alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 502.42 Procedures for initiating and undertaking review. ( a ) A respondent, the WHD, or any other party wishing review, including judicial review, of the decision of an ALJ shall, within 30 days of the decision of the ALJ, petition the ARB to review the decision. Copies of the petition shall be served on all parties and on the ALJ. If the ARB does not issue a notice accepting a petition for review of the decision concerning civil money penalties and/or back wages within 30 days after receipt of a timely filing of the petition, or within 30 days of the date of the decision if no petition has been received, the decision of the ALJ shall be deemed the final agency action. If the ARB does not issue a notice accepting a petition for review of the decision concerning the debarment recommendation within 30 days after the receipt of a timely filing of the petition, or if no petition has been received by the ARB within 30 days of the date of the decision, the decision of the ALJ shall be deemed the final agency action. If a petition for review is accepted, the decision of the ALJ shall be inoperative unless and until the ARB issues an order affirming the decision.
( b ) Whenever the ARB, either on the ARB's own motion or by acceptance of a party's petition, determines to review the decision of an ALJ, a notice of the same shall be served upon the ALJ and upon all parties to the proceeding in person or by certified mail.
#### § 2200.96 Commission receipt of copies of petitions for judicial review of Commission orders when petitions for review are filed in two or more courts of appeals with respect to the same order.

The Commission officer and office designated to receive, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2112(a)(1), copies of petitions for review of Commission orders, from the persons instituting the review proceedings in a court of appeals, are the Executive Secretary and the Office of the Executive Secretary at the Commission's Office, One Lafayette Centre, 1120 20th Street NW, Suite 980, Washington, DC 20036-3457. The petition shall state that it is being submitted to the Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2112 by the persons or person who filed the petition in the court of appeals and shall be stamped by the court with the date of filing. (28 U.S.C. 2112(a) contains certain applicable requirements.)
§ 4208.6 Computation of reduced annual partial withdrawal liability payment. ( a ) *Amount of reduced payment.* An employer that satisfies the requirements of § 4208.4 (c)(1) or (c)(2) shall have its annual partial withdrawal liability payment for that plan year reduced in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, respectively. ( 1 ) The reduced annual payment amount for an employer that satisfies § 4208.4(c)(1) shall be determined by substituting the number of contribution base units in the plan year in which the requirements are satisfied for the number of contribution base units in the year following the partial withdrawal year in the numerator of the fraction described in section 4206(a)(2)(A) of ERISA.
( 2 ) The reduced annual payment for an employer that satisfies § 4208.4(c)(2) shall be determined by adding the contribution base units for which the employer is obligated to contribute with respect to the reentered facility or agreement in the year in which the requirements are satisfied to the numerator of the fraction described in section 4206(a)(2)(A) of ERISA.
( b ) *Credit for reduction.* The plan sponsor shall credit the account of an employer that satisfies the requirements of § 4208.4(c)(1) or (c)(2) with the amount of annual withdrawal liability that it paid in excess of the amount described in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, as appropriate. The credit shall be applied, a revised payment schedule issued, refund made and interest added, all in accordance with § 4208.3(c)(4).
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50707

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOSE CARDONA-RAMIREZ, also known as Martin Lopez-Munoz

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-00046

Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The sole question raised in this appeal is whether Defendant-Appellant

Jose Cardona-Ramirez’s illegal reentry sentence was improperly enhanced by

eight levels on the ground that his prior California possession conviction

amounted to an aggravated felony. According to the Bureau of Prisons website,

Cardona-Ramirez is scheduled to complete his term of imprisonment April 14,

2008. Because his release is imminent, this Court cannot usefully grant the only

relief to which Appellant would have been entitled: re-sentencing.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50707

2

Because no effective judicial remedy exists, we must DISMISS this appeal

as MOOT.
#### § 37.51 What are a Governor's oversight responsibilities?

The Governor is responsible for oversight of all WIA Title I-financially assisted State programs. This responsibility includes ensuring compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA and this part, and negotiating, where appropriate, with a recipient to secure voluntary compliance when noncompliance is found under § 37.95(b).
July 15, 2015 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590 

# li4l:rurc

POST OFFICE BOX 90808 LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70509 USA TELEPHONE: 337 235 2452

Subject: Requestfor Extension to Exemption No. 10377 docket number FAA2011-0892. Exemption from Title 14, CFR part 91.411(b) and 91.413(c). Dear Siror Madam, Pursuantto Federal Aviation Regulation ("FAR") §11.25, (14 CFR §11.25), PHI, Inc. respectfully requests an extension of Exemption No. 10377 docket number FAA-2011- 0892. The requested extension ofexemption from Title 14, CFR part 91.411 (b) and 91.413(c) would allow PHI, Inc. air carriertrained personnel to continue to perform airtraffic control (ATC) transpondertests and inspections, and the altimetersystems and altimeter reporting equipmenttest and inspections in accordancewith the PHI, Inc. Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP) on all PHI 14 CFR, Part 135 aircraftthat are maintained underthe PHI, Inc. Approved Aircraft Inspection Program (AAIP). This exemption expires on October 31, 2015. The reasons and conditions presented in the original petition dated June 10, 2011, upon which the original issuance of Exemption No. 10377was granted remain unchanged. Pursuantto Federal Aviation Regulation ("FAR") §11.83, (14 CFR §11.83), PHI, Inc. also requests thatthe use ofthis exemption be allowed outsidethe United States. The reasons and conditions for using the exemption outside the United States are the same as those for aircraft operating in the United States. Thank you foryour consideration. I lookforward to answering any questionsyou might have.



# ~Y'YJ-· JeffreyJ. Jenkins Chief Inspector Part 135 PHI, Inc. Ph: 337-272-4331 email: jjenkins@phihelico.com
(79 South. 878)

#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

(6 Div. 382.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Fort, Judge. Daisy Johnson was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and she appeals.

Affirmed.

F. D. McArthur, of -Birmingham, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals on the record, without a bill of exceptions. ;We have examined the record, and find no error therein. Affirmed.
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



The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Serena Software, Inc. (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.



I, Mark E. Woodward, Chief Executive
Officer of Serena Software, Inc. certify that:



|(1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Serena Software, Inc.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    MARK E. WOODWARDMark E. Woodward President and Chief Executive Officer And Director




Date: September 9, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13140]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00-999; MM Docket No. 00-75; RM-9863]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Kahului, HI

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making 
filed by New West Broadcasting requesting the allotment of Channel 
223C2 to Kahului, HI, as that community's second local FM transmission 
service. Coordinates used for this proposal are 20-50-24 NL and 156-23-
14 WL.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 26, 2000, and reply 
comments on or before July 11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties 
should serve the petitioner, as follows: New West Broadcasting, c/o 
Robin B. Thomas, President, 1001 Weatherby Drive, Cheyenne, WY 82007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-75, adopted April 26, 
2000, and released May 5, 2000. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 
Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision 
may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-13140 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-15-00398-CV 

Lurea Hornbuckle 

v. 

Keller Williams Realty, Kan Boonme, 

Asprei Investment and Varunee 

Jume Phelps 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

From County Court at Law No. 1 

of Tarrant County (2015-006016-1) 

December 22, 2016 

Per Curiam 

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed. 

It is further ordered that appellant Lurea Hornbuckle shall bear the costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
(75 South. 1007)

#### STANLEY v. STATE.

(1 Div. 230.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 17, 1917.)

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Monroe County; W. G. McCorvey, Judge.

Charles Hybart, of Monroeville, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the .State.

BROWN, P. J.

This appeal is on the record, without bill of exceptions. The. court has inspected the record, and found no error therein. Affirmed.
1

Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 12:32 PM

To: 'dronezone.llc@gmail.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - Drone Zone, LLC [FAA-2014-0897]

Dear Mr. Scott Zimmerman:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA‐2014‐

0897).  This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

•             Describe the aircraft make(s) and model(s) for the proposed UAS operation.  The description(s) should include

the following: size, maximum weight (including payload), and  aircraft type (i.e. ‐ fixed‐wing,rotorcraft, lighter‐than‐

air).  This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

•             Provide information regarding the radio frequency spectrum(s).  FCC approved?  This information can be

located in the aircraft manual(s).

•             Provide a description of the proposed airmen medical requirements.

•             Your petition references a pre‐flight briefing and/or checklist.  Describe the process used to determine if the

UAS is airworthy and in safe condition for operation in the NAS.

•             Describe the process used to document UAS discrepancies and the corrective action taken in the aircraft

record.  Examples of processes include (1) the petitioner has elected to use its own process to maintain its UAS and

ensure that only airworthy and safe UAS will be allowed to operate in the NAS and (2) the petitioner has elected to

maintain its UAS in accordance with the manufacturer maintenance and inspection recommendations.

•             Your petition references the material listed below, however the material was not submitted for the

record.  Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o             Flight operations manual

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e‐mail to jake.troutman@faa.gov.  If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 2/18/2015.  If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267‐9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202‐267‐9521
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12707]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 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 June 5, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. Ann Doolin Adcock, Dumas, Arkansas; to acquire additional voting 
shares of M & F Financial Corporation, Dumas, Arkansas, and thereby 
indirectly acquire additional voting shares of Merchants and Farmers 
Bank, Dumas, Arkansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 16, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-12707 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION   I, Richard R. Walters, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. 4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  Date:  March 20, 2007  By:   /s/ Richard R. Walters Richard R. Walters, President, Principal Executive Officer  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 453.12 Meaning of fraud or dishonesty.

The term “fraud or dishonesty” shall be deemed to encompass all those risks of loss that might arise through dishonest or fraudulent acts in handling of funds as delineated in §§ 453.8 and 453.9. As such, the bond must provide recovery for loss occasioned by such acts even though no personal gain accrues to the person committing the act and the act is not subject to punishment as a crime or misdemeanor, provided that within the law of the State in which the act is committed, a court would afford recovery under a bond providing protection against fraud or dishonesty. As usually applied under State laws, the term “fraud or dishonesty” encompasses such matters as larceny, theft, embezzlement, forgery, misappropriation, wrongful abstraction, wrongful conversion, willful misapplication or any other fraudulent or dishonest acts resulting in financial loss.

[30 FR 14926, Dec. 2, 1965]
SECTION 32.0

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Bancorp of Indiana, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as added by 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.


                                          /s/ Harold Duncan
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Harold Duncan
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer


                                          /s/ George J. Smith
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          George J. Smith
                                          Treasurer


Dated: February 12, 2004
#### TAYLOR UNIVERSAL MOTOR CO v DIENER

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Scioto Co

Decided November 22, 1929

Mr. Edgar G. Millar, Portsmouth, for Motor Co.

Mr. William J. Meyers, Portsmouth, for Diener.

MIDDLETON, PJ.

It has been repeatedly held that the validity of a gift of property as to existing creditors is not dependent' on the intent to defraud them. Where prejudice results to the interests of existing creditors by reason of a voluntary transfer of the debtor’s property, on which they are entitled to rely for the payment of their claims, such facts constitute sufficient grounds to render o the transfer invalid. In other words, it is" the settled law that a debtor has no ability to make a gift of his property beyond his solvency. This was the pronouncement of Blackstone when he said, “We must be honest before we are generous.”

In the instant case the facts are clearly established that A. B. Diener conveyed the property described in the petition to his *58wife for no substantial consideration other than that which would naturally exist between a husband and wife, and that such conveyance was in prejudice of the rights of the plaintiff herein, which was an existing creditor of Diener at the time such conveyance was made. We see no reason to differ from the decree made in this case in the Common Pleas Court and the same judgment and decree may be entered here.

Mauck and Blosser, JJ., concur.