alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

### Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 12:17 PM

To: 'dave@viewpoint-imagery.com'

Cc: May, Rick (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Informatio n - Viewpoint Elevated Imagery, LLC

Dear Mr. Simmons:

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

‐ 2015

‐ 1434). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

• Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed wing, rotorcraft, lighter than air) for the proposed

UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be

located in the aircraft manual(s).

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 email to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 9/1/15. 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
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determ ined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 25, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60533 Summary Calendar

DAVID FERNANDO GALVEZ-COLINDRES, Peti ti oner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petiti on for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A43 283 598

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * David Fernando Galvez-Colindres, a citizen and native of Guatemala, petitions this court fo r review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) order affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) order finding him subject to removal and denying his request for withholding of removal. When, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS , 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).No. 06-60533 -2- Galvez-Colindres argues the BIA erred in upholding his removal because the cancellation of his prior removal order waived his prior convictions and that his current conviction for simple possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana did not satisfy the requirements for removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). This court reviews the BIA’s rulings of law de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft , 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). In Molenda v. INS , 998 F.2d 291, 294 (5th Cir. 1993),the court held that the grant of relief from deportation “merely waives the finding of deportability rather than the basis for deportability itself. Therefore the crimes alleged for deportability do not disappear from the alien’s record for immigration purposes.” Galvez-Colindres’s petition for review based on this issue is denied. Galvez-Colindres raises two issues in his petition for review that were not presented to the BIA. First, he asserts that the IJ erred in considering his motion for withholding of removal as a request for withholding of removal rather than a request for cancellation of removal. Second, he asserts that his counsel was ineffective during the proceedings before the IJ. This portion of Galvez-Colindres’s petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Galvez-Colindres failed to pursue these issues before the BIA. See Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft , 252 F.3d 383, 389-90 (5th Cir. 2001). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
#### § 516.10 [Reserved]
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 21924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08873]

[[Page 21924]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

Notice of Open Special Meeting of the Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory 
Committee (SAAC) of the Export-Import Bank of the United States 
(Export-Import Bank)

SUMMARY: The Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee was established by 
Public Law 105-121, November 26, 1997, to advise the Board of Directors 
on the development and implementation of policies and programs designed 
to support the expansion of the Bank's financial commitments in Sub-
Saharan Africa under the loan, guarantee, and insurance programs of the 
Bank. Further, the committee shall make recommendations on how the Bank 
can facilitate greater support by U.S. commercial banks for trade with 
Sub-Saharan Africa.

DATES: Time and Place: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 
p.m. The meeting will be held at the Export-Import Bank in Room 326, 
811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571.
    Agenda: Agenda items include a briefing for new 2014 Sub-Saharan 
Africa Advisory Committee members regarding bank programs in Africa and 
an ethics overview.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral 
questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written 
statement(s) before or after the meeting. If any person wishes 
auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special 
accommodations, please contact, prior to April 28, 2014, Richard 
Thelen, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571, Email: 
richard.thelen@exim.gov or TDD (202) 565-3377.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact 
Richard Thelen, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571, via email 
at: richard.thelen@exim.gov.

Cristopolis A. Dieguez,
Management and Program Analyst, Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-08873 Filed 4-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
#### § 778.106 Time of payment.

There is no requirement in the Act that overtime compensation be paid weekly. The general rule is that overtime compensation earned in a particular workweek must be paid on the regular pay day for the period in which such workweek ends. When the correct amount of overtime compensation cannot be determined until some time after the regular pay period, however, the requirements of the Act will be satisfied if the employer pays the excess overtime compensation as soon after the regular pay period as is practicable. Payment may not be delayed for a period longer than is reasonably necessary for the employer to compute and arrange for payment of the amount due and in no event may payment be delayed beyond the next payday after such computation can be made. Where retroactive wage increases are made, retroactive overtime compensation is due at the time the increase is paid, as discussed in § 778.303. For a discussion of overtime payments due because of increases by way of bonuses, see § 778.209.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2058

BONNIE JEAN MAYO,

Debtor - Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,

Defendant – Appellee.

and

USBC – NORFOLK/NN (United States Bankruptcy Court),

Party-in-Interest,

US TRUSTEE; MICHAEL PATRICK COTTER,

Trustees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (4:12-cv-00118-AWA-DEM; 11-51133-FJS)

Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 4, 2013

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Bonnie Jean Mayo, Appellant Pro Se. Donna Joyce Hall, SAMUEL I. 

WHITE, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Bonnie Jean Mayo appeals from the district court’s 

order dismissing her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s orders: 

(a) granting a motion to lift the automatic stay and (b) 

dismissing her Chapter 13 petition. We dismiss the appeal.

Where a sale of a bankrupt’s assets has not been 

stayed, an appeal challenging the sale’s validity is moot 

because “the court has no remedy that it can fashion even if it 

would have determined the issues differently.” Anheuser-Busch, 

Inc. v. Miller (In re Stadium Mgmt. Corp.), 895 F.2d 845, 847 

(1st Cir. 1990) (collecting cases); see also In re Vlasek, 325 

F.3d 955, 961-62 (7th Cir. 2003) (same). Thus, even if the 

bankruptcy court erred in authorizing the sale, the appeal must 

be dismissed. See, e.g., Canzano v. Ragosa (In re Colarusso), 

382 F.3d 51, 62 (1st Cir. 2004).

Because Mayo failed to obtain a stay of the orders 

below, and the property has been sold and a state unlawful 

detainer action has been filed, we do not have jurisdiction to 

consider the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
[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 (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Argonaut Conference, January-February 1945 :papers and minutes of meetings, Argonaut Conference
 
epub|mobi| pdf|
 
SuDoc Number:D 5.2:C76/8
Item Number:0315 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001021876
January 29, 2019
Filed 1/15/02 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

ORDER

2002 ND 12

Supreme Court No. 20020004

In The Matter of The Judicial Vacancy in District Judgeship No.  2

With Chambers in Minot, North Dakota,

Northwest Judicial District

[¶1]On January 3, 2002, the Supreme Court received notification the Honorable Everett Nels Olson, Judge of the District Court with chambers in Minot, Northwest Judicial District, would not seek reelection when his term expired  at the end of this year.  Judge Olson's declaration that he does not intend to seek reelection to Judgeship No. 2 created a judicial vacancy under Section 27-05- 02.1(4), N.D.C.C.

[¶2]Under Section 27-05-02.1, N.D.C.C., this Court is required to review vacancies that occur and determine, within 90 days of receiving notice of a vacancy, whether the office is necessary for effective judicial administration.  This Court may, consistent with that determination, order the vacancy be filled or order the vacant office transferred to a judicial district in which an additional judge is necessary, to be filled in that district.

[¶3]In October and November, 2001, this Court had occasion to receive and review testimony on judicial service needs, population and caseload trends, and other criteria identified in Administrative Rule 7.2, Section 4, in the Northwest Judicial District.  This review and the associated consultation were conducted in light of the untimely death of the Honorable Glenn Dill, III, who held Judgeship No. 6, with chambers at Minot, in the Northwest Judicial District.  See In the Matter of the Judicial Vacancy In District Judgeship No. 6, with Chambers In Minot, North Dakota, Northwest Judicial District, 2001 ND 199.

[¶4]We take judicial notice of the information contained in that file, including information resulting from the consultation with judges and lawyers of the Northwest Judicial District.  An additional hearing was not conducted in Minot concerning the vacancy in Judgeship No. 2.  For purposes of the consultation provided for under Section 27-05-02.1(4), N.D.C.C.,  the November 27, 2001, consultation with lawyers and judges of the district is sufficient for determining the disposition of this vacancy.  See e.g., In the Matter of the Judicial Vacancy In District Judgeship No. 2, with Chambers In Grand Forks, North Dakota, Northeast Central Judicial District, 2000 ND 35.

[¶5]We have reviewed whether the transfer of the vacant office to another judicial district is warranted in light of the information received.

[¶6]This order is based on the determination that the office is necessary for effective judicial administration in its present location.

[¶7]IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Judgeship No. 2  at Minot in the Northwest Judicial District be filled; that an election for this office be held; and that this office appear on the 2002 primary and general election ballots in North Dakota.

[¶8]Dated at Bismarck, North Dakota, this 15th day of January, 2002.

[¶9]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

William A. Neumann

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Rowecom
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          41,802                  13,264
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,564                 139,359
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,553)                 (1,847)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,487                 163,082
<PP&E>                                          10,457                  10,787
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,357                 215,608
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          150,715                 155,453
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           124                     104
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,518                  60,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,357                 215,608
<SALES>                                        131,883                  13,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               131,883                  13,159
<CGS>                                        (119,123)                (12,325)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (119,123)                (12,325)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (52,276)                (15,897)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (4,393)                 (1,673)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (43,909)                (13,390)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (717)                    (63)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,626)                (13,453)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,087)                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,713)                (13,823)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (4.30)                  (1.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
§ 38.36 Recipients' obligations to publish equal opportunity notice. ( a ) At a minimum, the Equal Opportunity Notice required by §§ 38.34 and 38.35 must be: ( 1 ) Posted prominently, in reasonable numbers and places, in available and conspicuous physical locations and on the recipient's Web site pages;
( 2 ) Disseminated in internal memoranda and other written or electronic communications with staff;
( 3 ) Included in employee and participant handbooks or manuals regardless of form, including electronic and paper form if both are available; and
( 4 ) Provided to each participant and employee; the notice must be made part of each employee's and participant's file. It must be a part of both paper and electronic files, if both are maintained.
( b ) The notice must be provided in appropriate formats to registrants, applicants, eligible applicants/registrants, applicants for employment and employees and participants with visual impairments. Where notice has been given in an alternate format to registrants, applicants, eligible applicants/registrants, participants, applicants for employment and employees with a visual impairment, a record that such notice has been given must be made a part of the employee's or participant's file.
( c ) The notice must be provided to participants in appropriate languages other than English as required in § 38.9.
( d ) The notice required by §§ 38.34 and 38.35 must be initially published and provided within 90 days of January 3, 2017, or of the date this part first applies to the recipient, whichever comes later.
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.                  

###### Overseas Private Investment Corporation

# TIME AND DATE:

2:00 p.m., Thursday, June 8, 2000.

# PLACE:

Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

# STATUS:

Hearing OPEN to the Public at 2:00 p.m.

# PURPOSE:

In conjunction with the quarterly meeting of OPIC's Board of Directors, to afford an opportunity for any person to present views regarding the activities of the Corporation.

## Procedure

Individuals wishing to make statements or present written statements must provide advance notice to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 p.m., June 7, 2000. The notice must include the individual's name, organization, address, and telephone number, and a concise summary of the subject matter to be presented.

Oral presentations may not exceed ten (10) minutes. The time for individual presentations may be reduced proportionately, if necessary, to afford all participants who have submitted a timely request to participate an opportunity to be heard.

Participants wishing to submit a written statement for the record must submit a copy of such statement to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 p.m., June 7, 2000. Such statements must be typewritten, double-spaced and may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.

Upon receipt of the required notice, OPIC will prepare an agenda for the hearing identifying speakers, setting forth the subject on which each participant will speak, and the time allotted for each presentation. The agenda will be available at the hearing.

A written summary of the hearing will be compiled, and such summary will be made available, upon written request to OPIC's Corporate Secretary, at the cost of reproduction.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION:

Information on the hearing may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438, via facsimile at (202) 408-0297, or via email at cdown@opic.gov.

Dated: May 22, 2000.

Connie M. Downs,

OPIC Corporate Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-13152  Filed 5-22-00; 1:17 pm]

BILLING CODE 3210-01-M
§ 548.303 Average earnings for each type of work. ( a ) Section 548.3(c) authorizes as an established basic rate: “A rate per hour which is obtained by averaging the earnings, exclusive of payments described in paragraphs (1) through (7) of section 7(e) of the act, of the employee for each type of work performed during each workweek, or any other longer period not exceeding sixteen calendar days, for which such average is regularly computed under the agreement or understanding. Such a rate may be used to compute overtime compensation, during the particular period for which such average is computed, for all the overtime hours worked by the employee at the type of work for which the rate is obtained.”
( b ) Section 548.3(c) differs from § 548.3(b) in this way: Section 548.3(b) provides for the computation of the basic rate on the average of all earnings during the specified period; § 548.3(c) permits the basic rate to be computed on the basis of the earnings for each particular type of work. Thus, if the employee performs different types of work, each involving a different rate of pay such as different piece-rate, job rates, or a combination of these with hourly rates, a separate basic rate may be computed for each type of work and overtime computed on the basis of the rate or rates applicable to the type of work performed during the overtime hours.
Example. An employee who is paid on a weekly basis with overtime after 40 hours works six 8-hour days in a workweek under an agreement or understanding reached pursuant to this subsection. He performs three different types of piecework, each at a different rate of pay. The basic rates to be used for computing overtime in this situation would be arrived at by dividing the earnings for each type of work by the number of hours during which that type of work was performed. There would thus be three different basic rates, one for each type of work. Since the overtime hours used in this illustration occur on the sixth day, the types of work performed on the sixth day would determine the basic rate or rates on which overtime would be computed that week. Thus, if the average hourly earnings for the three types of work are respectively $1.70 an hour in type A, $1.80 an hour in type B, and $2 an hour in type C, and on the sixth day the employee works on type B, his overtime premium for the sixth day would be one-half the basic rate of $1.80 an hour, multiplied by the 8 hours worked on that day.
(Sec. 1, 52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, *et seq.*)
[20 FR 5681, Aug. 6, 1955, as amended at 32 FR 3293, Feb. 25, 1967]