alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
February 23, 2015

Mr. Robert Stenevik

Vice President of Safety, Maintenance and Operations

109 S an Medina Lane

Joshua

, TX 76058

Dear Mr. Stenevik :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your reque st on behalf of the

Commemorative Air Force for an exemption from § § 91.9 (a), 91.315, 91.319(a), 119.5(g) and

119. 21(a)

, of Title 14, Code of Federal Regu lations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

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

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request into the public docket on January 20, 2015 (No. FAA

20 1 5

- 0115 ), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent

does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed).

F or us to consider the request any further, you must send us the following information

indicated below :

 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 no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

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

seek an exemption.

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

 If applicable, t he specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your

exemption outside the United States.2

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 of the date of this letter

. We will consider the docket on your

request open during this period

. Please note that § 11.63(d) requir es you to send your petition

for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

You may submit the additional information to the FAA through the Internet at

http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal Do cket Management System Web site using the

public docket number assigned to your petition. Paper submission should be sent to this

address: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor,

Room W12

- 140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Also, f or additional

instructions, you may visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within the 30 day period , we will close the docket without

notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additio nal t ime, you may e

- mail

the analyst working your petition, Mr. Alphonso Pendergrass @

alphonso.pendergrass@faa.gov

, or call (202) 267

- 4713

.

Sincere ly,

/s/

James M. Crotty

Manager, Aircraft and Air port Rules Division

Enclosure

§ 11.81
V

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4775

For the relief of Vincente Babauta Jesus and Rita Rios Jesus.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 14, 1994

Mr. UNDERWOOD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Vincente Babauta Jesus and Rita Rios

Jesus.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF CLAIM.

4 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any

5 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to

6 Vincente Babauta Jesus and Rita Rios Jesus of

7 Spanaway, Washington, the sum of $300,000. The pay8 ment required by this section shall be in full satisfaction

9 of all claims that Vincente Babauta Jesus or Rita Rios

10 Jesus may have arising from the death of their daughter,
2

•HR 4775 IH

1 Gloria Jean Jesus, on June 29, 1990, on the USS Samuel

2 Gompers as a result of negligent medical care.

3 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

4 It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 per5 cent of the payment required by section 1 to be paid to

6 or received by any agent or attorney for any service ren7 dered in connection with the payment. Any person who

8 violates this section shall be guilty of an infraction and

9 shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in title

10 18, United States Code.

Æ
§ 22.907 Coordination of channel usage. Licensees in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service must coordinate, with the appropriate parties, channel usage at each transmitter location within 121 kilometers (75 miles) of any transmitter locations authorized to other licensees or proposed by other applicants, except those with mutually exclusive applications. Licensees utilizing systems employing a frequency re-use factor of 1 (universal re-use) are exempt from this requirement. ( a ) Licensees must cooperate and make reasonable efforts to resolve technical problems that may inhibit effective and efficient use of the cellular radio spectrum; however, licensees are not obligated to suggest extensive changes to or redesign other licensees' cellular systems. Licensees must make reasonable efforts to avoid blocking the growth of other cellular systems that are likely to need additional capacity in the future.
( b ) If technical problems are addressed by an agreement or operating agreement between the licensees that would result in a reduction of quality or capacity of either system, the licensees must notify the Commission by updating FCC Form 601.
[59 FR 59507, Nov. 17, 1994, as amended at 63 FR 68951, Dec. 14, 1998; 82 FR 17582, Apr. 12, 2017]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Texas Health and Human Services F/K/A

Texas Department of Aging and Disability

Services A/K/A El Paso State Supported

Living Center,

Appellant,

v.

Martha Garcia.,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 22

- 00080

- CV

Appeal from the

448 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018DCV3036)

O R D E R

Appellant has filed a second agreed motion for abatement. The Court finds good cause to

grant this abatement. Therefore, we ORDER this appeal to be abated until September 17, 2022.

The appellate timetable will be suspended during the abatement. The parties are directed to notify

the Court whether the dispute has been resolved and to file the motion necessary to dispose of

the appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(1), (2). If the parties are unsuccessful in resolving the

appeal by agreement, the appeal will be reinstated and the record will be due 20 days from the

date of the reinstatement order.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26 th day of August, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
§ 69.124 Interconnection charge. ( a ) Until December 31, 2001, local exchange carriers not subject to price cap regulation shall assess an interconnection charge expressed in dollars and cents per access minute upon all interexchange carriers and upon all other persons using the telephone company switched access network.
( b ) If the use made of the local exchange carrier's switched access network includes the local switch, but not local transport, the interconnection charge assessed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall be computed by subtracting entrance facilities, tandem-switched transport, direct-trunked transport, and dedicated signalling transport revenues, as well as any interconnection charge revenues that the local exchange carrier anticipates will be reassigned to other, facilities-based rate elements in the future, from the part 69 transport revenue requirement, and dividing by the total interstate local switching minutes.
( c ) If the use made of the local exchange carrier's switched access network includes local transport, the interconnection charge to be assessed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall be computed by dividing any interconnection charge revenues that the local exchange carrier anticipates will be reassigned to other, facilities-based rate elements in the future by the total interstate local transport minutes, and adding thereto the per minute amount calculated pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
[62 FR 66030, Dec. 17, 1997, as amended at 66 FR 59732, Nov. 30, 2001]
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Galman Group :

:

v. :

:

Kathryn Swift, :

Appellant : No. 804 C.D. 2022

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, May 6, 2024, having considered Appellant’s application for 

reconsideration, the application is DENIED.
§ 301-52.12 What happens if I attempt to defraud the Government? ( a ) You forfeit reimbursement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2514; and
( b ) You may be subject under 18 U.S.C. 287 and 1001 to one, or both, of the following: ( 1 ) A fine of not more than $10,000, or
( 2 ) Imprisonment for not more than 5 years.
#### § 60-40.6 To whom to direct requests.

A request for contract compliance records or information shall be directed to the National OFCCP or appropriate OFCCP Regional or Area Office. If the person making the request does not know in which office the record is located, he may direct his request to the Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, for appropriate handling.
No. 11-9426.

#### Salazar, aka Solazar *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
AMP49 Begins With Student Convocation
 By Patricia Coopersmith
  AMP49 Class PhotoOn Monday, September 8, 2014, the National Defense University’s Information Resources Management College (NDU iCollege) welcomed its Advanced Management Program (AMP) 49th co-hort.  Students will attend an intense 14-week educational experience at the NDU campus on Fort Lesley J. McNair in Washington, DC.  The AMP is the iCollege’s flagship resident program for rising senior-level managers and leaders responsible for promoting and attaining national and international security goals through the strategic use of information and information technology. This program is administered in an intensive and highly interactive student-centered educational experience emphasizing leadership skills and abilities. AMP students form a learning community that fosters multiple perspectives on a wide range of issues.  Besides coursework with multiple professors who are expert in cyber and information leadership, AMP students experience teambuilding, guest speakers, domestic field studies, hands-on time in the iCollege Cyber Labs, and more! 
After an opening introduction by COL Matt Hergenroeder (U.S. Army, iCollege Dean of Students), Dr. Mary McCully (Acting Chancellor of the iCollege) welcomed the new AMP students and told them a bit about their upcoming 14-week education.  Dr. McCully then introduced LtGen Robert Shea (USMC, Ret., President and CEO of AFCEA), who spoke to the students about leveraging the iCollege's "pool of academic cyber experts."  LtGen Shea also said that, "DoD is only one piece of the nation's cyberspace solution.  There needs to be coordinated cyber efforts across Defense, other government agencies, industry, academia, and international partners."  He spoke of Risk Management, Configuration Control, and of taking a holistic view of cyber.  The iCollege greatly appreciates LtGen Shea's time and insight as a cyber leader. 
The AMP curriculum provides participants with the Chief Information Officer certificate as well as course work toward the Master of Science in Government Information Leadership (CIO Concentration). Information Assurance Scholarship Program students require special advisement prior to enrollment. The following AMP sessions are scheduled in 2015.  Please contact AMP Director, Russ Quirici at Russell.Quirici@ndu.edu or by calling 1-202-685-3885, with any questions. **AMP 50:** January 8, 2015 - April 17, 2015
Applications due November 14, 2014 (early applications due October 31, 2014) **AMP 51:**  September 14, 2015 -  December 18, 2015Application due date is 1 July 2015.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**KEITH ALEXANDER,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 667 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 3rd day of May, 2016, the Petition for Allowa nce of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4694 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4694

To exclude from Federal income taxation amounts received in settlement 
of refund claims for State or local income taxes on Federal retirement 
 benefits which were not subject to State or local income taxation on 
         the same basis as State or local retirement benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 30, 1994

  Mrs. Byrne (for herself, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Moran, Mr. Scott, and Mr. 
   Sisisky) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To exclude from Federal income taxation amounts received in settlement 
of refund claims for State or local income taxes on Federal retirement 
 benefits which were not subject to State or local income taxation on 
         the same basis as State or local retirement benefits.

    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 ``Federal Retirees Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR REFUNDS OF STATE OR LOCAL INCOME TAXES 
              ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE IMPROPER TAXATION OF FEDERAL 
              RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

    (a) General Rule.--For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986, gross income shall not include any amount (including interest) 
received after December 31, 1994, from a State in settlement of a claim 
for a refund of State income taxes paid to such State which are 
attributable to the taxation of any protected retirement benefit paid 
before January 1, 1990, in a manner inconsistent with the manner 
required under Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury, 489 U.S. 
803 (1989).
    (b) Definitions.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
            (1) Protected retirement benefit.--The term ``protected 
        retirement benefit'' means any retirement benefit of an officer 
        or employee referred to in section 111 of title 4, United 
        States Code.
            (2) State.--The term ``State'' includes any political 
        subdivision of a State and the District of Columbia.
                                 <all>
```
§ 63.52 Copies required; fees; and filing periods for domestic authorizations. ( a ) Applications filed under section 214 of the Communications Act for domestic authority must be filed electronically with the Commission through the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Each domestic transfer of control application shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed in subpart G of part 1 of this chapter.
( b ) No application accepted for filing and subject to part 63 of these rules, unless provided for otherwise, shall be granted by the Commission earlier than 30 days following issuance of public notice by the Commission of the acceptance for filing of such application or any major amendment unless said public notice specifies another time period.
( c ) Any interested party may file a petition to deny an application within the 30-day or other time period specified in paragraph (b) of this section. The petitioner shall serve a copy of such petition on the applicant via electronic mail or paper copy no later than the date of filing thereof with the Commission. The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that the petitioner is a party in interest and that a grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof. The applicant may file an opposition to any petition to deny, and the petitioners may file a reply to such opposition (see § 1.45 of this chapter), and allegations of facts or denials thereof shall similarly be supported by affidavit. These responsive pleadings shall be served on the applicant or petitioners, as appropriate, and other parties to the proceeding.
(Sec. 303, 48 Stat. 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 303)
[41 FR 20662, May 20, 1976; 41 FR 22274, June 2, 1976, as amended at 42 FR 36459, July 15, 1977; 61 FR 10476, Mar. 14, 1996; 61 FR 59201, Nov. 21, 1996; 64 FR 39939, July 23, 1999; 80 FR 1588, Jan. 13, 2015]
§ 61.2 General tariff requirements. ( a ) In order to remove all doubt as to their proper application, all tariff publications must contain clear and explicit explanatory statements regarding the rates and regulations.
( b ) Tariff publications must be delivered to the Commission free from all charges, including claims of postage.
( c ) Tariff publications will not be returned.
[64 FR 46586, Aug. 26, 1999]
No. 11-10025.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
NOTICE

«TRACK» NO. 65014

THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 300TH DISTRICT COURT

VS. OF

JUAN RUBEN GARCIA BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT ON APPEAL

ON THE 12TH day of JANUARY, 2015, the defendant in the above styled and

numbered cause excepted to the order of the Court i n said cause and gave Notice of Appeal to

the Court of Appeals, FIRST Judicial District.

Date of Judgment or Other Order Appealed From: 10/2 0/14

Date of Sentencing: 10/20/14

Name of Trial Court Judge: K. RANDALL HUFSTETLER

Name of Court Reporter: RENEE RAPE

Name and Address of Defense Attorney on Appeal: STANLEY G. SCHNEIDER (RETAINED) 440 LOUISIANA, SUITE 800 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002

Name and Address of Attorney for the State on Appea l: Jeri Yenne, District Attorney Brazoria County Courthouse 111 East Locust, Suite 408-A Angleton, TX 77515

Defendant Incarcerated? UNKNOWN (p ossibly held by U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcem ent)

Motion for New Trial Filed? 11/17/14

Appeal Bond: N/A Date N/A

Offense and Punishment: AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD; CRIMINAL EPISODE; Ten (10) YEARS – TDCJ-ID

RHONDA BARCHAK, District Clerk

By /S/ KATHLEEN MCDOUGALD Deputy
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: ROSA SERRANO, 

INDIVIDUALLY.

 Relator.

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-15-00183-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Rosa Serrano, pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the 

Honorable Virgil Mulanax and the Honorable Tom Spiczney related to orders entered in cause 

numbers 2012-DCV-06341, 2013-DCV-3139, and 2015-DCV-1079. We deny mandamus relief.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, Relator must meet two requirements. In re Prudential 

Insurance Company of America, L.L.C., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004); Walker v. Packer, 

827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). First, she must show that the trial court clearly abused its 

discretion. Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 135. Second, she must demonstrate that there is no 

adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 135; In re McAllen Medical Center,

Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 462 (Tex. 2008). Based on the petition and record before us, we conclude 

that Relator has failed to establish that she is entitled to mandamus relief. See TEX.R.APP.P.

52.8. Accordingly, the petition is denied.

June 23, 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Hughes, J., not participating
| EXHIBIT      32.02                                                                                                           |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                         |
|                                                                                                                         |
| 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 Global Peopleline Telecom, Inc. (      the "Registrant" ) on Form 10-Q       |
| for      the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange      Commission on the                   |
| date      hereof ( the "Quarterly Report" ), I, Ernest Cheung, Chief Financial      Officer of the Registrant, certify, |
| in      accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906      of the Sarbanes-Oxley                |
| Act      of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:                                                                          |
|                                                                                                                         |
| ( 1      ) The Quarterly Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit      32.02, 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in      all material respects, the             |
| financial      condition and result of operations of the  Registrant.                                                        |

|                  | Global Peopleline Telecom, Inc. |                         |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------------|
| January      22, 2009 |                            |                         |   |
|                  |                            | /s/      Ernest Cheung       |   |
|                  |                            | Ernest      Cheung           |   |
|                  |                            | Chief      Financial Officer |   |
No. 11-9447.

#### Fulcher *v.*New York.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
#### Basil AKBAR, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Joan B. Meacham; Gary D. Maynard; Orton Bellamy; J.P. Hodges; Teresa A. Knox; Tim Riley; Stephen G. Birnie; Grady A. Wallace; Carl Ludenberg; Michael J. Cavanaugh; Robert Ogletree; William Gunn; Stephen Benjamin; Debbie Amick; Ann Doe; John Doe, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 03-7871.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2004.

Basil Akbar, Appellant pro se. Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., McKay, McKay *&*Setta-na, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Basil Akbar appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (2000) and state law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Akbar v. South Carolina Probation, Parole & Pardon,*No. CA-03-377-9-18 (D.S.C. Oct. 22, 2003). We deny Akbar’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*