alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-16-6709-E

June 30, 2016

 Exemption No. 17019

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2016-3308

Mr. Philip Esdaile 

Maxim Aviation

23490 Aviation Ave

Davis, CA 95695

Dear Mr. Esdaile:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated December 17, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Maxim Aviation (Maxim) for an exemption from § 91.409(b) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Maxim to extend the 

hourly maintenance interval on the Cessna model 208 aircraft from 100 to 150 hours and to 

operate the aircraft outside the United States.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to Maxim.

The FAA recently issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material 

respects to those presented in your petition. In the Denial of Exemption No. 10981 (copy 

enclosed), the petitioner was denied extending the 100-hour or annual inspections because use 

of the task-based program in lieu of the inspections required by § 91.409(a) and (b) would 

result in some items not being inspected at the currently required intervals of annually or 100 

hours. The FAA has determined that your petition does not differ materially from the facts 

presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10981. The FAA finds 

that Cessna’s task-based inspection program is not compatible with the agency’s requirements 

for annual and 100-hour inspections currently applicable to Model CE208/208B airplanes. 
2

The reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Exemption No. 10981 also apply to 

the situation you present.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial

of Exemption No. 10981;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10981

also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of M Aviation for an exemption 

from 14 CFR § 91.409(b) to allow Maxim to extend the hourly maintenance interval on the 

Cessna model 208 aircraft from 100 to 150 hours and to operate the aircraft outside the United 

States.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan 

Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure

Exemption 10981
#### § 102-118.200 Can a TSP demand advance payment for the transportation charges submitted on a bill of lading (including GBL)?

No, a TSP cannot demand advance payment for transportation charges submitted on a bill of lading (including GBL), unless authorized by law.
#### Mason, Jr. v. Fuson, et al.

(Decided October 12, 1916.)

Petition by Appellees for a Rehearing.

Public Lands — Collateral Attack of Patent. — An entry and survey, not carried into grant, may be. collaterally attacked when offered, under section 4704, Kentucky Statutes, to invalidate a patent issued by the Commonwealth..

N. J. WELLER for appellant.

C. HURST, C. I. DAWSON, B. B. GOLDEN and M. T. KELLEY for appellees.

Response by

Judge Clarke

to Petition oe Appellees por a Rehearing.

The opinion in this case, reported in 171 Ky. 111, does not “open to collateral attack the validity of every patent ever issued by the State of Kentucky” as counsel for appellees fear it will, because appellees’ claim to the land involved here was based upon an entry and survey that had not been carried into grant. Hence, the rule, long and thoroughly established, that a patent cannot be collaterally attacked was not in any way involved in the denial of appellees’ claim. The rule was not only recognized in the opinion and cases cited supporting it, but the exceptions to that rule were pointed out. .The only purpose for doing this was to show that the collateral attack made in this suit by appellees upon appellant’s patent was within one of the exceptions to the rule and therefore permissible.

The opinion goes only so far as to hold that an entry and survey, not carried into grant, may be collaterally attacked when offered, under section 4704 of the Kentucky Statutes, to invalidate a patent issued by the Commonwealth, and that this may be done has been expressly decided by this court in the cases cited in our opinion, viz : Stansberry’s Heirs v. Pope, 6 J. J. Mar. 192; Bryant v. Ky. Lbr. Co., 144 Ky. 755; and Ford v. Bryant, 158 Ky. 97.

In , order to make it clear that the opinion herein is not in conflict with the doctrine that a patent may not be collaterally attacked, we make this addition thereto.

The petition for a rehearing is overruled.
### Laminating and Combining

Laminate to the second substrate using heated pressure nip rollers at a temperature high enough to assure

complete wetting of the secondary substrate. A minimum temperature of 160  F is recommended.

Maximum thermal and chemical properties will develop within 7

- 14 days.

Precautions

See Material Safety data Sheet for hazardous ingredients, flammability, disposal, and related handling

information.



## ______________________________________________________________________ Adcote is a registered trademark of Rohm and Haas Company.

These suggestions and data are based on information we believe to be reliable. They are offered in good faith, but without

guarantee, as conditions and method of use of our products are beyond our control. We recommend that the prospective user

determine the suitability of our materials and suggestions before adopting them on a comm ercial scale.

Suggestions for uses of our products or the inclusion of descriptive material from patents and the citation of specific paten ts in this

publication should not be understood as recommending the use of our products in violation of any patent o r as permission or license

to use any patents of the Rohm and Haas Company.

Visit us at http://www.rohmhaas.com/AdhesivesSealants

Rohm and Haas Company, Midwest Technical Center, 2531 Technology D rive, Suite 301, Elgin, IL 60123

Phone: 847

- 649

- 3800 Fax: 847

- 649

- 3760

Adcote 76R36B December 2004 Page 2 of 2
PUBLIC LAW 115–143—MAR. 23, 2018 132 STAT. 1227 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2302: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 163 (2017): Oct. 11, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 164 (2018): Mar. 7, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–143 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 259 Nassau 

Street, Suite 2 in Princeton, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Dr. John F. Nash, Jr. Post 

Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DR. JOHN F. NASH, JR. POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 259 Nassau Street, Suite 2 in Princeton, New 

Jersey, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Dr. John F. Nash, 

Jr. Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Dr. John F. Nash, Jr. Post Office’’. 

Approved March 23, 2018. 

Mar. 23, 2018 

[H.R. 2302] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
§ 3030.143 CPI-U rate authority when rate adjustment filings are less than 12 months apart. ( a ) If a rate adjustment filing involving a rate increase is filed less than 12 months after the most recent rate adjustment filing involving a rate increase, then the annual limitation for the class (partial year limitation) will recognize the rate increases that have occurred during the preceding 12 months. When the effects of those increases are removed, the remaining partial year limitation is the applicable restriction on rate increases.
( b ) The applicable partial year limitation is calculated in two steps. First, a simple average CPI-U index is calculated by summing the 12 most recently available monthly CPI-U values from the date of the rate adjustment filing and dividing the sum by 12 (Recent Average). Second, the partial year limitation is then calculated by dividing the Recent Average by the Recent Average from the most recent previous rate adjustment filing (Previous Recent Average) applicable to each affected class of mail and subtracting 1 from the quotient. The result is expressed as a percentage, rounded to three decimal places.
( c ) The formula for calculating the partial year limitation for a rate adjustment filing filed less than 12 months after the last rate adjustment filing is as follows: Partial Year Limitation = (Recent Average/Previous Recent Average)−1.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-22805-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

MARCIA TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS,

Secretary, U.S. Department of

Homeland Security,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of the summons and complaint to be perfected upon 

defendants within 90 days after the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff filed this action on September 

2, 2022, see ECF No. [1], generating a December 1, 2022, service deadline. On October 11, 2022,

the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file proof of service within seven (7) days of 

perfecting service upon Defendant. See ECF No. [11]. The Order further stated that “[f]ailure to 

effectuate service of a summons and the complaint on Defendants by the stated deadline will result 

in dismissal without prejudice and without further notice.” Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed proof 

of service, or shown good cause. In addition, there is no evidence in the record of any factor that

would otherwise justify a permissive extension of time to serve absent a showing of good cause—

such as expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, or that Defendant is evading service or 

concealing a defect in attempted service.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2022 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 22-cv-22805-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

1. The above-styled case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to 

timely serve;

2. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs;

3. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, all pending motions are denied as MOOT

and all deadlines are TERMINATED;

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on December 7, 2022.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Marcia A. Taylor

1213 SW 34 Terrace

Cape Coral, FL 33914

954-394-7448

Email: marciataylor1@gmail.com

PRO SE

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2022 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Matthew J. Espe, Chief Executive Officer of
IKON Office Solutions, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) 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.



Date: August 4, 2005



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ MATTHEW J. ESPE                 
|Matthew J. Espe                     
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
§ 20.1315 Submission of prior records and evidence in aggravation or mitigation. ( a ) The prior disciplinary record of the respondent comprises the following items less than 10 years old: ( 1 ) Any written warning issued by the Coast Guard and not contested by the respondent.
( 2 ) Final agency action by the Coast Guard on any S&R proceeding in which a sanction or consent order was entered.
( 3 ) Any agreement for voluntary surrender entered into by the respondent.
( 4 ) Any final judgment of conviction in Federal or State courts.
( 5 ) Final agency action by the Coast Guard resulting in the imposition against the respondent of any civil penalty or warning in a proceeding administered by the Coast Guard under this title.
( 6 ) Any official commendatory information concerning the respondent of which the Coast Guard representative is aware. The Coast Guard representative may offer evidence and argument in aggravation of any charge proved. The respondent may offer evidence of, and argument on, prior maritime service, including both the record introduced by the Coast Guard representative and any commendatory evidence.
( b ) The respondent may offer evidence and argument in mitigation of any charge proved.
( c ) The Coast Guard representative may offer evidence and argument in rebuttal of any evidence and argument offered by the respondent in mitigation.
#### § 101-26.505 Office and household furniture and furnishings.

Requirements for new office and household furniture and furnishings as described in this § 101-26.505 shall be satisfied from GSA stock or Federal Supply Schedule contracts to the extent that agencies are required to use these sources. Requirements for items not obtainable from these sources may be satisfied by any Federal agency through GSA special buying services upon agency request pursuant to the provisions of § 101-26.102. Before initiating a procurement action for new items, items on hand should be redistributed, repaired, or rehabilitated, as feasible, pursuant to § 101-26.101

[43 FR 22211, May 24, 1978]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMathematical analysis study for radar data processing and enchancement.  Part 2:  Modeling of propagation path errorsA study is performed under NASA contract to evaluate data from an AN/FPS-16 radar installed for support of flight programs at Dryden Flight Research Facility of NASA Ames Research Center. The purpose of this study is to provide information necessary for improving post-flight data reduction and knowledge of accuracy of derived radar quantities. Tracking data from six flights are analyzed. Noise and bias errors in raw tracking data are determined for each of the flights. A discussion of an altitude bias error during all of the tracking missions is included. This bias error is defined by utilizing pressure altitude measurements made during survey flights. Four separate filtering methods, representative of the most widely used optimal estimation techniques for enhancement of radar tracking data, are analyzed for suitability in processing both real-time and post-mission data. Additional information regarding the radar and its measurements, including typical noise and bias errors in the range and angle measurements, is also presented. This report is in two parts. This is part 2, a discussion of the modeling of propagation path errors.Document ID19860003886Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsJames, R.*(GMD Systems, Inc. Lancaster, CA, United States)*Brownlow, J. D.*(GMD Systems, Inc. Lancaster, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1985Subject CategorySpace Communications, Spacecraft Communications, Command And TrackingReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-166616-PT-2H-1287-PT-2NAS 1.26:166616-PT-2Accession Number86N13354Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS2-11491PROJECT: RTOP 506-51-11Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860003886.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 101-27.501 Eligibility for return.

GSA stock items for which no current or future agency requirements are anticipated are eligible for return to GSA for credit. Despite eligibility for return to GSA, consideration should be given to the transportation costs involved as related to the value of the items, and, where excessive, such items shall not be reported to GSA.
###### Editorial Note on Part 67

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 67 appear by USCG-2001-10714, 69 FR 24983, 24984, May 5, 2004.

#### § 67.15-5 Seismographic and surveying operations.

All stakes, casings, pipes, and buoys, except bamboo poles and wooden stakes less than 2 inches in diameter, placed in the water to facilitate seismographic or surveying operations shall be marked, in the manner prescribed by the District Commander, for the safety of navigation.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ WILLIAM O. WAGONER, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

__________________________ 2013-3006

__________________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. CH0831110115-B-1.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ O R D E R William O. Wagoner moves for relief in the form of vacating the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that is the su bject of this appeal. The Office of Personnel Management opposes. Wagoner also moves out of time for an extension to file his reply brief. Case: 13-3006 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 02/01/2013WILLIAM WAGONER v. OPM 2 Upon consideration thereof,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion to vacate is denied without prejudice. (2) Wagoner’s motion for an extension of time is granted. The reply brief f iled on January 2, 2013, is accepted for filing. (3) All other pending motions are denied as moot.

F OR T HE C OURT
/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s25 Case: 13-3006 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 02/01/2013
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, William P. Kelly, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of RELM Wireless Corporation, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of RELM Wireless Corporation;

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 8, 2007



| |                             
| | ----------------------------
| | /s/ WILLIAMP. KELLY         
| | William P. Kelly            
| | Executive Vice President and
| | Chief Financial Officer
#### § 3022.20 Sufficiency of information.

If, after review of the information submitted pursuant to this part, the Commission determines that additional information is necessary to enable it to evaluate whether the complaint raises material issues of fact or law, the Commission shall, in its discretion, either require the complainant and/or the Postal Service to provide additional information as deemed necessary, issue an appropriate order to appoint an investigator in accordance with § 3022.21, or do both.

[85 FR 9656, Feb. 19, 2020]