alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24156-1 Filed:05/05/23 Entered:05/08/23 09:24:13 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 8
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24156-1 Filed:05/05/23 Entered:05/08/23 09:24:13 Desc:

Exhibit Page 2 of 8
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24156-1 Filed:05/05/23 Entered:05/08/23 09:24:13 Desc:

Exhibit Page 3 of 8
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24156-1 Filed:05/05/23 Entered:05/08/23 09:24:13 Desc:

Exhibit Page 4 of 8
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24156-1 Filed:05/05/23 Entered:05/08/23 09:24:13 Desc:

Exhibit Page 5 of 8
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24156-1 Filed:05/05/23 Entered:05/08/23 09:24:13 Desc:

Exhibit Page 6 of 8
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24156-1 Filed:05/05/23 Entered:05/08/23 09:24:13 Desc:

Exhibit Page 7 of 8
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24156-1 Filed:05/05/23 Entered:05/08/23 09:24:13 Desc:

Exhibit Page 8 of 8
§ 152.105 Sponsors and planning agencies: Airport planning. ( a ) To be eligible to apply for a project for airport planning— ( 1 ) If the project is for airport master planning— ( i ) Each sponsor must be a public agency and meet the requirements of § 152.103(a)(3); and
( ii ) The sponsor, in the case of a single sponsor, or one or more cosponsors must be legally able to implement the planning, within the existing or proposed airport boundaries, that results from the project study.
( 2 ) If the project is for airport system planning, each sponsor must be a planning agency.
( b ) Another public agency or planning agency may act as agent of another public agency or planning agency, for the purpose of channeling grant funds in accordance with state or local law, without becoming a sponsor.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL GADDY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

N. ADAM, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-16107

D.C. No. 4:14-cv-01642-HSG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 14, 2017

San Francisco, California

Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,** Chief District

Judge.

 

California state prisoner Michael Gaddy (Gaddy) appeals an order granting

summary judgment in favor of Dr. N. Adam (Adam) in Gaddy’s civil rights action

alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

FILED

JAN 30 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable William E. Smith, Chief United States District Judge

for the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
1. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, see Asarco LLC v.

Atl. Richfield Co., 866 F.3d 1108, 1118 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm. The district

court properly granted summary judgment because the record does not raise a

material issue of fact regarding deliberate indifference. See Colwell v. Bannister,

763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that an official acts with deliberate

indifference “only if the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to [a

prisoner’s] health and safety”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). At

most, Dr. Adam displayed negligence or gross negligence when she discontinued

Gaddy’s waist-chain chrono. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.

2004) (noting that gross negligence does not constitute deliberate indifference). 

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for

additional discovery because Gaddy failed to specify any facts to be discovered

that would have established deliberate indifference on the part of Dr. Adam. See

Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006).

3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gaddy’s motions

to compel responses to the interrogatories and to compel the production of medical

records because it remained unclear which responses Gaddy contended were

inadequate, and Gaddy is thus unable to establish that the denial resulted in

prejudice. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended

2
(requiring “the clearest showing that the denial of discovery result[ed] in actual and

substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant”) (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted). 

AFFIRMED.

3
Blue Moon Group, Inc.
4957 Garland Branch Road
Dover, FL 33527

Tomer Tal, Esq.
New Venture Attorneys
13620 Lincoln Way Suite 320
Auburn, CA 95603

April 16, 2003


Dear Tomer:


     In consideration for your services for Blue Moon Group, Inc. we are pleased
to announce that we have authorized the issuance of 5,000 shares of Common Stock
to be included in our next S-8 filing.

     Thank you for all your good work and we look forward to working with you.

Best Regards,



By: /s/ Michael Muzio
------------------------------------
Michael Muzio, PRESIDENT AND CEO
December

4, 2015 Federal Aviation Administration Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington,
DC 20591 Re: FAA Fuel Tax Revenue Action Plan- Commercial Service Airports Dear Office of Compliance: The Valdosta-Lowndes County Airport Authority operates the Valdosta Regional Airport.

It is a Category

I, non-hub, commercial-service airport
in Georgia. The airport
is not financially selfsufficient. For ourcurrent fiscal year,which runs July
1, 2015 through June 30,2016, wewill receive $731,020

in contributions from the local taxing authorities.

At the current rateof sales tax that is generated
by sales of aviation fuel wewould have tosell morethan 24 million gallons of aviation fuel per yearto equal the contributions

we currently receive. Our current aviation fuel sales areabout 500 thousand gallons per year.Our Action Plan is to monitor the annual fuel sales and appropriate sales tax rates.If weever approach fuel sales that would exceed the monetary contributions that wereceive from the local taxing authorities,
wewill develop

amore detailed Action Plan. Please contact meif youhave any questions

orconcerns jgallowav@t1yvaldosta.com. Sincerely, J!da1!!;II Executive Director/ Airport Manager 1750 Airport Road. Suite

I •Valdosta. Georgia 3160

I o(229) 333-1833

•Fax (229) 245-8153
---

Exhibit 12.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Chelsea Oil and Gas,
Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, William Petrie, Sr., Executive Chairman of the Company, and
Jesse Meidl, Chief Executive 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, that to the best of his 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 results of
      operations of the Company.

By:
    /s/
      William Petrie, Sr.William Petrie, Sr.Executive Chairman, Chelsea Oil and Gas, Ltd.


By:
    /s/
      Jesse MeidlJesse MeidlChief Executive Officer, Chelsea Oil and Gas,
      Ltd.


April 29, 2016

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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            727,130
<SECURITIES>                                      125,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,186,951
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                2,217,378
<PP&E>                                          2,160,482
<DEPRECIATION>                                    823,743
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  4,990,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,342,043
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                        5,939,507
<OTHER-SE>                                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    4,990,348
<SALES>                                        25,908,304
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               26,253,948
<CGS>                                          25,562,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  25,562,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    1,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                131,022
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   555,479
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               555,479
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      555,479
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .08



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

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 Avalon Holdings Corporation (the registrant) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), I, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (a) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (a) 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Frank Lamanna      
|Frank Lamanna          
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 20, 2006
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 2656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of 
January 17, 2000.
    A closed meeting will be held on Thursday, January 20, 2000 at 
11:00 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), 
(8), (9)(A) and (10), permit consideration for the scheduled matters at 
the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Johnson, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
January 20, 2000, will be:

    A litigation matter;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact:
    The office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

     Dated: January 11, 2000.
 Jonathan G. Katz,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. 00-1124 Filed 1-12-00; 4:19 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
```
§ 25.973 Fuel tank filler connection. Each fuel tank filler connection must prevent the entrance of fuel into any part of the airplane other than the tank itself. In addition— ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) Each recessed filler connection that can retain any appreciable quantity of fuel must have a drain that discharges clear of each part of the airplane;
( c ) Each filler cap must provide a fuel-tight seal; and
( d ) Each fuel filling point must have a provision for electrically bonding the airplane to ground fueling equipment.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-40, 42 FR 15043, Mar. 17, 1977; Amdt. 25-72, 55 FR 29785, July 20, 1990; Amdt. 25-115, 69 FR 40527, July 2, 2004]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

----------------------------------------------------------x 

In re: PROMESA

Title III

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered)

et al., 

Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x 

NOTICE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE COURT

The Court has received and reviewed the attached correspondence, described 

below, from interested persons in the above-captioned cases. Although the Court cannot respond 

individually to all of those who have expressed their thoughts or concerns, the Court is deeply 

mindful of the impact of the fiscal crisis on lives, institutions, and expectations, and of the 

importance of the issues that are raised in these unprecedented cases.

1. Letters dated between May 5-May 25th from Students of University of Puerto

Rico.

2. Letter dated May 14, 2018 from Luis Abbott.

3. Letter dated May 15, 2018 from Luis Abbott.

4. Email dated May 16, 2018 from Luis Abbott.

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) 

(Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation 

(“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 

17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System 

of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 

3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power 

Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax 

ID: 3747). (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software 

limitations).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3313 Filed:06/18/18 Entered:06/18/18 16:08:50 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
5. Email dated May 18, 2018 from Stephen T. Mangiaracina.

6. Email dated June 8, 2018 from Luis Abbott.

7. Email dated June 8, 2018 from Eduardo A. Nin.

8. Email dated June 15, 2018 from Stephen T. Mangiaracina.

Dated: June 18, 2018 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3313 Filed:06/18/18 Entered:06/18/18 16:08:50 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
§ 25.1541 General. ( a ) The airplane must contain— ( 1 ) The specified markings and placards; and
( 2 ) Any additional information, instrument markings, and placards required for the safe operation if there are unusual design, operating, or handling characteristics.
( b ) Each marking and placard prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section— ( 1 ) Must be displayed in a conspicuous place; and
( 2 ) May not be easily erased, disfigured, or obscured.
§ 135.105 Exception to second in command requirement: Approval for use of autopilot system. ( a ) Except as provided in §§ 135.99 and 135.111, unless two pilots are required by this chapter for operations under VFR, a person may operate an aircraft without a second in command, if it is equipped with an operative approved autopilot system and the use of that system is authorized by appropriate operations specifications. No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as a pilot in command under this section of an aircraft operated in a commuter operation, as defined in part 119 of this chapter unless that person has at least 100 hours pilot in command flight time in the make and model of aircraft to be flown and has met all other applicable requirements of this part.
( b ) The certificate holder may apply for an amendment of its operations specifications to authorize the use of an autopilot system in place of a second in command.
( c ) The Administrator issues an amendment to the operations specifications authorizing the use of an autopilot system, in place of a second in command, if— ( 1 ) The autopilot is capable of operating the aircraft controls to maintain flight and maneuver it about the three axes; and
( 2 ) The certificate holder shows, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that operations using the autopilot system can be conducted safely and in compliance with this part.
The amendment contains any conditions or limitations on the use of the autopilot system that the Administrator determines are needed in the interest of safety. [Doc. No. 16097, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135-3, 45 FR 7542, Feb. 4, 1980; Amdt. 135-58, 60 FR 65939, Dec. 20, 1995]
Editorial Note on Part 139
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 139 appear at 69 FR 24069, May 3, 2004.

§ 139.315 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Index determination. ( a ) An index is required by paragraph (c) of this section for each certificate holder. The Index is determined by a combination of— ( 1 ) The length of air carrier aircraft and
( 2 ) Average daily departures of air carrier aircraft.
( b ) For the purpose of Index determination, air carrier aircraft lengths are grouped as follows: ( 1 ) Index A includes aircraft less than 90 feet in length.
( 2 ) Index B includes aircraft at least 90 feet but less than 126 feet in length.
( 3 ) Index C includes aircraft at least 126 feet but less than 159 feet in length.
( 4 ) Index D includes aircraft at least 159 feet but less than 200 feet in length.
( 5 ) Index E includes aircraft at least 200 feet in length.
( c ) Except as provided in § 139.319(c), if there are five or more average daily departures of air carrier aircraft in a single Index group serving that airport, the longest aircraft with an average of five or more daily departures determines the Index required for the airport. When there are fewer than five average daily departures of the longest air carrier aircraft serving the airport, the Index required for the airport will be the next lower Index group than the Index group prescribed for the longest aircraft.
( d ) The minimum designated index shall be Index A.
( e ) A holder of a Class III Airport Operating Certificate may comply with this section by providing a level of safety comparable to Index A that is approved by the Administrator. Such alternate compliance must be described in the ACM and must include: ( 1 ) Pre-arranged firefighting and emergency medical response procedures, including agreements with responding services.
( 2 ) Means for alerting firefighting and emergency medical response personnel.
( 3 ) Type of rescue and firefighting equipment to be provided.
( 4 ) Training of responding firefighting and emergency medical personnel on airport familiarization and communications.
[Doc. No. FAA-2000-7479, 69 FR 6424, Feb. 10, 2004; Amdt. 139-26, 69 FR 31522, June 4, 2004]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 24985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10603]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Wireless Application Protocol Forum (``WAP'')

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 9, 1999, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Wireless Application Protocol 
Forum (``WAP'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, ASL, Bristol, United Kingdom; AU-System Mobile AB, 
Stockholm, SWEDEN; Baltimore Technologies, Dublin, Ireland; BEA 
WebXpress;, San Francisco, CA; Cap Gemini, Puteaux, Cedex, France; 
Digital Mobility Ltd., London, United Kingdom; East Digifone, Dublin, 
Ireland; Hitachi Ltd., Tokyo, Japan; Japan Telecom Ltd., Tokyo, Japan; 
Lexacom Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada; MapQuest.com Inc., Mountville, 
PA; Merita Bank Plc, Merita, Finland; Microsoft, Redmond, WA; Mobile 
Services Group, Irving, TX; Orange Communications SA, Lausanne, 
Switzerland; Peramon Technology Ltd., Reading, United Kingdom; 
Razorfish, Inc., Helsinki, Finland; Sun Microsystems, Palo Alto, CA; 
TAN TAU Software Inc., Utrecht, The Netherlands; Telecom Wireless 
Solutions, Alpharetta, GA; UBS, Zurich, Switzerland; Usha Communication 
Technology, Portland, OR; WapIT Ltd., Helsinki, Finland; and Wireless 
Knowledge, San Diego, CA have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Wireless Application Protocol Forum 
(``WAP'') intends to file additional written notification disclosing 
all changes in membership.
    On March 18, 1998, Wireless Application Protocol Forum (``WAP'') 
filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. 
The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on December 31, 1998 (63 FR 72333).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 6, 
1999. A notice has not yet been published in the Federal Register.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-10603 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M