alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Record of Ex Parte Contacts 

### :t01 ()-NM-Ief(,-AD

Docket No. FAA- 20 I

## 0- otl 5""B Directorate Identifier: -AD

With whom outside the FAA b,3S this AD action been discussed 

### (i.e.,Design Approval 

### ~o)der. manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA. AOPA, ALPA, GAMA" 

### ete)? (YOIlmighr lIefd"i'p SUbp,il a.separare ~ecord lQ ,he Rilles Docker TheAD MaJUJa~defines 

# "ExPcvr.eCO~tacts. "] ~ . ~. i" -, ;,._-~: . 

# ~t ,-~

. . . ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE ATA 

### Mr. Mark Lopez 02112110 CODCur. 

### Boeing: Mr. William 

### Kurnmert 02/03/10 Concur.



## I

Other/Additional Information:
#### § 105-64.404 What must I do if I agree to an alternative amendment?

If you agree to the alternative amendment proposed by the system manager, you must notify the manager in writing of your concurrence. The system manager will amend the record and send an amended copy to you and to anyone else who had previously received the record.
#### § 102-75.351 May the disposal agency waive screening for public benefit conveyances?

All properties, consistent with the highest and best use analysis, will normally be screened for public benefit uses. However, the disposal agency may waive public benefit screening, with the exception of the mandatory McKinney-Vento homeless screening, for specific property disposal considerations, e.g., when a property has been reported excess for exchange purposes.
EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 28A

u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

DISHWASHER TEST PROCEDURE PROPOSED RULE 

PUBLIC HEARING 

Forrestal Building, Room lE-245 

Tuesday, October 22, 2002 

9:00 a.m.- 4:00 p.m. 

Agenda 

Purpose of Hearing: To receive comments on the changes and additions proposed for the 

dishwasher test procedure. 

9:00 a.m. Introductions and Agenda Review 

9:15 a.m. Department of Energy Overview of Recent Dishwasher Rulemakings 

9:30 a.m. Presentation on Test Procedure Changes 

• Testing Soil-sensing Models with Soiled Dishware 

• Reduced Average-use Cycles per Year 

• New Definitions 

• V oltage Requirements 

• Stand-by Energy Measurement and Reporting 

10:00 a.m. Presentation on Dishwasher Survey Review and Findings 

10:30 a.m. BREAK 

10:45 a.m. Stakeholder Remarks 

11 :45 a.m. Identification of Stakeholder Issues for Discussion 

12:00 p.m. Break for Lunch 

1 :00 p.m. Discussion of Issues 

• Presentation on Definition of Standby Mode 

3:50 p.m. Next Steps 

4:00 p.m. Adjourn
# ····_··.• Ryan International

# .Airlines

.· --#.
. 4949 Harrison Ave. Rockford, IL 61108 · 815-387-3140

October 24, 2012 U.S. Department ofTransportation West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC Dear Sir: w Ryan International Airlines requests Exemption from SFAR 112 to be able to fly across Tripoli FIR above 20,000 feet in support ofa Wet Lease agreement with AtlasJet, a Turkish carrier, on a regular route betweenTurkey and Nigeria. The following information is provided:
• The rule requirement from which exemption is sought; SFAR112 "ProhibitionAgainst Certain Flights Within the Tripoli (Hill) Flight Information Region"
• The nature and extent ofthe requested regulatory relief; Allowance for a US registered aircraft flown by Ryan International Airlines, a US FAR121 air carrier to transitthe Tripoli FIR above 20,000 feet on routes between Turkey andNigeria.
• A description ofeachperson or aircraft to be covered by the exemption; AIRBUS A330-223, MSN number 343, registration numberN772RD.
• Any information, views, orarguments to support the action sought; The threat from Libya since the downfall ofthe Gaddafi regime has subsided. European and other carriers have resumed overflight ofLibya. The requirement to go around the Tripoli FIR adds an additional one hour offlying time for each round trip.• The reasons why a grant ofexemption would be 

### inthe public interest; and The underlying rationale for the restriction has lapsed. To restrictjustthe US carriers from the overflight ofLibyaputs the US carriers at a competitive disadvantage with other world carriers and European carriers specifically.
• The action to be taken by the petitionerto provide a level ofsafety equivalent to that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought orthe reason why a grant ofexemption would not adversely affect public safety. Asking for approval to fly above 20,000 feet is similar to the restriction that is placed on US carriers in other countries such as Iran, Iraq, Somalia and Ethiopia. This keeps aircraft out ofthe threat ofmanpads. The only other country where overflight is notpermitted is North Korea. Any delay in granting this exemption would cause Ryan International Airlines significant fmancial harm as we would not be able to complywith our Wet Lease agreement in a cost affective way and would lose the business to a foreign carrier.

## Si~/ 

# #



# \_(

# =7~**/~ ~**  Thomas L Fay 

# U VP Flight Operations Ryan International Airlines 815-387-3280 Cell 316-650-1681
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5268

To authorize the design and construction of a temporary education center

at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 22, 2000

Mr. MURTHA (for himself, Mr. BOYD, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr.

EVANS, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. MCCOLLUM,

Mr. SANDERS, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr.

DIXON, Mr. BARCIA, and Mr. KOLBE) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize the design and construction of a temporary

education center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Vietnam Veterans Me5 morial Education Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY EDUCATION CEN7 TER AT THE VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL.

8 Public Law 96–297 (16 U.S.C. 431 note), which au9 thorized the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in the District
2

•HR 5268 IH

1 of Columbia, is amended by adding at the end the fol2 lowing new section:

3 ‘‘SEC. 6. TEMPORARY EDUCATION CENTER.

4 ‘‘(a) CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED.—The Vietnam

5 Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc., may construct a temporary

6 education center for the purpose of educating people about

7 the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

8 ‘‘(b) ELEMENTS.—The Center shall—

9 ‘‘(1) be placed on the grounds of the Vietnam

10 Veterans Memorial;

11 ‘‘(2) replace the National Park Service visitor

12 center located on the grounds as of the date of the

13 enactment of this section; and

14 ‘‘(3) have an area of not to exceed 1,200 square

15 feet.

16 ‘‘(c) DURATION.—The Center shall be a temporary

17 structure to be erected for a period of 10 years beginning

18 on the date of completion of construction of the Center.

19 On expiration of such period, Congress may reevaluate the

20 continuing need for the Center.

21 ‘‘(d) CONSULTATION.—In designing the Center, the

22 Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc., shall consult with

23 the Commission on Fine Arts.
3

•HR 5268 IH

1 ‘‘(e) RELATION TO COMMEMORATIVE WORKS ACT.—

2 The Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)

3 shall not apply to the design and placement of the Center.

4 ‘‘(f) FUNDING.—All funds required for the design

5 and construction of the Center shall be provided by the

6 Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc.

7 ‘‘(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

8 ‘‘(1) CENTER.—The term ‘Center’ means the

9 temporary education center authorized by this sec10 tion.

11 ‘‘(2) VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL.—The

12 term ‘Vietnam Veterans Memorial’ has the meaning

13 given that term in section 5(f).’’.

Æ
AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION 10-Q

EXHIBIT 31(a)

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATIONS

|I, Carl H. Lindner, certify that:
|---------------------------------
|                                 
|1.                               
|                                 
|2.                               
|                                 
|3.                               
|                                 
|4.                               
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|5.                               
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|August 11, 2003                  
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 



E-2
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER

OF PAINCARE HOLDINGS, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of PainCare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Randy Lubinsky, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark Szporka, as Chief Financial & Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.





|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ Randy Lubinsky                     
|Randy Lubinsky, Chief Executive Officer



Date: March 16, 2005



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Mark Szporka                                  
|Mark Szporka, Chief Financial &
Accounting Officer



Date: March 16, 2005
§ 385.13 Projects implemented under additional program authority. ( a ) To expedite implementation of the Plan, the Corps of Engineers and non-Federal sponsors may implement projects under the authority of section 601(c) of WRDA 2000 that are described in the Plan and that will produce a substantial benefit to the restoration, preservation, and protection of the South Florida ecosystem.
( b ) Each project implemented under the authority of section 601(c) of WRDA 2000 shall: ( 1 ) In general, follow the process described in § 385.11;
( 2 ) Not be implemented until a Project Implementation Report is prepared and approved in accordance with § 385.26; and
( 3 ) Not exceed a total cost of $25,000,000.
( c ) The total aggregate cost of all projects implemented under the additional program authority shall not exceed $206,000,000.
7 -7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
STATE OF MONTANA, 

## r, Tr 17"T 7 " L

..... ''AY6)41..1.1/. ALA. DA 21-0253
Plaintiffand Appellee, v. KENT ALLEN TICHENOR,

Defendant and Appellant. 

# FY AUG 23 2022 Bowen Greenwooa Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER
Appellant Kent Allen Tichenor appeals from the March 31, 2021 Order Revoking Defendant's Sentence and Amended Judgment and Commitment oftheFirstJudicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. Tichenor argues the District Court imposed an illegal sentence by placing a parole restriction on a revocation where the underlying offense was committed while the 1999 statutes were in effect, there was no parole restriction in the original sentence, and §46-18-203(7)(a)(iii),MCA(1999), provided that ajudge mayrevoke a suspended sentence "and require the offender to serve either the sentence imposed or any lesser sentence." The State has filed a Notice ofConcession that this matter should be rernanded tothe District Court for the purpose ofstriking from theAmendedJudgment the court's imposition ofa parole restriction. Based on Tichenor's opening brief and the State's concession, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is remanded to the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, with instructions for the District Court to strike the parole restriction from the March 31, 2021 Order Revoking Defendant's Sentence and Amended Judgment and Commitment. 08/23/2022
Case Number: DA 21-0253The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to

presidingjudge Honorl le Michael F. McMahon. Dated this C-day ofAugust, 2022.

(. 4 0:# .4p.o.d

y

2 Justices
#### § 102-118.5 What is the purpose of this part?

The purpose of this part is to interpret statutes and other policies that assure that payment and payment mechanisms for agency transportation services are uniform and appropriate. This part communicates the policies clearly to agencies and transportation service providers (TSPs). (See § 102-118.35 for the definition of TSP.)
FY 2020 Q3 FOIA Quarterly Report

Agency

Corporation for National and Community Service

Reporting Quarter

2020 Q3

10 Oldest Requests

Did your agency have 10 or more perfected requests pending at the end of the last fiscal year? If so, 

please select the number 10. If your agency had fewer than 10, please select the correct number.

8

Of the ten or fewer requests identified in your previous response, please select the number of requests 

your agency has closed during the current fiscal year.

8

FOIA Requests Information

Component Requests Received in Requests Processed Requests Backlogged as of

Reporting Quarter in Reporting Quarter End of Reporting Quarter 

CNCS 12 13 1
I

'

.

.e ,

,

. ,/'

United States DistrictCourt

.

' .' .

' Southern D istrictof. F. Iorida ', '

d' ,

I

. .

'

- Ca/e Num ber: ' .

.

'

.

'

. * *

.

' ''

' . .

.

: .

*

SUPPLEM ENTALATTACHMENTIS)

'

. Please referto supplem ental''file''in the division where the '

Docum ents/Exhibitswere Bubm ltted and filed.

'' .

G , w '

' Dlvision Document/ExhibitsSu.bmitevdandFiled: . CIYF

. These Docum ents/Exhlblts mustnotbe placed in the ''tem p ch/on file''.

. Docum ents/ExhibltsRetained in Supplem entalFile- s (Scanned) ' ' .

'' .

'

. PoorqualityBcannedimages(i.e.Handwritten,Photographb.)

' v

'

.

: *

'

. e Suretybonds . .

.

. Bound extrâdition papers ' . '.

D-octlmelts/lv hibltsRetainedih SupplementalFiles- (NotSçanled)

. cD,DVD, sé ive,(I.e.AudioN isual) '

**AIIotherdocum en'tsanddocum entaryexhibits are partofthe CM/ECF

casp Record in pdfform at. ,

' . .

/' . *' . .r

e- e '

$ '

Date: - .

# Revlned:2120/201:

.

f

I ( ' ' .

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 175-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2024 Page 1 of 2
%

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 175-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2024 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32


                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                     and Chief Financial 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, the undersigned, Roger S. Marcus, Chief
Executive Officer, and Howard N. Feist III, Chief Financial Officer, of American
Biltrite Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:

The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 of the
Company as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  October 9, 2007
                                                    /s/ Roger S. Marcus
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Roger S. Marcus
                                                    Chief Executive Officer



                                                    /s/ Howard N. Feist III
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Howard N. Feist III
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
#### Winslow, et al. v. Gayle, Mayor, et al.

(Decided November 9, 1916.)

Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court.

Appeal and Error — Dismissal—Moot Question. — This being a moot case the appeal is dismissed.

WINSLOW & HOWE for appellants.

SMITH *&*GREEN and J. A. DONALDSON *&*SONS for appellees.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Clarke

Dismissing; appeal.

Appellants are citizens and property owners in the city of Carrollton, and they filed this action against the *127Mayor, members of the Board of Council of said city, and James Shearer to whom the Boat'd of Council had granted a privilege for holding a street fair in the streets of the city of Carrollton on or before December 1, 1915; alleging that the Board of Council was without power to grant such privilege, and that from its exercise great and irreparable injury would result to appellants. The only relief sought was a mandatory injunction compelling the Board of Council to cancel and revoke the pretended authority or license given to use the streets of said city for' a street fair. A demurrer was sustained to the petition and it was dismissed, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

Since the license or privilege in controversy expired by its terms on December 1, 1915, and the only relief sought in this action is a mandatory injunction for the cancellation of that license, it is apparent that any judgment that can be rendered would be ineffectual, and that nothing is involved now in this action but an abstract proposition of law. It therefore follows that this action is a moot case.

In Yol. 3, Second Series of 'Words & Phrases, Page 442, a moot case is thus defined:

> “A ‘moot case’ is one which seeks to get a judgment on a pretended controversy, when in reality there is none, or a decision in advance about a right before it has been actually asserted and contested, or a judgment upon some matter which, when rendered, for any reason, cannot have any practical legal effect upon a then ■existing controversy.” To the same effect see Caldwell’s Kentucky Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 2, page 2188; King v. Tilford, 70 S. W. 1064; Findley v. Smith, 89 S. W. 547; Bledsoe, et al. v. Thompson, et al., 128 S. W. 587; Ludlow v. Murphy, 32 K. L. R. 399, and Potter v. Yonts, 172 Ky. 130.

Wherefore the appeal is dismissed.
#### § 102-37.510 Are there special requirements for donating property to SEAs?

Yes, only DOD-generated property may be donated to SEAs. When donating DOD property to an eligible SEA, SASPs must observe any restrictions the sponsoring Military Service may have imposed on the types of property the SEA may receive.
§ 102-34.50 What size motor vehicles may we obtain? ( a ) You may only obtain the minimum size of motor vehicle necessary to fulfill your agency's mission in accordance with the following considerations: ( 1 ) You must obtain motor vehicles that achieve maximum fuel efficiency.
( 2 ) Limit motor vehicle body size, engine size and optional equipment to what is essential to meet your agency's mission.
( 3 ) With the exception of motor vehicles used by the President and Vice President and motor vehicles for security and highly essential needs, you must obtain midsize (class III) or smaller sedans.
( 4 ) Obtain large (class IV) sedans only when such motor vehicles are essential to your agency's mission.
( b ) Agencies must establish and document a structured vehicle allocation methodology to determine the appropriate size and number of motor vehicles (see FMR Bulletin B-9, located at *http://www.gsa.gov/bulletin*, for guidance).
COURTOP~LS DIV1

~ STATE OF WASHINGTON 

### 2018J1JL 16 A~i 9:12

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, 

### ) No. 781 52-9-I

Respondent, 

### )

) DIVISION ONE v. 

### )

) DOUGLAS EDWARD GALLAGHER, 

### ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

### ) Appellant. 

### ) FILED: July 16, 2018 PER CURIAM

— Douglas Gallagherappeals an orderdenying his motion to remit his appellate costs under RCW 10.73.160(4)1 and to waive interest under RCW 10.82.090(2). The superior court ruled it could not consider Gallagher’s requests until he was released from confinement. The State concedes the court erred in concluding it lacked authorityto considerthe requestfor remission. We acceptthe State’s concession. See RCW 10.73.160(4); State v. Wilson, 198 Wn. App. 632, 636, 393 P.3d 892 (2017). The State argues, however, and Gallagher does not dispute, that RCW 10.82.090(2)2 precludes courts from considering a motion to waive interest on financial obligations until the offender is released

1 We notethat effective June 7, 2018, RCW 10.73.160(4) will restrictthefiling of petitionsfor remission ofcoststo “anytime afterrelease from total confinement[.1” Laws of2018, ch. 269, sec. 12 (emphasis added). The State references chapter269 and its effective date in its briefand does not contend the amendments are retroactive or applyto this case.
2 RCW 10.82.090(2) (“The court may, on motion bythe offender, following the offender’s release from total confinement, reduce orwaive the interest on legal financial obligations 

### .) (Emphasis added.).No. 781 52-9-1/2

from total confinement. We agree and affirm the denial ofthe motion to waive interest. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistentwith this opinion. FOR THE COURT:


# ~Q~J~Z

2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS

     I, David W. Dorman, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
AT&T Corp., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          1. The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
     September 30, 2004 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies
     fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and

          2. Information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
     all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     AT&T Corp.

                                                  /s/ DAVID W. DORMAN
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                     David W. Dorman

Dated: November 4, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 105-72.503 Competition.

All procurement transactions shall be conducted in a manner to provide, to the maximum extent practical, open and free competition. The recipient shall be alert to organizational conflicts of interest as well as noncompetitive practices among contractors that may restrict or eliminate competition or otherwise restrain trade. In order to ensure objective contractor performance and eliminate unfair competitive advantage, contractors that develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, invitations for bids and/or requests for proposals shall be excluded from competing for such procurements. Awards shall be made to the bidder or offeror whose bid or offer is responsive to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the recipient, price, quality and other factors considered. Solicitations shall clearly set forth all requirements that the bidder or offeror shall fulfill in order for the bid or offer to be evaluated by the recipient. Any and all bids or offers may be rejected when it is in the recipient's interest to do so.