alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 5, 2015

Mrs. Lisa Duffy

4012 West Lake Drive

Irwin, PA 15642

Dear Mrs

. Duffy :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we c an not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your April 8, 2015 , exemption request filed in D ocket No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0962 , but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your p etition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief y ou seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions fo r exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

Thuy Cooper

Senior Program Analyst, Airme n and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Quarterly report of Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. ("the
Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Alton
L. Boynton, President (Principal Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 presents, in all
            material respects the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

                                /s/   Alton L. Boynton
                                --------------------------------------
                                Alton L. Boynton
                                President (Principal Executive Officer)
                                May 17, 2004

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
      been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
      forwarded to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:23145-4   Filed:12/22/22   Entered:12/22/22 13:03:17    Desc:Proposed Order    Page 1 of 1
§ 29.621 Casting factors. ( a ) *General.* The factors, tests, and inspections specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section must be applied in addition to those necessary to establish foundry quality control. The inspections must meet approved specifications. Paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section apply to structural castings except castings that are pressure tested as parts of hydraulic or other fluid systems and do not support structural loads.
( b ) *Bearing stresses and surfaces.* The casting factors specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section— ( 1 ) Need not exceed 1.25 with respect to bearing stresses regardless of the method of inspection used; and
( 2 ) Need not be used with respect to the bearing surfaces of a part whose bearing factor is larger than the applicable casting factor.
( c ) *Critical castings.* For each casting whose failure would preclude continued safe flight and landing of the rotorcraft or result in serious injury to any occupant, the following apply: ( 1 ) Each critical casting must— ( i ) Have a casting factor of not less than 1.25; and
( ii ) Receive 100 percent inspection by visual, radiographic, and magnetic particle (for ferromagnetic materials) or penetrant (for nonferromagnetic materials) inspection methods or approved equivalent inspection methods.
( 2 ) For each critical casting with a casting factor less than 1.50, three sample castings must be static tested and shown to meet— ( i ) The strength requirements of § 29.305 at an ultimate load corresponding to a casting factor of 1.25; and
( ii ) The deformation requirements of § 29.305 at a load of 1.15 times the limit load.
( d ) *Noncritical castings.* For each casting other than those specified in paragraph (c) of this section, the following apply: ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section, the casting factors and corresponding inspections must meet the following table: Casting factor
Inspection 2.0 or greater
100 percent visual. Less than 2.0, greater than 1.5
100 percent visual, and magnetic particle (ferromagnetic materials), penetrant (nonferromagnetic materials), or approved equivalent inspection methods. 1.25 through 1.50
100 percent visual, and magnetic particle (ferromagnetic materials), penetrant (nonferromagnetic materials), and radiographic or approved equivalent inspection methods.
( 2 ) The percentage of castings inspected by nonvisual methods may be reduced below that specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section when an approved quality control procedure is established.
( 3 ) For castings procured to a specification that guarantees the mechanical properties of the material in the casting and provides for demonstration of these properties by test of coupons cut from the castings on a sampling basis— ( i ) A casting factor of 1.0 may be used; and
( ii ) The castings must be inspected as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section for casting factors of “1.25 through 1.50” and tested under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-41, 62 FR 46173, Aug. 29, 1997]
#### § 372.26 [Reserved]
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1
 Arcadia Resources, Inc. Receives Non-Compliance Letter from the Amex
 Company Expects to Regain Compliance with Appointment of Additional Independent Director
       About Arcadia Resources
 http://www.arcadiahomehealth.com http://www.arcadiaresourcesinc.com http://www.sec.gov




---



##### 



Any statements contained in this release that are not historical facts are forward-looking
statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section
21A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and otherwise within the meaning of court
opinions construing such forward-looking statements. The Company claims all safe harbor and other
legal protections provided to it by law for all of its forward-looking statements. Forward-looking
statements involve known and unknown risks, estimates, uncertainties and other factors, which could
cause actual financial or operating results, performances or achievements expressed or implied by
such forward-looking statements not to occur or be realized, including our estimates of and our
ability to recruit as directors persons who satisfy applicable independence standards. Actual
results may differ materially from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements,
which speak only as of the date hereof. Additional information that could materially affect the
Company may be found in the Companys filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
Company disclaims any obligation to update or alter its forward-looking statements, except as may
be required by law.
#### In the Matter of The Towers Management Corporation, Respondent, against Edwin H. Thatcher, as Commissioner of Buildings of the Borough of Brooklyn in the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

(Submitted September 28, 1936;

decided October 6, 1936.)

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 271 N. Y. 94.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              614,600
<SECURITIES>                                        588,093
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,933,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                        207,310
<INVENTORY>                                          32,407
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3,014,304
<PP&E>                                            5,295,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                      656,439
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   16,048,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2,062,959
<BONDS>                                           3,783,693
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                         11,921,548
<OTHER-SE>                                       (1,683,554)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     16,048,646
<SALES>                                             111,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  8,262,473
<CGS>                                               106,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1,747,237
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  200,220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      54,958
<INCOME-TAX>                                         11,252
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  43,706
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         43,706
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.01


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.10
Assignment of Copley Lease ELD to ECEI
ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE

This assignment of lease from Eastern Land Development LLC to Eastern
Consolidated Energy, Inc. entered into this 12th day of January 2004 is hereby
executed under the following terms and conditions.

Eastern Land Development LLC hereby assigns that certain Coal Lease dated 10th
day of October 2003 known as the Copley Lease, subject to a $.75 per ton
Overriding Royalty on all coal mined and sold to Eastern Land Development LLC.
This lease is filed and recorded on Lease Book 70, Page Number 390, and dated
January 26, 2004. and is located in Martin County, Kentucky and said
assignment being to Eastern Consolidated Energy, Inc.("ECEI"), a Kentucky
Corporation located at 9900 W. Sample Rd. Suite 300, Coral Springs, FL 33065.

As compensation for said lease ECEI agrees to pay Eastern Land Development LLC
Seven Hundred Thousand Shares of Consolidated Energy, Inc. common stock (Rule
144).

ECEI agrees to abide by all terms and conditions as stipulated in said lease.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, have executed this assignment as of the 12th day of
January 2004.


EASTERN LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC

/s/Larry Hunt
Larry Hunt, Member

EASTERN CONSOLIDATED ENERGY INC.

/s/David Guthrie
David Guthrie, President
§ 271.9 Discrimination prohibited. ( a ) All air carriers receiving subsidy under this part shall comply with the following: ( 1 ) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975;
( 2 ) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 49 CFR part 21; and
( 3 ) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 49 CFR part 27, and part 382 of this chapter.
( b ) Within 1 year after it first receives a subsidy under this part, the carrier shall evaluate its practices and procedures for accommodating the handicapped in accordance with § 382.23 of this chapter.
( c ) All air carriers seeking a subsidy under this part shall include in their subsidy application the assurances required by 49 CFR parts 20, 21, 27 and 29, and § 382.21 of this chapter.
[ER-1398, 49 FR 49846, Dec. 24, 1984, as amended at 60 FR 43525, Aug. 22, 1995]
§ 29.1145 Ignition switches. ( a ) Ignition switches must control each ignition circuit on each engine.
( b ) There must be means to quickly shut off all ignition by the grouping of switches or by a master ignition control.
( c ) Each group of ignition switches, except ignition switches for turbine engines for which continuous ignition is not required, and each master ignition control must have a means to prevent its inadvertent operation.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, and 603, 72 Stat. 759, 775, 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, and 1423; sec. 6(c), 49 U.S.C. 1655 (c))
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-13, 42 FR 15046, Mar. 17, 1977]
EXHIBIT 34 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4014-30 Filed:10/04/18 Entered:10/04/18 16:51:23 Desc:

Exhibit 34 Page 1 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4014-30 Filed:10/04/18 Entered:10/04/18 16:51:23 Desc:

Exhibit 34 Page 2 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4014-30 Filed:10/04/18 Entered:10/04/18 16:51:23 Desc:

Exhibit 34 Page 3 of 3
§ 29.547 Main and tail rotor structure. ( a ) A rotor is an assembly of rotating components, which includes the rotor hub, blades, blade dampers, the pitch control mechanisms, and all other parts that rotate with the assembly.
( b ) Each rotor assembly must be designed as prescribed in this section and must function safely for the critical flight load and operating conditions. A design assessment must be performed, including a detailed failure analysis to identify all failures that will prevent continued safe flight or safe landing, and must identify the means to minimize the likelihood of their occurrence.
( c ) The rotor structure must be designed to withstand the following loads prescribed in §§ 29.337 through 29.341 and 29.351: ( 1 ) Critical flight loads.
( 2 ) Limit loads occurring under normal conditions of autorotation.
( d ) The rotor structure must be designed to withstand loads simulating— ( 1 ) For the rotor blades, hubs, and flapping hinges, the impact force of each blade against its stop during ground operation; and
( 2 ) Any other critical condition expected in normal operation.
( e ) The rotor structure must be designed to withstand the limit torque at any rotational speed, including zero. In addition: ( 1 ) The limit torque need not be greater than the torque defined by a torque limiting device (where provided), and may not be less than the greater of— ( i ) The maximum torque likely to be transmitted to the rotor structure, in either direction, by the rotor drive or by sudden application of the rotor brake; and
( ii ) For the main rotor, the limit engine torque specified in § 29.361.
( 2 ) The limit torque must be equally and rationally distributed to the rotor blades.
(Secs. 604, 605, 72 Stat. 778, 49 U.S.C. 1424, 1425)
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-4, 33 FR 14106, Sept. 18, 1968; Amdt. 29-40, 61 FR 21907, May 10, 1996]
#### ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION *v.*Helen B. DALRYMPLE

5-5845

480 S.W. 2d 955

Opinion delivered June 5, 1972

*Thomas B. Keys*and *James N. Dowell,*for appellant.

*Tompkins, McKenzie <b McRae,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

For reversal of a judgment upon a jury verdict in this eminent domain action, appellant Arkansas State Highway Commission contends that the trial court erred in refusing to strike veniremen Easterling and Rowe for cause and in refusing to permit dirt sales by appellee Helen B. Dalrymple to a highway construction contractor to be offset as special benefits. We find no error.

Appellant’s challenge to venireman Easterling was made because the voir dire examination showed that he had an opinion of real estate values in the area and because he knew one of the prospective witnesses. The challenge to venireman Rowe was on the basis that he also knew one of the prospective witnesses. After the challenges were overruled the panel was completed and each side, pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. Sec. 39-229 (Repl. 1962), struck three names. Appellant struck the names of *772Easterling, Rowe and one other but made no showing that he would have struck the name of any other juror if he had had a peremptory challenge left. Under such circumstances we hold that appellant has shown no prejudice. See *Roark Transportation, Inc.*v. *West,*188 Ark. 941, 68 S.W. 2d 1000 (1934), and *Collins*v. *State,*102 Ark. 180, 143 S.W. 1075 (1912). It has been suggested that perhaps *Ark. State Highway Commission*v. *Young,*241 Ark. 765, 419 S.W. 2d 120 (1967), states a contrary rule. We do not so interpret the decision which cited as authority *Collins*v. *State, supra,*where the rule was recognized. As was pointed out in *Mabry*v. *State, 50*Ark. 492, 8 S.W. 823 (1888), the right of peremptory challenges is conferred as a means to reject jurors — not to select jurors, and until such timei as a party is forced to take an objectionable juror without the privilege of exercising a peremptory challenge, he has shown no prejudice. *Green*v. *State,*223 Ark. 761, 270 S.W. 2d 895 (1954). Here, as in the *Roark Transportation*case, appellant does not contend that any of the jurors who served were disqualified. Consequently appellant has shown no prejudicial error.

There is no merit in appellant’s contention that it was entitled to offset fill dirt sales to a highway construction contractor as a special benefit. In *Arkansas State Highway Commission*v. *Davis,*245 Ark. 813, 434 S.W. 2d 605 (1968), we denied a similar contention. In doing so we pointed out that before a benefit could be offset, it must be a benefit accruing to the property from the completed highway, *i.e.,*a benefit from the improvement.

Affirmed.
#### CITY OF TUSCALOOSA v. BUCK, ET AL.

(Decided November 25, 1915.)

Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court.

Heard before Hon. H. B. Foster.

Brown & Ward, for appellant. Clarkson & Morisette, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution:
#### Adams *et al. v.*Munson *et al.*

Errors must be assigned within the time prescribed by the rule, or the cause will be dismissed on motion.

A general assignment of errors, not pointing out any particular error, is not a sufficient assignment.

Under a rule of court, cases brought up for delay only, will be dismissed on suggestion of counsel in writing.

MOTION to dismiss this and other causes for want of assignment of errors, and on suggestion that the same were brought up for delay.

Yerger, for the motion in this case.

Hays, *contra.*

Mr. Justice Trotter

delivered the opinion of the court.

This cause, and the eighteen others which precede it in the above enumeration, were submitted to the court as delay cases on the suggestion in writing of the counsel for the defendants in error. We have carefully inspected the record in each of the several cases embraced in this list, and are of the opinion that in each of them the suggestion is true. In several of the cases there has been no assignment of errors, in some only a general assignment, not pointing out any cause of objection to the 'judgment below.

We do not esteem such an assignment to be a compliance with the rule of this court on that subject. But if the same had been regular, we are satisfied, upon a full examination of the proceedings in the court below, that there is no error in the judgment.

The judgment of the court below in each of the cases above set down, must, therefore, be affirmed with costs and damages.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:Guide for curing of portland cement concrete pavements**** 
SuDoc:TD 2.30:02-099, TD 2.30:05-038
ItemNumber: 0982-G-11 (online)
CGPsystem Number: 001002267
 
Vol.1
Vol. 2
 **
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.403 Informal complaints.

Any person may submit in writing to the Assistant General Counsel an informal complaint with respect to anything done or omitted to be done by any person in contravention of any provision of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII or any requirement established thereunder. Such informal complaints need not otherwise comply with the provisions of this part. Matters so presented may, if their nature warrants, be handled by correspondence or conference with the appropriate persons. Any matter not disposed of informally may be made the subject of an enforcement proceeding pursuant to this subpart. The filing of an informal complaint shall not bar the subsequent filing of a formal complaint.