alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 125.411 Airworthiness release or maintenance record entry. ( a ) No certificate holder may operate an airplane after maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration is performed on the airplane unless the person performing that maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration prepares or causes to be prepared— ( 1 ) An airworthiness release; or
( 2 ) An entry in the aircraft maintenance records in accordance with the certificate holder's manual.
( b ) The airworthiness release or maintenance record entry required by paragraph (a) of this section must— ( 1 ) Be prepared in accordance with the procedures set forth in the certificate holder's manual;
( 2 ) Include a certification that— ( i ) The work was performed in accordance with the requirements of the certificate holder's manual;
( ii ) All items required to be inspected were inspected by an authorized person who determined that the work was satisfactorily completed;
( iii ) No known condition exists that would make the airplane unairworthy; and
( iv ) So far as the work performed is concerned, the airplane is in condition for safe operation; and
( 3 ) Be signed by a person authorized in part 43 of this chapter to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration.
( c ) When an airworthiness release form is prepared, the certificate holder must give a copy to the pilot in command and keep a record of it for at least 60 days.
( d ) Instead of restating each of the conditions of the certification required by paragraph (b) of this section, the certificate holder may state in its manual that the signature of a person authorized in part 43 of this chapter constitutes that certification.
#### § 17.55 Standing orders of the ODRA Director.

The Director may issue such Standing Orders as necessary for the orderly conduct of business before the ODRA.
1 

# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 1 3

- 791 V

(E

- Filed : J uly 30, 2014 )

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ROBERT ROTTERMAN, * UNPUBLISHED

*

*

Petitioner

, * Special Master

* Hamilton

- Fieldman

v. *

* Decision on Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Res pondent. *

. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I saiah Kalinowski

, M aglio, Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

L indsay Corliss

, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent

.

DECISION 1 (ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 2 the

undersigned issued a decision on M ay 28, 2014 . On J uly 29, 2014 , the parties filed a

stipulation concerning attorney s’ fees and costs in this matter. T he parties’ stipulation

requests a total payment of $ 1 6,752.94 , representing total attorney s’ fees and costs.

Pursuant to General Order #9, Petitio ner stated that he incurred no out

- of

- pocket costs.

1 The undersigned intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States

Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002,

Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. §

3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), ea ch party has 14 days within

which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade

secret or commercial or financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that

are medical files and similar files the disclo sure of which would constitute a clearly

unw arranted invasion of privacy.” Otherwise, “the entire” decision will be available to

the public. Id.

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C.

§ 300aa

- 10 et seq . (2006).2

I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a

reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems

reasona ble and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award the amount of $ 1 6,752.94

, in the form of a check mad e payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner ’ s counsel,

Isaiah Kalinowski , E sq., forwarded to the main office of Maglio, Christopher &

Toale, located at 16 05 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota, Florida 34236.

In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of

the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment

in accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED

. s/ Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Special Master
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc.

1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 (703) 358-1000 www.aia-aerospace.org

December 18, 2015

Docket Operations, M–30 (Docket # FAA–2015–4279)

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12–140

West Building Ground Floor

Washington, DC 20590–0001

[Submitted electronically via the Federal eRegulations Portal]

SUBJECT: Request for 30-Day Extension of Comment Period

Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Gulfstream GVI Airplane; NonRechargeable Lithium Battery Installations (Docket # FAA-2015-4279)

The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) represents manufacturers of unmanned aircraft systems, 

manned aircraft, engines, avionics and components in the U.S. and throughout the world. By this letter, 

AIA respectfully requests that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) extend the comment period for 

the above-noted matter for a period of thirty (30) days to permit industry to complete its review of this 

matter and to provide more complete and substantive comments. 

The Special Conditions being proposed for Gulfstream aircraft have the potential to set a significant 

precedence for all aircraft and component manufacturers. The limited time period available to comment 

on this matter is insufficient for the industry to develop and consolidate meaningful comments that are 

designed to assist the FAA in this matter and to develop an effective approach to lithium battery 

installations in both current and future designs. Additionally, because this proposed action was published 

near the end of the year, coordination of comments among our industry members is complicated by 

holiday leave schedules of critical personnel and other end-of-year demands upon our member resources. 

We respectfully request that the FAA extend the comment period until February 3, 2016.

AIA appreciates the opportunity to provide the FAA with comments on this critical matter and hopes that 

the agency will permit the industry some additional time to provide meaningful and constructive 

comments on this issue. 

Respectfully,

Ali Bahrami

Vice President, Civil Aviation 

Aerospace Industries Association
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 **Certification of the Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

I, Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of The South Financial Group, Inc. (“TSFG”) certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 of TSFG (the “Report”): 

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TSFG. 

 

 

  /s/    Mack I. Whittle, Jr.          

Mack I. Whittle, Jr.

Chief Executive Officer

The South Financial Group, Inc.

August 8, 2006

 

  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The South Financial Group, Inc. and will be retained by The South Financial Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Placeholder: confidential business information item

Dow AgroSciences letter to EPA regarding 2010 Telone Production

For more information please contact Jeremy Arling by phone at 202-343-9055 or by

email at arling.jeremy@epa.gov
§ 142.37 Approval of flight aircrew training program. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each applicant for, or holder of, a training center certificate must apply to the Administrator for training program approval.
( b ) A curriculum approved under SFAR 58 of part 121 of this chapter is approved under this part without modifications.
( c ) Application for training program approval shall be made in a form and in a manner acceptable to the Administrator.
( d ) Each application for training program approval must indicate— ( 1 ) Which courses are part of the core curriculum and which courses are part of the specialty curriculum;
( 2 ) Which requirements of part 61 of this chapter would be satisfied by the curriculum or curriculums; and
( 3 ) Which requirements of part 61 of this chapter would not be satisfied by the curriculum or curriculums.
( e ) If, after a certificate holder begins operations under an approved training program, the Administrator finds that the certificate holder is not meeting the provisions of its approved training program, the Administrator may require the certificate holder to make revisions to that training program.
( f ) If the Administrator requires a certificate holder to make revisions to an approved training program and the certificate holder does not make those required revisions, within 30 calendar days, the Administrator may suspend, revoke, or terminate the training center certificate under the provisions of § 142.11(e).
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.  SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of General Metals Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Leslie James Porter, the Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer 

and Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 15, 2006.

 

/s/ Leslie James Porter                                                    

Leslie James Porter

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer 

and Principal Accounting Officer)

 

 

D/JCU/732805.1
§ 1264.116 Rights of parties. Except as otherwise limited by this part, all parties may— ( a ) Be accompanied, represented, and advised by a representative;
( b ) Participate in any conference held by the presiding officer;
( c ) Conduct discovery;
( d ) Agree to stipulations of fact or law, which shall be made part of the record;
( e ) Present evidence relevant to the issues at the hearing;
( f ) Present and cross-examine witnesses;
( g ) Present oral arguments at the hearing as permitted by the presiding officer; and
( h ) Submit written briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after the hearing.
[52 FR 39498, Oct. 22, 1987, as amended at 80 FR 42029, July 16, 2015]
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Peter J. Bradford, President and Chief Executive 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,
2003 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/ Peter J. Bradford    Peter J. Bradford    President
and Chief Executive Officer    January 30,
2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the December
31, 1998 audited financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         748,590
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,357,833
<ALLOWANCES>                                   848,116
<INVENTORY>                                    868,238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,597,181
<PP&E>                                       5,806,767
<DEPRECIATION>                                 732,684
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,123,580
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,159,478
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,510,500
<COMMON>                                         7,718
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,427,082
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,173,580
<SALES>                                      2,870,714
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,870,714
<CGS>                                        2,859,684
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,383,159
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,106,641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             299,735
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,461,829)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,461,829)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)
        

</TABLE>
§ 158.39 Use of excess PFC revenue. ( a ) If the PFC revenue remitted to the public agency, plus interest earned thereon, exceeds the allowable cost of the project, the public agency must use the excess funds for approved projects or to retire outstanding PFC-financed bonds.
( b ) For bond-financed projects, any excess PFC revenue collected under debt servicing requirements shall be retained by the public agency and used for approved projects or retirement of outstanding PFC-financed bonds.
( c ) When the authority to impose a PFC has expired or has been terminated, accumulated PFC revenue shall be used for approved projects or retirement of outstanding PFC-financed bonds.
( d ) Within 30 days after the authority to impose a PFC has expired or been terminated, the public agency must present a plan to the appropriate FAA Airports office to begin using accumulated PFC revenue. The plan must include a timetable for submitting any necessary application under this part. If the public agency fails to submit such a plan, or if the plan is not acceptable to the Administrator, the Administrator may reduce Federal airport grant program apportioned funds.
[Doc. No. 26385, 56 FR 24278, May 29, 1991, as amended by Amdt. 158-4, 72 FR 28849, May 23, 2007]
EXHIBIT 2

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2891-2 Filed:04/11/18 Entered:04/11/18 18:06:54 Desc:

 

Exhibit 2 Page 1 of 3
TABLE II 

Active Cases filed by PRHTA Managerial Employees before 

The Puerto Rico Public Service Appeal Commission (CASP)

that have been stayed pursuant to PROMESA Title III proceedings,

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS US District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

Case No.

Caption

File Date

Nature of Claim Answer and 

Defenses by 

PRHTA and 

other filings by 

the parties

Discovery

(Both Parties)

(Date)

Status Hearings 

and/or 

Conferences

Proposed Pre-Trial 

Order and Pre-Trial 

Conference

Full Hearing Resolution Other relevant 

Information

Case No.: 2015-04-3596

María del Carmen Rolón Castillo y 

Magdalena Baranda Pérez

Appeal filed

April 29, 2015

Reclassification of Position 

Denial Challenge

Informative

Motion on 

Notification of 

NonCompliance 

with 

Requirements 

on Request for 

Appeal

June 30, 2015

None None None None None None

Case No. 2016-04-1111

Nurys Molina Pérez

Appeal filed

April 26, 2016

Reclassification of Position 

(Challenge of Denial or 

non-consideration of 

petition to reclassify the 

same)

December 20, 

2016-Appellant 

filed Motion 

Requesting 

Reconsideration 

of the appeal 

rejection by the 

Commission 

Clerk. (pending) 

None None None None None A claim of the 

same nature 

was filed on 

behalf of 

Appellant 

before the 

PRHTA

Board of 

Appeals. 

Initially that 

appeal was 

dismissed but 

that ruling 

was later 

reversed by 

the PR Court 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2891-2 Filed:04/11/18 Entered:04/11/18 18:06:54 Desc:

 

Exhibit 2 Page 2 of 3
TABLE II 

Active Cases filed by PRHTA Managerial Employees before 

The Puerto Rico Public Service Appeal Commission (CASP)

that have been stayed pursuant to PROMESA Title III proceedings,

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS US District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

of Appeals. 

(See Table I, 

case No. 

2016-ACT003). 

Case No. 2016-10-0511

Asunción Quiñonez Colón

Appeal filed

October 12, 2016

Claim of unpaid difference 

of the Christmas Bonus for 

the year 2014

None None None None None None None

Case No. 2016-22-0658

Aleyda Berríos Rivera

Appeal filed

November 30, 2016

Request for the 

Reclassification of Position 

None None None None None None None

Case No. 2016-04-1117

José García Morales and others

Appeal filed

April 7, 2016

Claim of unpaid difference 

of the Christmas Bonus for 

the year 2014

June 15, 2016-

PRHTA filed its 

Answer to 

Complaint

None None None None None None

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2891-2 Filed:04/11/18 Entered:04/11/18 18:06:54 Desc:

 

Exhibit 2 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.3



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the annual report of Broadwing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Scott Widham, Co-Chief Executive Officer and President of Sales and Marketing of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                    |  |  |  |                 
|------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------
|                    |  | 
|Date: March 4, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Scott Widham
|                    |  |  |  | Scott Widham
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4583

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. SCOTT C. HOLLINS, a/k/a Scott Gaylon, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:06-cr-00428-DCN) Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 1, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. H. Stanley Feldman, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Robert H. Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* Hollins’ plea agreement contained an express waiver of his “right to contest either the conviction(s) or the sentence(s) in any direct appeal or other post-conviction action, . . ..” - 2 - PER CURIAM: Scott C. Hollins pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000) (Count 1), and one count of attempting to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000) (Count 3). The district court sentenced Hollins to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 188 months on Counts 1 and 3, an eight-year term of supervised release, and ordered payment of a statutory assessment of $200. Hollins appeals his sentence, asserting error in the district court’s calculation of his offense level used in the determination of his sentence. The Government claims Hollins waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. * A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Blick , 408 F.3d 162, 169 (4th Cir. 2005). Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson , 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells , 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). The question of whether a defendant validly waived his- 3 - right to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. Blick , 408 F.3d at 168. The record reveals, and Hollins does not contest, that he knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Moreover, the sentencing issue Hollins attempts to raise on appeal falls within the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we affirm Hollins’ conviction and dismiss the appeal of his sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART ; DISMISSED IN PART