alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 8, 2010 

Mr. Kurt William Muller 

23101 Sweetbay Lane 

California, MD 20619 

Dear Mr. Muller: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§ 91.319(a)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t 

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

We entered your March 4, 2010, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2010-

0239), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the 

request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to 

send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 22-cv-81878-MIDDLEBROOKS 

DANIEL LUGO, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GIMME SHELTER 14(D)-LLC, 

 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/ 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE  

The parties stipulate and agree that this action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side to bear his/its own fees and costs 

except as otherwise agreed.      

s/Drew M. Levitt 

DREW M. LEVITT 

Florida Bar No. 782246 

drewmlevitt@gmail.com 

LEE D. SARKIN 

Florida Bar No. 962848 

LSarkin@aol.com 

4700 N.W. Boca Raton Boulevard 

Suite 302 

Boca Raton, Florida 33431 

Telephone (561) 994-6922 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

s/Andrew J. Marchese 

ANDREW J. MARCHESE 

Florida Bar No. 061931 

ajmarchese@mdwcg.com 

HOLLY M. HAMILTON 

Florida Bar No. 113307 

hxhamilton@mdwcg.com 

Marshall Dennehey, et al 

2400 E. Commercial Blvd., Ste. 1100 

Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. 33308 

Telephone (954) 847-4920 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Case 9:22-cv-81878-DMM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2023 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            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 the Quarterly Report of Emtec, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P.
Howlett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
'SS' 1350, as adopted pursuant to 'SS' 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/ John P. Howlett.
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                November 14, 2003








<PAGE>

                            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 the Quarterly Report of Emtec, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sam
Bhatt, Vice President of Finance and Operations of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 'SS' 1350, as adopted pursuant to 'SS' 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/ Sam Bhatt
                                                Vice President of Finance
                                                November 14, 2003
Order entered September 11, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 13
- 00513
- CR
JULIA ROSE DECATUR
- SCHRADER, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court Collin County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. 416
- 80222
- 2012 

### O RDER The reporter’s record has been filed in this appeal, but the clerk’s record is more than thirty days overdue. We have received a copy of the trial court’s order appointing counsel to represent appellant.
Ac cordingly, we ORDER the Collin County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record
within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Collin County District Clerk’s Office, and t o counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
§ 105-68.970 Nonprocurement transaction. ( a ) *Nonprocurement transaction* means any transaction, regardless of type (except procurement contracts), including, but not limited to the following: ( 1 ) Grants.
( 2 ) Cooperative agreements.
( 3 ) Scholarships.
( 4 ) Fellowships.
( 5 ) Contracts of assistance.
( 6 ) Loans.
( 7 ) Loan guarantees.
( 8 ) Subsidies.
( 9 ) Insurances.
( 10 ) Payments for specified uses.
( 11 ) Donation agreements.
( b ) A nonprocurement transaction at any tier does not require the transfer of Federal funds.
No. 11-8703.

#### Soares *v.*Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 109-40.103-2 Disqualification and suspension of carriers.

Disqualification and suspension are measures which exclude carriers from participation, for temporary periods of time, in DOE traffic. To ensure that the Government derives the benefits of full and free competition of interested carriers, disqualification and suspension shall not apply for any period of time longer than necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
#### § 105-64.501 Under what conditions may a record be disclosed without my consent?

A system manager may disclose your record without your consent under the Privacy Act when the disclosure is: To GSA officials or employees in the performance of their official duties; required by the Freedom of Information Act; for a routine use stated in a Federal Register notice; to the Bureau of the Census for use in fulfilling its duties; for statistical research or reporting, and only when the record is not individually identifiable; to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) when the record has been determined to be of historical or other value that warrants permanent retention; to a U.S. law enforcement agency or instrumentality for a civil or criminal law enforcement purpose; under compelling circumstances affecting an individual's health and safety, and upon disclosure a notification will be sent to the individual; to Congress or its committees and subcommittees when the record material falls within their jurisdiction; to the Comptroller General or an authorized representative in the performance of the duties of the Government Accountability Office (GAO); under a court order; or to a consumer reporting agency under the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966, 31 U.S.C. 3711.
§ 102-41.205 Do we report all forfeited distilled spirits, wine, and beer to GSA for disposal? ( a ) Yes, except do not report distilled spirits, wine, and beer not fit for human consumption or for medicinal, scientific, or mechanical purposes. When reporting, indicate quantities and kinds, proof rating, and condition for shipping. GSA (3FPD) may transfer such property to another Federal agency for official purposes, or donate it to eligible eleemosynary institutions for medicinal purposes only.
( b ) Forfeited distilled spirits, wine, and beer that are not retained for official use by the seizing agency or transferred or donated to eligible recipients by GSA must be destroyed. You must document the destruction with a record of the time and location, property description, and quantities destroyed.
Exhibit A 

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 20-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 1 of 3
P.I. SERVICES

Priority: STANDARD Field Sheet #2023000251

Received: 2/21/2023 at 3:32 pm 

Court Date: Filed: 12/16/2022 

SERVE: 

NAOMI OSAKA, 9621 ARBY DRIVE, BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 

Attempts 

Date Time 

1. I

2. I

3. I

4. I

5. I

6. I

7. I

8. I

Actual Service Info 

Type: 

Served on: 

Address: 

Comments: 

Server: COURT DETECTIVE WORLD WIDE, INC. 

Comments 

Married? 

Military? 

As: 

1111111 ii llllll lllll l�llll l�llll 11111111111111 

Miles 

Hours 

Additional Addr: 1 2 3

Courier 

Out of Pocket C osts 

Age_ Sex M F Race ____ Height ___ Weight. ___ Hair ____ Glasses Y N 

Case Number: 22-CV-23753-KMM Southern 

Plaintiff 

EDWIN GARRISON, ET AL., ON BEHALF 

District 

Defendant 

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, ET AL. 

Copyright© 1992-2023 DreamBuIlt Software, Inc. - Process Server's Toolbox V8.2n 

2/23.2023 6:30 pm No answer, all dark. The gate was closed.

No answer, all dark. The gate was closed.

No answer, all dark. The gate was closed.

No answer, all dark. The gate was closed.

No answer, all dark. The gate was closed.

No answer, all dark. The gate was closed.

No answer, all dark. The gate was closed.

2 24 9:45 pm

2 25 7:05 am

2 26 2:42 pm

2 27 8:11 pm

2 28 7:05 am

3 01 5:55 pm

3 02 9:38 am Bad Address. Mr. Milan purchased the house in July 2022.

Black Tesla (no plates) in the

driveway.

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 20-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 2 of 3
On 3.02.2023 @ 9:38 am, per Mr. Milan (the new homeowner) the Defendant sold this 

house in July of 2022. 

6007

Homayon Taghavi

xx

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 20-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 3 of 3
# AGENCY:

 Consumer Product Safety Commission

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

 It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the Federal Register in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally-accepted Settlement Agreement Lancaster Colony Corporation, a corporation, containing a civil penalty of $150,000.

# DATES:

 Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by February 8, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

 Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 00-C0004, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Ronald G. Yelenik, Trial Attorney, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207; telephone (301) 504-0626, 1351.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 The text of the Agreement and Order appears below.

Dated: January 18, 2000.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-1563 Filed 1-21-00;8:45am]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7203

DONALD PEVIA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN FRANK BISHOP; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01223-ELH)

Submitted: May 27, 2020 Decided: June 15, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Ray Pevia, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Ray Pevia, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. 

See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pevia has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

To the Stockholders and Board of Directors
The Ashton Technology Group, Inc.



We hereby consent to incorporation  by reference in the Registration  Statements
(No's. 333-95717 and 333-95735) on Forms S-8 of our report dated June 6, 2002 on
the  consolidated  balance  sheets of The  Ashton  Technology  Group,  Inc.  and
Subsidiaries  as of  March  31,  2002 and  2001,  and the  related  consolidated
statements of operations,  stockholders'  (deficiency)  equity and comprehensive
loss,  and cash flows for each of the three years in the period  ended March 31,
2002,  which report appears in the Company's  annual report on Form 10-K for the
year ended March 31, 2002.

/s/ Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP
-------------------------------

GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP

New York, New York

July 1, 2002
### Plutonism in the central part of the Sierra Nevada Batholith, California

By: Paul C. Bateman

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1483

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
# Comments on: 2021-1473: Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. v. Auris Health, Inc.
#### § 102-85.135 What if space and services are provided by other executive agencies?

Any executive agency other than GSA providing space and services is authorized to charge the occupant for the space and services at rates approved by the Administrator of General Services and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. If space and services are of the type provided by the Administrator of General Services, the executive agency providing the space and services must credit the monies derived from any fees or charges to the appropriation or fund initially charged for providing the space or services, as prescribed by Subsection 210(k) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 490(k)).
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 711 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 711

      To amend title 39, United States Code, to exempt veterans' 
    organizations from regulations prohibiting the solicitation of 
                   contributions on postal property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 1999

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend title 39, United States Code, to exempt veterans' 
    organizations from regulations prohibiting the solicitation of 
                   contributions on postal property.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 403 of 
title 39, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(d)(1) For the purpose of this subsection--
            ``(A) the term `veterans' organization' means an 
        organization described in section 501(c)(19) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986; and
            ``(B) the term `postal property' means any real property 
        under the charge or control of the Postal Service, including 
        any real property leased by or for the Postal Service.
    ``(2) The Postal Service shall take appropriate measures to ensure 
that nothing in its regulations shall prevent a veterans' organization 
from soliciting contributions on postal property, so long as those 
activities do not impede or disturb--
            ``(A) postal employees in the performance of their duties; 
        or
            ``(B) the general public in transacting business or 
        obtaining services provided on such property.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 101-4.125 Effect of other requirements. ( a ) *Effect of other Federal provisions.* The obligations imposed by these Title IX regulations are independent of, and do not alter, obligations not to discriminate on the basis of sex imposed by Executive Order 11246, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339; as amended by Executive Order 11375, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 684; as amended by Executive Order 11478, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 803; as amended by Executive Order 12087, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 230; as amended by Executive Order 12107, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 264; sections 704 and 855 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295m, 298b-2); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e *et seq.*); the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 U.S.C. 206); and any other Act of Congress or Federal regulation.
( b ) *Effect of State or local law or other requirements.* The obligation to comply with these Title IX regulations is not obviated or alleviated by any State or local law or other requirement that would render any applicant or student ineligible, or limit the eligibility of any applicant or student, on the basis of sex, to practice any occupation or profession.
( c ) *Effect of rules or regulations of private organizations.* The obligation to comply with these Title IX regulations is not obviated or alleviated by any rule or regulation of any organization, club, athletic or other league, or association that would render any applicant or student ineligible to participate or limit the eligibility or participation of any applicant or student, on the basis of sex, in any education program or activity operated by a recipient and that receives Federal financial assistance.