alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-12-177-E 

March 15, 2012 

 Exemption No. 9704B 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-0332 

Mr. Ian A. Shavitz 

Counsel for Inter American University of Puerto Rico 

Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP 

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Shavitz: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9704, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, lists the conditions and 

limitations, and includes the exemption’s expiration date. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated January 23, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Inter American University of Puerto Rico (Inter American) for an extension of 

Exemption No. 9704, as amended. That exemption from § 61.129(a)(4) and part 141, 

appendix D, paragraph 5(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Inter American’s 

commercial pilot students to satisfy their cross-country flight of no less than 300 nautical 

miles (nm) total distance, with landings at a minimum of three points, one of which is a 

straight-line distance of at least 150 nm from the original departure point. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

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

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Inter American. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9704, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the conditions and 

limitations below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. The cross-country flight must be accomplished as a solo flight. 

2. The commercial student’s logbook must be endorsed by the certificated flight 

instructor (CFI) as follows: “I certify that (INSERT STUDENT’S FIRST NAME, 

MIDDLE INITIAL, LAST NAME), (INSERT PILOT CERTIFICATE), (INSERT 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER), has satisfactorily completed the solo single-engine crosscountry flight in Puerto Rico in accordance with the provision of FAA Exemption 

No. 9704 on (INSERT DATE). S/S (INSERT DATE) (INSERT CFI NAME), 

(INSERT CFI CERTIFICATE NUMBER), EXPIRATION DATE (INSERT DATE). 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9704, as amended to 

May 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John M. Allen 

Director, Flight Standards Service
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.2103 Competitive bidding design options. ( a ) *Public notice of competitive bidding design options.* Prior to any competitive bidding for initial licenses, public notice shall be provided of the detailed procedures that may be used to implement auction design options.
( b ) *Competitive bidding design options.* The public notice detailing competitive bidding procedures may establish procedures for collecting bids, assigning winning bids, and determining payments, including without limitation: ( 1 ) *Procedures for collecting bids.* ( i ) Procedures for collecting bids in a single round or in multiple rounds.
( ii ) Procedures allowing for bids for specific items, bids for generic items in one or more categories of items, or bids for one or more aggregations of items.
( iii ) Procedures allowing for bids that specify a price, indicate demand at a specified price, or provide other information as specified by competitive bidding policies, rules, and procedures.
( iv ) Procedures allowing for bids that are contingent on specified conditions, such as other bids being accepted or for packages of licenses being awarded.
( v ) Procedures to collect bids in one or more stages, including procedures for transitions between stages.
( vi ) Procedures for whether, when, and how bids may be modified during the auction.
( 2 ) *Procedures for assigning winning bids.* ( i ) Procedures that take into account one or more factors in addition to the submitted bid amount, including but not limited to the amount of bids submitted in separate competitive bidding.
( ii ) Procedures to assign specific items to bidders following bidding for quantities of generic items.
( iii ) Procedures to incorporate public interest considerations into the process for assigning winning bids.
( 3 ) *Procedures for determining payments.* Procedures to determine the amount of any payments made to or by winning bidders consistent with other auction design choices.
[79 FR 48528, Aug. 15, 2014]
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3234

_____________________________

ALTO O'NEIL MCDONALD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County.

Kelvin C. Wells, Judge.

July 10, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Alto O'Neil McDonald, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
[Crim. No. 1702.

Third Appellate District.

January 16, 1940.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ARTHUR O. RASMUSSEN, Appellant.

A. J. Carlson for Appellant.

*587Bari Warren, Attorney-General, and J. Q. Brown, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

This cause was ordered placed upon the December, 1939, calendar for hearing and submission.

There being no appearance of counsel and no brief on file for appellant at the time for the hearing, the court directed that the said appellant be granted fifteen days’ time within which to file an opening brief herein. The cause was submitted upon the record upon the failure of appellant to file the said brief within the required time.

We have, however, made a careful examination of the record and find no merit in the appeal. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60651 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARCHIE GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:94-CR-97

- - - - - - - - - - August 5, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Archie Griffin appeals his conviction for conspiracy to illegally transport and receive firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. He contends that the district court erred in refusing to suppress oral statements he made after his arrest, there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, the district court erred in admitting "other acts" evidence, the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for aNo. 95-60651 -2- continuance, and the district court erred in increasing his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities convinces us that no reversible error was committed. The district court did not err in denying Griffin's motion to suppress his oral statements. See United States v. Hopkins , 433 F.2d 1041, 1045 (5th Cir. 1970). The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Griffin guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Singer , 970 F.2d 1414, 1419 (5th Cir. 1992). The admission of "other acts" evidence was not unfairly prejudicial to Griffin. See United States v. Pace , 10 F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 2180 (1994). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance because Griffin failed to show that he suffered serious prejudice as a result of the denial. See United States v. Scott , 48 F.3d 1389, 1393 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 264 (1995). The court did not clearly err in assessing the four-level increase in Griffin's offense level for his leadership role. See United States v. Puig-Infante , 19 F.3d 929, 944 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 180 (1994). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
No. 11-1013.

#### Salessi *v.*Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, et al.

Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission of Fine Arts

The next meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 20 July 2000, at 9 a.m. at the Department of Interior's main auditorium, 18th & C Streets, NW., Washington, DC, 20240. The principal item for review will be the World War II Memorial.

Following this meeting, the Commission will reconvene at the Commission of Fine Arts, National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 441 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728, to discuss the remaining items on the agenda, including the design of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Charles H. Atherton, Secretary, Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.

Dated in Washington, DC, June 23, 2000.

Charles H. Atherton,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-16752 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
§ 105-70.013 Parties to the hearing. ( a ) The parties to the hearing shall be the defendant and the Authority.
( b ) Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3730(c)(5), a private plaintiff under the False Claims Act may participate in these proceedings to the extent authorized by the provisions of that Act.
§ 101.1417 Annual report. Each MVDDS licensee shall file with the Broadband Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the Commission two copies of a report by March 1 of each year for the preceding calendar year. This report must include the following: ( a ) Name and address of licensee;
( b ) Station(s) call letters and primary geographic service area(s); and
( c ) The following statistical information for the licensee's station (and each channel thereof): ( 1 ) The total number of separate subscribers served during the calendar year;
( 2 ) The total hours of transmission service rendered during the calendar year to all subscribers;
( 3 ) The total hours of transmission service rendered during the calendar year involving the transmission of local broadcast signals; and
( 4 ) A list of each period of time during the calendar year in which the station rendered no service as authorized, if the time period was a consecutive period longer than 48 hours.
Filed 9/25/13 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2013 ND 162

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Christopher Ashley Ratteray, Jr., Defendant and Appellant

No. 20120446

Appeal from the District Court of Barnes County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable John T. Paulson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Lee M. Grossman, State’s Attorney, 230 Fourth Street NW, Room 301, Valley City, N.D. 58072, for plaintiff and appellee.

Thomas M. Jackson, 418 East Rosser Avenue, Suite 320, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Ratteray

No. 20120446

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Christopher Ratteray appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of creation of sexually expressive images.  Ratteray argues there is insufficient evidence to support the convictions.  He also claims his sentence is excessive and was based on impermissible factors.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
Exhibit








Exhibit 4.8


PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION
50 North Third Street
Post Office Box 3500
Newark, Ohio 43058-3500
(740) 349-8451
www.parknationalcorp.com


February 21, 2017






United States Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20549




Re:     Park National Corporation
Commission File Number:  1-13006
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year
Ended December 31, 2016


Ladies and Gentlemen:


Park National Corporation, an Ohio corporation (“Park”), is today filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Park for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (“Park's 2016 Form 10-K”).
Neither (i) Park nor (ii) any of Park's consolidated subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument or agreement with respect to its long-term debt under which the total amount of long-term debt authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of Park and Park's subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.  In accordance with the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC Regulation S-K, Park hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, a copy of each instrument or agreement defining (i) the rights of holders of long-term debt of Park or (ii) the rights of holders of long-term debt of a consolidated subsidiary of Park, in each case which is not being filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to Park's 2016 Form 10-K.


Very truly yours,
PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION
/s/ Brady T. Burt                                                      
Brady T. Burt
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
From: Battle, Darlene F CIV USARMY ASC 407 AFSB (US) To: EAS (OST) Cc: Brown, Joseph R (Joe) JR CIV USARMY ASC 407 AFSB (US) ; Housley, Leonard A CIV USARMY USAG (US) ; Thomas, Chester D CIV USARMY 407 AFSB (US) Subject: Response for Proposal for EAS provider (UNCLASSIFIED) Date: Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:03:51 PM



### Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: FOUO

Good day and thank you for providing Ft Leonard Wood the opportunity to respond to the request for an Essential Air Carrier to our community.

Upon reviewing the proposals from Cape Air and Air Choice One, Ft Leonard Wood has chosen to recommend Cape Air to continue to provide service.

Air Choice One’s proposal was quite vague and their subsidy was more expensive than that of Cape Air.

Cape Air has continued to maintain quality service and have increased ridership immensely. They work closely with the Installation and with the community in attempts to meet the needs with what they are able to provide. Their on-time and success rates far exceeds typical airline standards and professes encouragement with confidence in meeting our traveling needs to and from the St Louis Lambert Airport.

Thank you again for this opportunity and we look forward to hearing from you concerning the outcome of the proposals.

Darlene F Battle Installation Transportation Officer 380 First Street Ft Leonard Wood, MO 65473 573-596-0617 DSN 581-0617 BB 573-842-7107 FAX 573-596-0725



### Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: FOUO
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 126 (Thursday, June 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16501]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-37,680]


Chick Orchards, Inc., Chic-A-Dee Packing Corporation, Monmouth, 
Maine; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on May 15, 2000, in response to a petition filed on the 
same date on behalf of workers at Chick Orchards, Inc., Chic-A-Dee 
Packing Corporation, Monmouth, Maine.
    The company official submitting the petition has requested that the 
petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case 
would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 6th day of June, 2000.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-16501 Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
***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

In connection with the report on Form 10-Q ofHendrx Corp.for the quarterlyperiod endedJune 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,George Solymar,do hereby 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)      | This 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 this report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the small business issuerat the endof the period covered by this report and resultsof operations of the small business issuerfor the period covered by this                report. |
|--|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date:August 19, 2008         

/s/ George Solymar

George Solymar

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Thiscertification accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the small business issuerfor the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of        1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.                 A signed original of this written statement required by §906 hasbeen provided to the small business issuerand will be retained by the small business issuerand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

44
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"18-2338: NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"un1aBS8Y1n\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-20-2020-18-2338-network-1-technologies-inc-v-hewlett-packard-company-order-18-2338-order-11-20-2020_1688959\/\">18-2338: NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-20-2020-18-2338-network-1-technologies-inc-v-hewlett-packard-company-order-18-2338-order-11-20-2020_1688959\/embed\/#?secret=un1aBS8Y1n\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-2338: NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"un1aBS8Y1n\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-2338 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 11-9204.

#### Hernandez *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### § 51-10.140 Employment.

No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the agency. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
No. 11-9050.

#### Moffat *v.*Michigan Department of Corrections et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.