alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# NORTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION 210 McClellan Street, Suite210, Wausau, Wisconsin 54403 Telephone: (715) 849-5510 Fax: (715) 849-5110 SERVING ADAMS, FOREST, JUNEAU, LANGLADE, LINCOLN, MARATHON, ONEIDA, PORTAGE, VILAS AND WOOD COUNTIES August7, 2012 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation Office ofAviationAnalysis EssentialAir**S~:rYice** Division 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: " Docket OST**~ 20ll~Ol09**  Rhinelander,Wisconsin Dear Mr. DeVany: Ui

On behalf of the North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (NCWRPC), I ask you to favorably consider the proposal of SkyWest Airlines to provide essential air transportation services to Rhinelander, WI. SkyWestAirlines has a strong history ofproviding reliable essential air service which is so critical to regions like northernWisconsin and the U.P. ofMichigan. NCWRPC is a voluntary association of governments serving the counties of north central Wisconsin. As identified in numerous planning efforts, commercial air service is vital to the region's economy. Without air service our many corporations will be faced with traveling long distances to far away airports which increases their costs and in turn makes our region less competitive in today's world economy. Job growth in our region relies on maintaining**~ ~~,,~Commercial**  air service inRhinelander.

- We strongly urge your support of the SkyW est Airlines application to provide essential air services toRhinelander/Oneida CountyAirport.

N:IBERNIEIXREGIONIDENNIS LAWRENCEIDEVANY CORRESPONDENCE. DOC PROVIDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION, LAND USE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE SINCE 1973.
U.S.	Department	of	Transportation,	Docket	Operations

West	Building	Ground	Floor,	Room	w12

- 140 1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	S.E. Washington,	DC	20590 

### Application	to	Amend

Section	333	Exemption	No.	11923 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1283 July 8, 2015 

### Paul Seiden 453 Pacific Court Wheeling, IL 60090 Greetings, By	letter	from	the	FAA	dated	June	26,2015	an	exemption	was	granted	to	Paul Seiden	for	relief	under	Section	333.	That	letter	was	marked	Section	333 Exemption	No.	11923	Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA

- 2015

- 1 283. I,	Paul	Seiden	hereby	requests	that	the	exemption	so	granted	be	amended	to include	DJI	Phantom	3	models.	Relevant	facts	and	reasoning	are: DJI	has	announced	they	will	discontinue	the	Phantom	2	model,	which	was approved	in	Paul	Seiden’s	Exemption	No.	1 1306. Size,	weight	and	performance	specification	of	the	DJI	Phantom	3	(“P3”)	are substantially	similar	to	those	of	the	DJI	Phantom	2	Vision+	(“P2”)	in	all

relevant	respects: o		Gross	weight:	P3=1280g;	P2=1242g. o		Diagonal	Size	(including	propellers):	P3=5 90mm;	P2=579mm. o		Maximum	Ascent	Speed:	P3=5m/sec;	P2=6m/sec. o		Maximum	Descent	Speed:	P3=3m/sec;	P2=2m/sec. o		Vertical	Hover	Accuracy:	P3=+/

- 10cm;	P2=+/

- 80cm. o		Horizontal	Hover	Accuracy:	P3=+/

- 1m;	P2=+/

- 2.5m. o		Maximum	Speed:	P3=16m/sec;	P2=15m/sec. The	findings,	rationale	and	conclusions	contained	in	the	FAA’s	Exemption	No. 11923	apply	without	modification	to	this	application	to	include	the	DJI Phantom	3	model	in	Exemption	No.	11923. Thank	you	for	your	consideration	of	this	important	request.	Please	advise	me of	any	additional	information	that	is	required. Sincerely, Paul	Seiden email:	pcseiden1@gmail.com
Exhibit 24(d)2

 

 

Gulf Power Company

1 Energy Place

Pensacola, Florida  32520

 

850-444-6111

 

 

 

 

April 30, 2008

 

 

| Mr. W. Paul Bowers

The Southern Company

30 Ivan Allen Jr., Blvd, N.W.

Atlanta, GA  30308 | Mr. Wayne Boston

Southern Company Services, Inc.

241 Ralph McGill Boulevard

Atlanta, GA  30308 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Dear Sirs:

 

As an officer of Gulf Power Company, I hereby make, constitute, and appoint each of you my true and lawful Attorney in my name, place, and stead, to sign and cause to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (1) this Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q during 2008, and (2) any necessary or appropriate amendment or amendments to any such reports and to this Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, each such report or amendments to such reports to be accompanied in each case by any necessary or appropriate exhibits or schedules thereto.

 

Yours very truly,

 

/s/Philip C. Raymond

 

Philip C. Raymond

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.5 FY2015






TWENTY- SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Twenty-Seventh Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of January 1, 2015 by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and Brud Drachman ("Executive").


Recitals


		
	A)
	On January 11, 2000 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.




		
	B)
	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on twenty-six prior occasions;




		
	C)
	Employer and Executive now desire to further amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:


Agreement


		
	1.
	Section 2.1 of the Agreement which, as amended, provides:




2.1     Salary.  For Executive’s services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $270,504 during each year of the Employment Term. Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.


is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2015, to provide as follows:


2.1     Salary.  For Executive’s services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $278,619 during each year of the Employment Term. Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.


		
	2.
	All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.






Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.






EXECUTIVE                        EMPLOYER
PriceSmart, INC.


Brud Drachman                    By: ______________________                


Name:     Jose Luis Laparte    


Its:     CEO and President
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-61613-CIV-SMITH

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS SUBSCRIBING

TO POLICY NUMBERS OMH-3484819, OBR

10014587201, B5JH85661, VCF2002512, and

AT4769A20MZA as subrogee of NORTHLINE

SEAFOODS LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BLUE OCEAN TACKLE, INC., et al., 

Defendants.

___________________________________/

NOTICE OF COURT PRACTICE ON NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Notice of Settlement [DE 45], indicating that 

this matter has been settled. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that:

1. The parties shall file their Stipulation of Dismissal in accordance with Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41 on or before August 25, 2023. Failure to do so may result in final 

dismissal of this matter without further notice.

2. All pending motions not otherwise ruled upon are DENIED AS MOOT.

3. This case is CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 25th day of July, 2023.

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:22-cv-61613-RS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2023 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36277, June 25, 2010.

2. At 89 FR 22946, Apr. 3, 2024, part 1 was amended by revising the authority citation; however, the amendment could not be incorporated due to inaccurate amendatory instruction.

#### § 1.05-5 Marine Safety and Security Council.

The Marine Safety and Security Council, composed of senior Coast Guard officials, acts as policy advisor to the Commandant and is the focal point of the Coast Guard regulatory system. The Marine Safety and Security Council provides oversight, review, and guidance for all Coast Guard regulatory activity.

[CGD 95-057, 60 FR 34148, June 30, 1995, as amended by USCG-2003-15404, 68 FR 37740, June 25, 2003]
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, we, the undersigned, hereby 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 our individual knowledge and belief, that:

 

| (1)    | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, which this statement accompanies, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Alabama Power Company. |

 

 

|   | /s/Charles D. McCrary

Charles D. McCrary

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

  |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/Art P. Beattie

Art P. Beattie

Executive Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer      |

 

 

Date:  August 3, 2006
**1998-  cattle_on_feed_12.18.98cattle_on_feed_11.13.98cattle_on_feed_10.16.98cattle_on_feed_09.18.98cattle_on_feed_08.14.98cattle_on_feed_07.17.98cattle_on_feed_06.19.98cattle_on_feed_05.15.98cattle_on_feed_04.17.98cattle_on_feed_03.13.98cattle_on_feed_02.13.98cattle_on_feed_01.23.98

**
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ILLIAM S. POFF, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-35595

D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00463-JLR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 22, 2015 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, GR AB ER , a nd W . FLETC H ER , C irc uit Judge s . Fe de ra l prisone r W i llia

m S. Poff a ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s orde r striking his “

ve rifie d notific ation to re c om m e nc e litiga

tion of ha be a s c la im s.” W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# F IL ED JUN 29 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Poff c onte nds tha t, be c a use he did not re c e i ve notic e of the orde r de ny ing his 28 U.S.C . § 2255 m otion, thedistric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion a

nd viola te d his due proc e ss rights by

striking his “

n otific ation to re c om

m e nc e ” his se c tion 2255 proc e e dings. Hefurthe r c onte nds tha t the la c k of notic e e ntitle s him to e quita ble tolling of the

tim e to file a

notic e of a

p pe a l. C onstruing Poff’ s “ notific ation to re c om m e nc e ” a s a

m otion to re ope n

the tim e to file an a

ppe a l, s e eUnite d State

s v . W ithe rs , 638 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th C ir. 2011), thedistric t c ourt la c ke d jurisdic t ion to re ope n be c a use the “ notific ation to re c o m m e nc e ” wa s file d m ore tha n 180 da y s a fte r the e ntry

of judgm e nt. S

e eFe d . R . App. P. 4(a )(6). This time lim it is jurisdictiona l a nd, the re fore , not subje c t to e quita ble tolling. Se e Bow le

s v . Russe ll , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Nor doe s its a pplic ation viola

te Poff’ s due proc e ss rights. Se eUnite d State s e x re l. Haight v
. C atholic He althc areW

e st , 602 F.3d 949, 954 (9th C ir. 2010). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 3 5 5 9 5 2
September 21, 2015 

The Administrative Conference of the United States was established by Congress 

in the 1960s as an independent federal agency, structured to be a public-private 

partnership, and charged with developing ways to improve federal administrative 

procedures. 

During the 1980s and 1990s, based on our empirical studies and legal research, we 

developed a number of recommendations and procedures for appropriate and 

effective use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) by federal agencies. We 

worked closely with Congressional staff leading to passage of the Administrative 

Dispute Resolution Act in 1990, which was based largely on Administrative 

Conference recommendations. Subsequently, we advised and assisted many 

agencies on creating new ADR programs. 

Building on that foundation, the federal government’s continuing approach to 

conflict management and dispute resolution has evolved in a great variety of 

directions with outstanding results. The Administrative Conference strongly 

supports these efforts and salutes the ADR accomplishments of our colleagues on 

the occasion of the annual Conflict Resolution Day, October 15, 2015. 

Paul R. Verkuil 

Chairman 

Administrative Conference of the United States
**Exhibit 31(f)1**

**SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 

I, Ronnie L. Bates, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Southern Power 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, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 (the registrant’s fourth fiscal 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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:  May 7, 2007

/s/Ronnie L. Bates

Ronnie L. Bates

President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8/S-3 No. 333-56762) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan, 2000 Stock Plan, 2000 Incentive Stock Plan and 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Loudcloud, Inc., of our report dated February 26, 2002,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Loudcloud, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 2002.





| | /s/ | Ernst & Young LLP
| | --- | -----------------




San Jose, California


April 26, 2002
u.,.oeartm tofJustice

unltedItatesvtorneys FIUEDBy D.c.

. . . Jtld 2?2222

UnIted States DlstrlctCourt Ctyjpljyjtutj,

forthe Southern DistrictofFlorida S'9'O'''A''

NO. 22-60123-CR-SMITH

UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA

V.

lnmateNam e.. Curtis Lee Slade

lnmate#:BSO #: 802200371

Curtis Lee Slade, /

PETITIONWRITOFHABEASCORPUSAD PROSEQUENDUM

TheUnitedStatesofAmerica,byitsUnitedStatesAtorney,showstotheCourt:

A (n) Indictment iSpendingjnthisCoudagainst

Curtis Lee Slade tjjeaboveStyledCase,anditisSetfOrastothedefendanton

June 17,. -2022, tUnited StatesDistrict Courthouse, 299 East Broward Blvd., Fcrt Lauderdale, FL a

Thedefendantisnow confined inthe BROWARD COUNTY MAIN JAIN at

555 SE 1st Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

ItisnecessarytohavethedefendantbeforethisCoudfora (n) InitialAppearance asaforesaid.

W HEREFORE,this petitionerpraysthatthis Honorable Courtissue a writofhabeascorpus ad prosequendum,

directinganyUnitedStatesMarshalto proceedtotheaforesaidpenalinstitutionandtheretake intocustodythebodyofthe

defendantandhavethedefendantbeforethisCoudatthetimeandplaceabovespecifiedforsaid Curtis Lee Slade

anduponcompletionofaIlproceedingstoreturnthedefendanttothecustodyoftheW ardenoftheaforesaidpenalinstitution;

andalsodirectingtheW ardentodeliverthedefendantintothecustodyofanyUnitedStatesMarshalforthispurpose.

JUAN ANTONIO GONM LEZ

UNITED STATESATTORNEY

i

J ES M . USTYNOSKI

SISTANT UNITED ES ATTORNEY

U.s.Atorney(AUSA JamesM.Ustynoski )

Case 0:22-cr-60123-RS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/07/2022 Page 1 of 1
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 21

- 3383

___________________________ Manuel Luis

- Tino

Petitioner

v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

____________ Submitted: June 6 , 2022 Filed: June 9, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM.

Manuel Luis

- Tino, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.

The BIA dismissed the appeal from the decision of an immigration judge denying asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against-2- Torture (CAT), and termination of the proceedings under Pereira v. Sessions , 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018).

Luis

- Tin o c hallenge s the agency’s jurisdiction over his removal proceedings , which is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See Ali v. Barr , 924 F.3d 983, 985

- 86 (8th Cir. 2019); see also Tino v. Garland , 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). The denial of Luis

- Tino’s challenge to his asylum claim cannot be reviewed , as he conceded during his counseled proceedings that his application was inexcusably untimely, and he did not contest the tim eliness in his BIA appeal

. Se e 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2); Chak Yiu Lui v. Holder , 600 F.3d 980, 984 (8th Cir. 2010) (this court is without jurisdiction, or precluded from reviewing, issue not raised to the BIA)

. The denial of the CAT claim also cannot be ch allenged , as the BIA concluded Luis

- Tino failed to challenge the immigration judge’s denial of CAT relief, and he does not contest the BIA’s determination in this court

. S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (administrative

- exhaustion requirement); Baltti v. Session s , 878 F.3d 240, 244 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (noncitizen must not only pursue all stages of administrative review, but also raise all issues before agency); Chay

- Velasquez v. Ashcroft , 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim not raised in opening bri ef is deemed waived).

As to Luis

- Tino’s withholding of removal claim, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that he failed to demonstrate the required nexus, and a reasonable factfinder could conclude that any claimed past or feared fu ture harm was or would be motivated by the extortionist’s monetary gain, not by membership in his proposed particular social group. See Tojin

- Tiu v. Garland , No. 21

- 2269, 2022 WL 1493466, at *2 (8th Cir. May 12, 2022); Silvestre

- Giron v. Barr , 949 F.3d 11 14, 1117

- 19, 1119 n.3 (8th Cir. 2020). That determination disposes of his claim. See Baltti , 878 F.3d at 245.

The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.111 Safety Zone: Boston Harbor, Boston, Massachusetts. ( a ) The following areas are established as safety zones during the conditions specified: ( 1 ) Around the U.S.S. *Constitution* or any accompanying parade vessels when *Constitution* is under way—300 yards in all directions in the waters around the U.S.S. *Constitution* and each parade vessel accompanying *Constitution* whenever the U.S.S. *Constitution* is underway in Boston Harbor from the time such vessels depart their respective berths until the time they complete their transit and are safely moored.
( 2 ) Whenever *Constitution* is moored at Pier 1, Charlestown Navy Yard—the waters between Hoosac Pier and Pier 1, Charlestown Navy Yard, from the imaginary line connecting the outer easternmost point protruding into Boston Harbor from Hoosac Pier to the outer westernmost point protruding into Boston Harbor from Pier 1, Charlestown Navy Yard, extending inbound along the face of both piers to the landside points where both piers end.
( 3 ) Around the U.S.S. *Constitution*—fifty yards in all directions in the waters around *Constitution* when the vessel is moored at any Boston berthing location other than Pier 1, Charlestown Navy Yard.
( b ) The general regulations governing safety zones as contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply.
[CGD1 91-109, 57 FR 30407, July 9, 1992]