: Mark Hagedorn, Fleet and Maintenance Manager 

 Ph: 800-295-4848, email: mhagedorn@styline.com 

Number of Employees: 157 Strategy Category: Idling Reduction

Number of Trailers: 300 Number of Power Units: 122

Styline Transportation is a nationwide LTL carrier serving all 48 States and Cananda. 

Project Description 

Styline Transportation, Inc. is dedicated to improving its fleet’s fuel efficiency and reducing air emissions. They 

recognize that one key mechanism through which these goals can be reached is idling reduction. The company 

currently has 14 trucks with auxiliary power units, 23 trucks using truck stop electrification, and 118 trucks 

bypassing weigh stations. Combined, these strategies are saving Styline 86,442 gallons of diesel fuel per 

year. At the current price of diesel, this amounts to cost savings of approximately $191,000! 

Over the next three years, Styline plans to decrease their idling even further. The company plans to increase 

the use of auxiliary power units by installing 75 additional units on their trucks. In addition, Styline will 

continue bypassing weigh stations and plans to install engine shutdown devices on all of their company 

trucks. The implementation of these strategies will save Styline an additional 527,032 gallons of diesel fuel, 

which amounts to cost savings of approximately $1.12 million! 

In addition to implementing the strategies described above, Styline Industries, in conjunction with Indiana 

Department Environmental Management (IDEM), is instituting a no-idling policy for all loading operations. Due 

to their environmental excellence, Styline has qualified to use the SmartWay Transport Partner logo, which they 

plan to place on their no-iding signs around their loading areas to educate drivers and employees about their 

participation in the Partnership. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ! Office of Transportation & Air Quality ! EPA420-F-06-012 ! SmartWaySM Transport Partnership

 Mail Code 6406J ! Ariel Rios Bldg. !1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW ! Washington, DC 20460 -orNVFEL ! 2000 Traverwood Dr. ! Ann Arbor MI 48105 ! (734) 214-4052 ! www.epa.gov/smartway
§ 25.399 Dual control system. ( a ) Each dual control system must be designed for the pilots operating in opposition, using individual pilot forces not less than— ( 1 ) 0.75 times those obtained under § 25.395; or
( 2 ) The minimum forces specified in § 25.397(c).
( b ) The control system must be designed for pilot forces applied in the same direction, using individual pilot forces not less than 0.75 times those obtained under § 25.395.