alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order 2013-8-28

Served: August 30, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 30th of August, 2013

Essential Air Service at

KAMUELA, HAWAII

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET OST-1997-2833

Order Extending Service Obligation

Summary

By this Order, the Department extends the Essential Air Service (EAS) obligation of 

Pacific Wings, LLC, at Kamuela, Hawaii, for an additional 30 days, through October 10, 

2013, or until Mokulele inaugurates service, whichever occurs first. 

Background

On March 14, 2013, Pacific Wings filed a 90-day notice of intent to suspend its subsidyfree EAS at Kamuela, Hawaii. Order 2013-4-17, April 25, 2013, prohibited Pacific 

Wings from suspending service through July 12, 2013, consisting of twelve nonstop 

round trips per week to Kahului (OGG), with 9-seat Cessna Caravan aircraft, and 

requested proposals for replacement service. By Order 2013-7-3, July 2, 2013, we 

selected Mokulele Flight Services, Inc., d/b/a Mokulele Airlines, to provide EAS to 

Kamuela. Pacific Wings is currently held in at Kamuela by Order 2013-7-19, July 24, 

2013, through September 10, 2013. Mokulele has indicated that it would inaugurate 

service on September 21, 2013. Therefore, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 41734(c), we 

must extend Pacific Wings’s service obligation for an additional 30 days, through

October 10, 2013, or until replacement service actually begins, whichever occurs first. 

This Order is issued under authority assigned in 14 CFR Part 385.12(k)(5).
Accordingly, 

1. We require Pacific Wings, LLC., to maintain the level of Essential Air Service it was 

required to provide by Order 2013-4-17, the same level it was providing when it filed notice,

through October 10, 2013, or until Mokulele begins full EAS, whichever comes first;

2. This docket will remain open until further Order of the Department; and

3. We will serve a copy of this Order on the State of Hawaii, and the civic officials of 

Kamuela, Hawaii, and on Pacific Wings, LLC.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this Order under the 

Department’s Regulations, 14 CFR Part 385.31(a) must file such petitions within seven 

(7) days after the date of service of this Order.

This Order will be effective immediately, and the filing of a petition for review shall not 

preclude its effectiveness.

By: 

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Sento Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for thequarterly period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stanley J. Cutler,Senior Vice President of Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Stanley J. Cutler                                          |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                            |
| Stanley  J. Cutler                                              |
| Senior  Vice President of Finance (Principal Financial Officer) |
| February  9, 2004                                               |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
§ 3040.191 Docket and notice of minor corrections to product descriptions. ( a ) The Commission shall take the actions identified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
( b ) Establish a docket for each proposal to correct a product description in the Mail Classification Schedule;
( c ) Publish notice of the proposal on its website;
( d ) Designate an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the docket; and
( e ) Provide interested persons with an opportunity to comment on whether the proposed corrections are consistent with the policies and the applicable criteria of chapter 36 of title 39 of the United States Code, the applicable requirements of this part, and any applicable Commission directives and orders.
[80 FR 35575, June 22, 2015. Redesignated and amended at 85 FR 9615, 9660, Feb. 19, 2020; 85 FR 81138, Dec. 15, 2020]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING OR ALTERNATIVELY DENYING NON-PARTY MOTION

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Movant’s Sealed Ex Parte Motion to File 

as an Interested Party and to Determine the Confidentiality of Records (“Motion”) [ECF No. 203]. 

The Motion is filed by a non-party seeking to file as an interested party on the grounds that her 

“intellectual property is being stolen” [ECF No. 203-1 p. 2]. Movant states that her “father’s estate 

is being embezzled” [ECF No. 203-1 p. 14], and that she is a “direct descendant” of a presidential 

family [ECF No. 203-1 p. 21], among other claims. Movant asks the Court “to determine the

confidentiality” of various records and includes 98 pages of unrelated documentation in support 

of the Motion [ECF No. 203 p. 1 ¶¶ (b), (d)]. 

This case was previously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in December 2022 [ECF No. 

199]. The Court therefore dismisses the instant Motion for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent the 

Court retains jurisdiction to address the instant Motion as a collateral matter, however, the Motion 

is denied as frivolous. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. Movant’s Motion [ECF No. 203] is DISMISSED or alternatively DENIED.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 204 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2024 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON

2

2. The Clerk is DIRECTED TO UNSEAL the Motion [ECF No. 203], but all 

attachments to the Motion [ECF Nos. 203-1, 203-2, 203-3, 203-4 and 203-5] shall 

remain sealed because they contain personal identifying information of the Movant.

3. This Order shall not be filed under seal. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 7th day of October. 

_________________________________

AILEEN M. CANNON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 204 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2024 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PARIS LAVAR GANTZ,

Petitioner

v.

PA DOC, S.C.I. ROCKVIEW,

SUPERINTENDENT MARK GARMAN,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 152 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of November , 2018, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the “Motion/Declaration for Writ: Mandamus for

Relief/Remedy” is DENIED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 28, 2017

No. 04-17-00731-CV

IN RE Sam LAJZEROWICZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The Panel has considered the Relator's Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Petition 

for Writ of Mandamus and the motion is hereby DENIED.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of December, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015-CI-20292, styled Sam Lajzerowicz v. Estelita O’Campo Lajzerowicz, 

pending in the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Stephani A. Walsh presiding.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23867-GAYLES/TORRES

 

AVRAHAM BABA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

AYELET ZAPIN BABA, 

Respondent. 

______________________________________/ 

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Respondent Ayelet Zapin Baba responds to Petitioner’s Motion for Entry of Clerk’s 

Default as follows:

1. Subsequent to the Court’s entry of the Scheduling Order, Respondent’s counsel has 

been engaged in settlement negotiations with Petitioner’s counsel.

2. In fact, it was (and continues to be) the understanding of Respondent’s counsel that 

the parties are in agreement in principle, with only some minor details to be worked out before a 

full settlement is finalized and this matter can be dismissed. 

3. In accordance with that understanding, and to conserve the resources of the parties 

and the Court, Respondent did not file a response to the Petition.

4. Due to holidays and breaks, both in the United States and Israel, Respondent has 

been delayed in her attempts to communicate with the persons with whom she needs to consult in 

connection with final details of a settlement. 

5. But her counsel in this case has been in communication with Petitioner’s counsel. 

Respondent was therefore surprised that Petitioner filed a motion for default.

Case 1:22-cv-23867-DPG Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2022 Page 1 of 2
2 

6. In the unlikely event that this case is not resolved by agreement, Respondent’s right 

to defend herself should not be forfeited. 

7. Accordingly, Respondent requests that the Court deny the motion for default and 

extend Respondent’s deadline to file a response until January 3, 2023. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the Court enter an order granting her 

until January 3, 2022 to file a response to the Petition, denying a default, and granting such other 

and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Daniel A. Bushell

Daniel A. Bushell 

Florida Bar. No. 43442 

BUSHELL LAW, P.A.

6400 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 505 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 

Phone: 954-666-0220 

Email: dan@bushellappellatelaw.com

-and- 

 /s/ Richard S. Chizever

Richard S. Chizever 

Florida Bar. No. 91365 

RICHARD S. CHIZEVER, P.A.

3876 Sheridan Street 

Hollywood, Florida 33020 

Tel: (305)974-1820 

Fax: (305)974-1372 

Email: rchiz@chizeverlaw.com

pleadings@chizeverlaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on December 27, 2022, the foregoing document was filed via the Court’s ECF 

system, which will serve notice on all registered counsel of record and pro se parties.

 /s/ Daniel A. Bushell

Daniel A. Bushell 

Case 1:22-cv-23867-DPG Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2022 Page 2 of 2
§ 3055.22 Periodicals. ( a ) For each product within the Periodicals class, report the on-time service performance (as a percentage rounded to one decimal place).
( b ) For each product within the Periodicals class that does not meet its service goal during the reporting period, report the point impact data for the top ten root causes of on-time service performance failures, at the National level, during the previous fiscal year. “Point impact data” means the number of percentage points by which on-time performance decreased due to a specific root cause of failure. Identification and a description of all potential root causes of failure assigned during the previous fiscal year and any changes to the Postal Service's methodology for calculating point impact data shall be included.
[88 FR 10040, Feb. 16, 2023]
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5217 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5217

 To provide adequate sanctions for unfair labor practices resulting in 
                      the discharge of employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 20, 2000

  Mr. Meehan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide adequate sanctions for unfair labor practices resulting in 
                      the discharge of employees.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Effective Labor Law Sanctions Act of 
2000''.

SEC. 2. LABOR RELATIONS REMEDIES.

    (a) Board Remedies.--Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations 
Act (29 U.S.C. 160(c)) is amended by inserting after the fourth 
sentence the following new sentence: ``If the Board finds that an 
employee was discharged as a result of an unfair labor practice, the 
Board in such order shall (1) award back pay in an amount equal to 3 
times the employee's wage rate at the time of the unfair labor practice 
and (2) notify such employee of such employee's right to sue for 
punitive damages and damages with respect to a wrongful discharge under 
section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 
187), as amended by the Fair Labor Organizing Act.''.
    (b) Court Remedies.--Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations 
Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 187) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new subsections:
    ``(c) It shall be unlawful, for purposes of this section, for any 
employer to discharge an employee for exercising rights protected under 
the National Labor Relations Act.
    ``(d) An employee whose discharge is determined by the National 
Labor Relations Board under section 10(c) of the National Labor 
Relations Act to be as a result of an unfair labor practice under 
section 8 of such Act may file a civil action in any district court of 
the United States, without respect to the amount in controversy, to 
recover punitive damages or if actionable, in any State court to 
recover damages based on a wrongful discharge.''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 1:22-cv-23699-RKA Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.3



Exhibit 10.3

GENERAL CANNABIS CORP




LETTER AGREEMENT




November 1, 2019




Reference is made to the Promissory Note (the “Note”) dated July 18, 2019, issued by General Cannabis Corp (the “Company”) to SBI Investments LLC, 2014-1. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Note.




For good and valuation consideration, the parties hereby agree, effective as of the first date above, as follows:




(a)

Extension of Maturity Date.  The Maturity Date of the Note shall be extended to November 15, 2019.




(b)

Governing Law.  This letter agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to conflict of law principles.




(c)

Full Force and Effect.  Except as modified hereby, the Note remains in full force and effect.




(d)

Counterparts.  This letter agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same agreement.  A signed copy of this letter agreement delivered by e-mail or other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original signed copy of this letter agreement.




			
	 
	GENERAL CANNABIS CORP


	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:

	 

	 
	Name:

	Michael Feinsod


	 
	Title:

	Chief Executive Officer










Agreed and approved:




SBI INVESTMENTS LLC, 2014-1







		
	By:

	 

	Name:

	 

	Title:
TOOL# Comments Date of install Date of test Total Vol in SLPM Total Vol out SLPM Dillution Factor DRE CF4 DRE NF3 DRE CH2F2 DRE CHF3 DRE C4F8 

A 14-Mar-07 4/13/2011 272.010 944.280 3.47 49.01 99.34 99.39 99.42 99.43 A Retest 14-Mar-07 9/15/2011 182.900 658.500 3.60 47.26 99.25 96.65 99.44 99.01 

B 28-Mar-07 4/21/2011 375.018 1012.183 2.70 0.00 98.37 99.12 98.90 97.76 B Retest 28-Mar-07 9/29/2011 177.900 1002.400 5.63 94.50 98.87 98.78 98.98 98.53 C 12-Sep-07 5/26/2011 193.425 787.239 4.07 98.39 98.97 98.99 99.85 98.82 D 6-Oct-04 8/2/2011 97.100 882.200 9.08 67.96 

E 4-Nov-02 9/15/2011 306.700 845.100 2.76 31.00 99.82 99.40 99.81 99.57 

F 4-Nov-02 9/15/2011 321.300 875.100 2.72 48.20 99.78 99.49 99.75 99.54 

G 17-Jul-03 8/25/2011 298.900 1171.600 3.92 0.00 99.18 99.18 99.71 99.16 

H 17-Jul-03 8/25/2011 298.600 1216.700 4.07 0.00 99.78 99.13 99.72 99.24 

I 18-Mar-03 8/18/2011 339.200 802.800 2.37 28.67 99.36 99.62 99.65 99.48 

J 18-Mar-03 8/18/2011 305.900 896.100 2.94 14.95 99.38 98.97 99.69 98.40 

K 5-Dec-06 4/26/2011 181.700 668.826 3.68 97.07 97.98 99.48 97.49 

L 12-May-10 9/19/2011 242.100 741.900 3.06 76.06 99.07 99.22 99.14 

M 3-Jul-07 4/28/2011 182.619 1156.575 6.33 39.66 M Retest 3-Jul-07 9/8/2011 178.000 1124.000 6.32 67.25 99.10 99.55 

N 2-Jun-10 9/16/2011 94.400 496.700 5.26 95.13 99.38 98.34 

O 13-Sep-04 9/7/2011 218.400 853.800 3.91 42.49 99.51 99.67 

P 25-Jan-10 5/26/2011 68.865 562.280 8.94 95.58 99.56 

Q 15-Jan-08 9/22/2011 206.300 919.100 4.45 4.09 98.42 98.67 99.60 

Note: Cross-reference column gives corresponding line numbers in Table VI: Etch Abatement Systems Measured DREs (Jan 2012 Abatement Paper)
#### § 101-25.100 Use of Government personal property and nonpersonal services.

Except in emergencies, Government personal property and nonpersonal services shall be used only for those purposes for which they were obtained or contracted for or other officially designated purposes. Emergency conditions are those threatening loss of life and property. As used in this section *nonpersonal services* means those contractual services, other than personal and professional services (as defined in 40 U.S.C. 472). This includes property and services on interagency loan as well as property leased by agencies. Agency heads shall ensure that the provisions of this § 101-25.100 are enforced to restrict the use of Government property/services to officially designated activities.

[40 FR 29818, July 16, 1975]
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this Yearly Report of NMXS.com, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Teresa B. Dickey, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Teresa B. Dickey

Teresa B. Dickey

Principal Financial Officer



April 17, 2007
#### § 762.21 Scope.

The regulations in this subpart prescribe the requirements for endorsement and the conditions for payment of Disbursement Postal Money Orders drawn by the Postal Service.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of ALLEGHENY ENERGY, INC. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                            
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------
|                     |  |  |  | /s/ Paul J. Evanson        
|                     |  |  |  | Paul J. Evanson            
|Date: August 5, 2005 |  |  |  | Principal Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CELSO HERNANDEZ-AGUIRRE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-73578

Agency No. A092-430-689

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 9, 2014** 

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Celso Hernandez-Aguirre, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of

FILED

DEC 17 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for

review and remand. 

Hernandez-Aguirre contends that there is no rationale for concluding that his

voluntary return to Mexico terminated his accrual of continuous physical presence,

where he had already accrued ten years of continuous physical presence at the time

he accepted voluntary return. Because Hernandez-Aguirre raised this contention to

the BIA, and the BIA did not consider it, we remand to the agency to consider in

the first instance whether a voluntary return interrupts an alien’s accrual of

continuous physical presence where an alien has already accrued ten years of

continuous presence at the time he accepts voluntary return. Coronado v. Holder,

759 F.3d 977, 987 (9th Cir. 2014) (under the ordinary remand rule, we do not

decide a claim the agency has not addressed, but remand the claim to the agency to

consider in the first instance). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

2 12-73578
#### AMOS S. ROGERS, Assignee, etc., Appellant, *v.*GEORGE SCHMERSAHL and another, Respondents.

*Code,*§ 348 — *notice required Iry.*

Where, in an action brought upon an undertaking given in pursuance of section 348 of the Code, a notice had been served by the plaintiff upon the defendant, informing him that judgment was duly entered on the 18th of January, 1866; “that on the 13th July, 1866, the said judgment was duly affirmed on appeal to the General Term of said court, and that the appeal to the Court of Appeals taken herein by the defendant was duly dismissed and judgment duly entered on the remittitur from the Court of Appeals on 21st of June, 1869, affirming the said judgment,” with costs of the appeal: *Reid,*that the notice was sufficient, although it did not state specifically that the judgment of affirmance by the General Term had ever been entered.

*Qumre,*whether any notice is required to be given in cases where an appeal has been taken to the Court of Appeals.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon an order dismissing the' complaint.

In this action, brought upon an undertaking given in pursuance of section 348 of the Code, the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the requisite notice of entry of judgment had not been given.

*R. H.*Underhill, for the appellant.

*Wm. B. Aitken*and *Joseph M.*Dixon, for the respondents.

Opinion by

Brady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.