alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2764 Filed:03/20/18 Entered:03/20/18 12:10:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2764 Filed:03/20/18 Entered:03/20/18 12:10:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2764 Filed:03/20/18 Entered:03/20/18 12:10:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2764 Filed:03/20/18 Entered:03/20/18 12:10:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2764 Filed:03/20/18 Entered:03/20/18 12:10:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2764 Filed:03/20/18 Entered:03/20/18 12:10:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 6
DEP ARTMENT OF THE AI R FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE FLIGHT STANDARDS AGENCY 

23 Jun 14

MEMORANDUM FOR HQ FAA/AGC-10

FROM: HQ AFFSA/A3OF

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd

Bldg 4, Rm 240

Oklahoma City, OK 73169

SUBJECT: 14 CFR Exemption 4371 Renewal (Regulatory Docket FAA-2000-8093)

1. FAA Exemption 4371 was granted to the United States Air Force on 21 Jun 85; as amended 

to 4371M on 19 April 2013, it exempts USAF aircraft from the provisions of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regualtions § 91.177(a)(2) and 91.179(b)(1). The requirements have changed for USAF 

aircraft to conduct low-level operations without complying with en route minimum altitudes for 

flight under instrument flight rules (IFR) or direction of flight requirements for IFR en route 

segments in uncontrolled airspace. 

2. Due to technological advances in aircraft systems, as well as current and future operational 

requirements, the Air Force has the need to train aircrew and employ aircraft and systems at 

altitudes lower than granted in the current exemption. Additionally, the maximum route length 

imposed by 4371M diminishes the effectiveness of the training. The Air Force requests the 

following ammendments to 4371M:

a. Fixed-Wing Aircraft (item 1 of 4371M):

i. Minimum altitude for fixed-wing aircraft employing Terrain Following/Terrain 

Avoidance (TF/TA) radar procedures will be no lower than 200 feet above ground 

level (AGL).

ii. Minimum altitude for fixed-wing aircraft employing visual low level procedures 

will be no lower than 200 feet and short duration threat penetration legs no lower 

than 100 feet.

b. Rotary-wing and Tilt-rotor aircraft (item 1 of 4371M):

i. Minimum altitude for rotary-wing and tilt-rotor aircraft employing TF/TA radar 

procedures will be no lower than 100 feet AGL.

ii. Minimum altitude for rotary-wing and tilt-rotor aircraft employing visual low 

level procedures will be no lower than 50 feet AGL.

c. Deletion of the 40 nautical mile maximum route length requirement (item 6 of 4371M);

3. On behalf of the USAF, we hereby request a modification to 4371 IAW 14 CFR Part 11 until 

30 April 2017. Without this approval, USAF aircrews will be unable to adequately train for the 

combat environment. The conditions and reasons regarding public interest and safety presented 

in the original and subsequent petitions (upon which the exemption was granted) remain 

unchanged. 
GLOBAL ACCESS FOR AMERICA

4. Please contact me at (405) 734-5794 or by email at clint.palmer@us.af.mil or 

hqaffsa.xof@us.af.mil if there are any questions or concerns. Thank you in advance for your 

assistance.

CLINT T. PALMER, Maj, USAF

Chief, Flight Directives Division
§ 25.1543 Instrument markings: general. For each instrument— ( a ) When markings are on the cover glass of the instrument, there must be means to maintain the correct alignment of the glass cover with the face of the dial; and
( b ) Each instrument marking must be clearly visible to the appropriate crewmember.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-72, 55 FR 29786, July 20, 1990]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 9, 2000. 

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City**                     (D. Michael Manies, Assistant Vice President), 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                 

*1. Robert M. Mortimer,*                     Delphos, Kansas; to acquire voting shares of Delphos, Inc., Delphos, Kansas, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of State Bank of Delphos, Delphos, Kansas.                 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 19, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00-10194 Filed 4-21-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT NO. 16.1



November 16, 2000


Securities and Exchange Commission
Mail Stop 11-3
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:  Pacific CMA, Inc.

We have read the disclosure concerning change in accountants contained in Part
II Item 5 of Form 10-QSB of Pacific CMA, Inc. ("the registrant") dated September
30, 2000, and agree with the statements contained therein.

Very truly yours,


COMISKEY & COMPANY
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION



/S/ JENNIFER MALIAR
---------------------------------
Jennifer Maliar, C.P.A.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10** 
**- 6671** 

FRANCISCO MARTE , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; NANCY KOPP, Honorable, Treasurer of the State of Maryland; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General of Ma ryland; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner Division of Correction, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; WILLIAM BLACKISTON, Warden, Division of Correction, Eastern Pre

- Release Unit; SCOTT OAKLEY, Esq., Executive Director, Inmate Grievance Office; XYZ, or “ JOHN DOE ” Corp. ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. William M. Nicker son, Senior District Judge. ( 1:08

- cv
- 03309

- WMN )

Submitted : December 10, 2010 Decided: December 30 , 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Francisco Marte, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schu ltz Gordon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee s
.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Francisco Marte appeals the district court ’ s order
granting summary judgment to the D efendants and denying relief

on his 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. See Marte v. State of
Maryland , No. 1:08

- cv
- 03309

- WMN ( D. Md. Apr. 8, 2010). 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
Exhibit 99.3

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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013 (the
Report) by CGI Group Inc. (the Company), the undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: December 23, 2013



/s/ Michael E. RoachMichael E. RoachPresident and Chief Executive Officer
## Appendix D

Miscellaneous Performance Specifications and Quality

Assurance Procedures Supporting Documents

Version 1.0

November, 2005Table of Contents

1. Performance Specification 2- Specifications and Test Procedures for SO2 and NOx

Continuous Emission Monitoring System s in Stationary Sources, 40 CFR 60

Appendix B, February 2000.

2. Performance Specification 4A - Specifica tions and Test Procedures for Carbon

Monoxide Continuous Emission Monitoring Sy stems in Stationary Sources, 40 CFR

60 Appendix B, February 2000.

3. Performance Specification 4B - Specifica tions and Test Procedures for Carbon

Monoxide and Oxygen Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary

Sources, 40 CFR 60 Appendix B, September 30, 1999.

4. Appendix to Subpart EEE of Part 63 – Qu ality Assurance Procedures for Continuous

Emissions Monitors Used for Hazardous Waste Combustors, 40 CFR 63 Subpart

EEE, September 30, 1999
§ 137.33 Carrying of certificate. ( a ) No person may operate an aircraft unless a facsimile of the agricultural aircraft operator certificate, under which the operation is conducted, is carried on that aircraft. The facsimile shall be presented for inspection upon the request of the Administrator or any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.
( b ) Notwithstanding part 91 of this chapter, the registration and airworthiness certificates issued for the aircraft need not be carried in the aircraft. However, when those certificates are not carried in the aircraft they shall be kept available for inspection at the base from which the dispensing operation is conducted.
[Doc. No. 1464, 30 FR 8106, June 24, 1965, as amended by Amdt. 137-3, 33 FR 9601, July 2, 1968]
#### BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL CO v. UNITED STATES

[78 C.Cls. 584; 292 U.S. 645]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court May 21, 1934.
F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Ap ril 21 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble David G. T rag er, U nited States District J udg e for the Eastern District of Ne w * York, sitting by

desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

________________________ N o. 05- 1181 2

________________________ D. C . Do ck et No . 0 4 -0 0 1 8 5 -C R- WS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHARLESTON LYRON DA UGHTRY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

________________________ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

_________________________ (A pr il 21, 200 6) Before BIRC H a nd CARN ES , C ircuit Judg es, and TRA GE R , D istrict Judg e. * PE R CU RIA M:2

This is Charleston Ly ron Daughtry ’ s appeal from the sentence that w as im pose d on him

a ft er he ple ad edgui ltyto poss es sio n of c oc ai ne w ith int en t t o distribu te, in vio lation of 21 U.S. C. § 841 (a)( 1). W e w ill keep this o pinio n brief, be cau se itis un pu bl is he d, t he pa rti es are fa mil ia r wit h t he fact s an d i ss ue s, an d we ha d atho ro ugh dis cu ssi on o f the c as e w ith the a tto rn ey s a t or al arg um en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr by e m plo y ing the pr ep onde ra nc e of the ev id en ce s ta nd ard in de te rmin in g t he qu an ti ty of co cai ne to att rib ut e to Daug ht ry . Se e U nit edS ta te s v. Ch au , 426 F . 3d 1 318, 132 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ; U nit edS ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 129 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ; se e al so U nit edS ta te s v. Baraka t, 130 F . 3d 1 448, 145 2 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . A s f or the f ac tua l i ssu es inv olv ing the quantit y of drugs to be attributed to Daught ry , the district court w as in a far be tte r posi tio n th an w e ar e to r es olv e co nf lic ts i n th e ev ide nc e an d m ak e cr ed ibi lit y c hoi ce s. I t he ar d li ve te sti m ony not onl y f ro m A ge nt L of

tis , but a lso fr om D au ghtryhim se lf . W e ca nnot sa y tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r es olu tio n of co n fl i ct s i n t h at ev i d en ce , o r i t s d ec i s i o n t o cr ed i tt h e p ar t s o f t h e a g en t ’s testim ony that it did, wa s clear error . AFFIR MED.
#### BURR *v.*MOODY.

Bail for stay of execution is not liable to suit until execution has issued against the judgment debtor.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas.

Brown, for the plaintiff in error.

if. *Curtis,*.contra.

By the Court.

The suit below was upon a recognizance acknowledged before a justice of the peace for stay of execution on a judgment. It is objected to the judgment rendered against the bail; 1. That it appears the recognizance was drawn to be signed by *Burr*and *another,*and was inoperative because it was only signed by Burr. 2. That it does not appear that any execution was issued against the defendant in the original judgment before this suit was commenced.

The issuing of an execution against the judgment debtor after the stay is out, is expressly required by the statute, before suit is brought against the bail. 29 O. *L.*182. The second objection is, therefore, fatal; and the judgment must be reversed. The other objection need not be noticed.
The undersigned hereby agrees to extend the term of the
Consulting Agreement dated April 1, 2002 by and between Young Innovations, Inc.
and the undersigned, as amended on May 14, 2004, through December 31, 2004.

                  Agreed and accepted this 28th of March, 2003.

GER CONSULTING, INC.


By:   /s/ George E. Richmond
      ----------------------
Its:  President
§ 145.161 Records of management, supervisory, and inspection personnel. ( a ) A certificated repair station must maintain and make available in a format acceptable to the FAA the following: ( 1 ) A roster of management and supervisory personnel that includes the names of the repair station officials who are responsible for its management and the names of its supervisors who oversee maintenance functions.
( 2 ) A roster with the names of all inspection personnel.
( 3 ) A roster of personnel authorized to sign a maintenance release for approving a maintained or altered article for return to service.
( 4 ) A summary of the employment of each individual whose name is on the personnel rosters required by paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The summary must contain enough information on each individual listed on the roster to show compliance with the experience requirements of this part and must include the following: ( i ) Present title,
( ii ) Total years of experience and the type of maintenance work performed,
( iii ) Past relevant employment with names of employers and periods of employment,
( iv ) Scope of present employment, and
( v ) The type of mechanic or repairman certificate held and the ratings on that certificate, if applicable.
( b ) Within 5 business days of the change, the rosters required by this section must reflect changes caused by termination, reassignment, change in duties or scope of assignment, or addition of personnel.
#### James Durrell et al. *v.*Henry Boyd, Assignee, etc.

(No. 8,069.)

It is not error for the court, with the assent of the prevailing party, to make a remittitur of part of the damages found in a verdict, and render judgment for the balance.

General Term. — Proceeding in error to reverse a judgment at special term, rendered against Durrell et al.,upon the verdict of a jury, in an action for the 'wrongful taking and conversion of certain personal property. The error alleged is, the allowing the plaintiff in the action to remit a part of the damages, and, thereupon, overruling a motion for a new trial. The court was of opinion that the damages assessed by the jury exceeded the proper amount in the sum of $450; and that sum having been remitted by the plaintiff, the motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment, was entered for the balance. To this an exception was taken and entered on the minutes. No bill of exceptions stating the evidence was signed by the j udge.

J. *H. Clemmer*& *W. T. Forrest, Stallo & McCook,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Joliffe & Gitchell,*for defendant in error.

Gohlson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The simple question presented is, whether the judge being of opinion that there was an error in the assessment of damages, to a certain extent, can allow such error to be cured by a remittitur. The right thus to cure an error, it has been said, “ can not be questioned : it is every day’s practice, sustained by the gravest precedents. And the right extends, not only to the amount of damages, but to several causes of action, distinct debts, distinct acres of land, and distinct *464pleas.” *Bank of Kentucky*v. *Ashley,*2 Peters, 327, 328; citing Cro. Jac. 146 ; and Hob. 178 ; Raym. 395 ; 3 D. & E. 659.

When the objection to a verdict is, that injustice has been done in respect of the amount, when that objection is obviated by a reduction, there can be no further ground of complaint. Such an alteration of a verdict can only be made with the consent of the plaintiff, but the defendant can not object. *Moore*v. *Tuckwell,*50 Eng. Com. Law, 607, 609; *Hughes*v. *Hughes,*15 Mees. & Welsb. 704.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.1


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


I, David S. Bensol,  Chief  Executive  Officer of Critical  Home Care,  Inc.(the
"Company"),  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (a) the Periodic  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
     March  31,  2003,  which  this  certification  accompanies  (the  "Periodic
     Report"),  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (b) the information  contained in the Periodic Report fairly  presents,  in
     all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.



Dated: May 20, 2003


                                                         /s/ David S. Bensol
                                                         -------------------
                                                         David S. Bensol
                                                         Chief Executive Officer



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Critical  Home Care,  Inc.,  and will be retained by Critical  Home
Care, Inc and furnished to the  Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff
upon request.




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


I, Eric S. Yonenson,  Chief  Financial  Officer of Critical Home Care, Inc. (the
"Company"),  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (a) the Periodic  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
     March  31,  2003,  which  this  certification  accompanies  (the  "Periodic
     Report"),  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (b) the information  contained in the Periodic Report fairly  presents,  in
     all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.



Dated: May 20, 2003


                                                         /s/ Eric S. Yonenson
                                                         -------------------
                                                         Eric S. Yonenson
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Critical  Home Care,  Inc.,  and will be retained by Critical  Home
Care, Inc and furnished to the  Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### § 152.325 Financial status report: Airport planning.

Each sponsor of a project for airport master planning and each planning agency conducting a project for airport system planning shall submit a financial status report on a form prescribed by the Administrator at the completion of the project.
§ 29.1001 Fuel jettisoning. If a fuel jettisoning system is installed, the following apply: ( a ) Fuel jettisoning must be safe during all flight regimes for which jettisoning is to be authorized.
( b ) In showing compliance with paragraph (a) of this section, it must be shown that— ( 1 ) The fuel jettisoning system and its operation are free from fire hazard;
( 2 ) No hazard results from fuel or fuel vapors which impinge on any part of the rotorcraft during fuel jettisoning; and
( 3 ) Controllability of the rotorcraft remains satisfactory throughout the fuel jettisoning operation.
( c ) Means must be provided to automatically prevent jettisoning fuel below the level required for an all-engine climb at maximum continuous power from sea level to 5,000 feet altitude and cruise thereafter for 30 minutes at maximum range engine power.
( d ) The controls for any fuel jettisoning system must be designed to allow flight personnel (minimum crew) to safely interrupt fuel jettisoning during any part of the jettisoning operation.
( e ) The fuel jettisoning system must be designed to comply with the powerplant installation requirements of § 29.901(c).
( f ) An auxiliary fuel jettisoning system which meets the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this section may be installed to jettison additional fuel provided it has separate and independent controls.
[Amdt. 29-26, 53 FR 34218, Sept. 2, 1988]