alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
To all authorities concerned with the following incident, 

On Thursday, September 4111 , 2014 at approximately 1030, a call came over the radio to fuel N6094R. I 

responded to the fuel order and upon arriving at the aircraft, noticed immediately that the aircraft and 

the fuel truck were in questionable proximity to the building and/or gate lane. Before beginning any 

steps of the fueling operation, I approached Rob Silva and expressed my concerns about the distances 

outlined in the TOFA regulations. He proceeded to assure me that they were proper distances and 

everything was in order. After surveilling the area and determining that there were no obstructions in 

the vicinity directly compromising the safety of the fueling operation, I continued to quickly but alertly 

fuel the aircraft. 

Though unintentional, my actions were questionable and negligent of airport rules and regulations. I 

acted alone in poor judgement and accept full responsibility for my actions. This incident should in no 

way reflect Flightlevel, their procedures, protocol, or operational integrity . . 

Please accept my apology and notify me if further assistance is required to resolve this matter. 

Sincerely, 
j 

1 ... 

., 

' L 

•. 

1.' t 

\ • l I ~1'1' 

~ I • 

< ; I I ~ I , J L. r ' ~ ,, .. t . 

• ! .J 

/ 

~-'• ., 

\ •• 1' 

L· 

- t .. 

'·.\ 

i. 

.. . • t· 

' ( ,. ... ! 

\ 1 

. ~ 

•• 

, . 

'I 

I 

\~ ,', 

',:, f\ 

r 

.• I 

~ . I l j 

f 

I t 

J 

.

•·1 r r 

\ t 

t 

I 

I t ,. 

l 

( 

t' 

I 

I 

I 

I 
\I 

I ' 
I 

; 

·• 

I I 

t 

• "' ( .. 

, . ! f "'

'"' ~ · ., j. I 'f . 

• 

t,. ~ ~ I 

. I 

' i I I~ 

~·. ' ~ ,."-' .. 

•• 

·, f 

• .. 1 ~ 

,, 

.. 

I. 

j 

t 

1) "'-

1 ~ 

I 

( 

I 

j 

r·! 

I. 

I 

t 

,).4 \ 

. ' ' . P·" , ,r 

I 

, . J . ·r- l\ > ,..... • 

~ 

..... I 

J ' 

r I ' 

·\ 

. r I : J 

r 

I 

I v jl 

' I ~ I I' r'i : . I , 

f \ 

·' 

I 

r 

r 
Metnorandum 

To: Steve Desrosiers 

CC: Kevin Putnam, Jason Tibbetts, Russ Maguire, Employee File 

From: Mike DeLaria 

Date: 91912014 

Re: Fueling in Prohibited Area 

Based on Jason 's repmt, I feel that BEH (Rob Silva) was a big part of this violation, Rob has been 

aware of this issue due to the Airport Commission meetings, and for him to say that this was OK was 

totally out ofline and shows that there was an tmderlying agenda by him!B EH. 

Because of this and aft·er talking to Jason and his heart felt explanation and apology as well as Rob 

Silva's pmt in this violation thar the suspension be waived, but if this happens again it will be 

considered a second offence and Tennination will be enforced-no exceptions. 

Mike DeLaria 

1
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - 32 CFR Part 362
          - [DoD Directive 5105.19]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

This document removes part 362, “Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)” presently in Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This part has served the purpose for which it was intended in the CFR and is no longer necessary.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

August 2, 2006.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

L.M. Bynum (703) 696-4970.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This part 362 is removed to as a part of a DoD exercise to remove organizational charters from the CFR because they have                           ( print page 43653)                        no impact on the public. The revised DoD Directive 5105.19 is available at                     *http://www.dtic.mil/​whs/​directives/​corres/​html/​510519.htm*.                

# List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 362

      - Organizations

# PART 362—[REMOVED]

Accordingly, by the authority of 10 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 362 is removed.

Dated: July 27, 2006.

L.M. Bynum,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 06-6637 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
No. 11-5625.

#### Bowden *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 53.207 Successor or assign.

If a BOC transfers to an affiliated entity ownership of any network elements that must be provided on an unbundled basis pursuant to section 251(c)(3) of the Act, such entity will be deemed to be an “assign” of the BOC under section 3(4) of the Act with respect to such transferred network elements. A BOC affiliate shall not be deemed a “successor or assign” of a BOC solely because it obtains network elements from the BOC pursuant to section 251(c)(3) of the Act.

[62 FR 2967, Jan. 21, 1997; 63 FR 34604, June 25, 1998]
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3266

_____________________________
J OHN J OHNSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duv al County

. Angela M. Cox , Judge

. April 25, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. Appellant’s motion filed March 13, 2018, is granted. This appeal is hereby dismissed as untimely.

L EWIS , R OBERTS , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until dispos ition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Charles Cofer, Public Defender, and Elizabeth Hogan Webb, Assistant Public Defender
, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi
, Attorney Gen eral, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1410 Use of presumptions in calculating the space factor.

With respect to the formulas referenced in § 1.1406(d)(1) and (d)(2), the space occupied by an attachment is presumed to be one foot. The amount of usable space is presumed to be 13.5 feet. The amount of unusable space is presumed to be 24 feet. The pole height is presumed to be 37.5 feet. These presumptions may be rebutted by either party.

[83 FR 44841, Sept. 4, 2018]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7265

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

COREY ANTOINE TABOR,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Senior District Judge. (5:03-cr-00012-RLV-CH-5; 

5:17-cv-00089-RLV)

Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey Antoine Tabor, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina; 

Kenneth Michel Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Corey Antoine Tabor seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it 

on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

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

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

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

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

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

the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Tabor’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an 

application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 

motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:
3

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by 

clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral 

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Tabor’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we 

deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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
No. 11-6030.

#### Handy *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40636 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ANDRES CAMPOS

- SALAZAR , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:17

- CR

- 298

- 1

Before REAVLEY , CLEMENT, and H O, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Andres Campos

Salazar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Campos

- Salazar h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 20 , 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40636 Document: 00514354667 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2018No. 17

- 40636

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave
to wi thdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-40636 Document: 00514354667 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2018
No. 11-5821.

#### Payton *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Report of Houston Operating Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Low Chin Sin President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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/ Low Chin Sin
-------------------------
Low Chin Sin
President and
Chief Financial Officer

May 19, 2003
Exhibit 99.1

          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 annual report of Capital Preferred Yield Fund-IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2002,
as filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John F. Olmstead, President and Director of CAI Equipment Leasing
V Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, 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 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 Partnership.


By:      /s/John F. Olmstead                              Dated: March 28, 2003
         -------------------
         John F. Olmstead
Title:   President and Director

                                       42
Exhibit 32.2





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 Annual Report of Landec Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending May 29, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory S. Skinner, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:  August 5, 2011





/s/ Gregory S. SkinnerGregory S. SkinnerVice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)





*
The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.16

                              ISLAND PACIFIC, INC.

                             COLORADO LEASE SUMMARY

Lease Date:                        January 1, 2007

Landlord:                          CAH Investments, LLC

Address of Landlord:               6013 South Eagle Street
                                   Centennial, CO 80016

Premises:                          Approximately 2,800 square feet

Premises Address:                  6450 South Revere Parkway
                                   Englewood, CO 80016

Term:                              5 Years

Monthly Rent:                      January 1, 2007 - December 31, 2007   $6,500
                                   January 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008   $6,825
                                   January 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009   $7,166
                                   January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010   $7,525
                                   January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2011   $7,901

Estimated Operating Expenses:      Not Applicable

Tenant's Percentage:               Not Applicable

Cash Security Deposit:             $170,244
§ 400.7 Eligible uses for grant funds. Grant funds awarded under this part may be used only for: ( a ) The implementation and operation of 911 services, E-911 services, migration to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption and operation of Next Generation 911 services and applications;
( b ) The implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and applications enabled by Next Generation 911 services, including the establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of emergency response organizations; and
( c ) 911-related training of public safety personnel, including call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and organizations who are part of the emergency response chain in 911 services.
Exhibit 23.1

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement Form
S-8 No.  333-07377  pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plans,  in  Registration
Statement Form S-8 No. 333-53400  pertaining to the Special Purpose Stock Option
Plan, in Registration  Statement Form S-8 No.  333-73000  pertaining to the 2001
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in Registration  Statement Form S-8 No.  333-73002
pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option Plan and in Registration  Statement Form S-8
No.  333-72998  pertaining to the 2001  Consultant  Stock  Purchase Plan of SPAR
Group,  Inc. of our report dated February 28, 2005, with respect to the December
31, 2004 consolidated  financial  statements of SPAR Group, Inc. included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K), for the year ended December 31, 2004.



                                                   /s/ Rehmann Robson

Troy, Michigan
April 5, 2005














                                      Ex-2
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

____ 2013

______ - NM -

____ 232

______ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significan t? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
§ 64.901 Allocation of costs. ( a ) Carriers required to separate their regulated costs from nonregulated costs shall use the attributable cost method of cost allocation for such purpose.
( b ) In assigning or allocating costs to regulated and nonregulated activities, carriers shall follow the principles described herein. ( 1 ) Tariffed services provided to a nonregulated activity will be charged to the nonregulated activity at the tariffed rates and credited to the regulated revenue account for that service. Nontariffed services, offered pursuant to a section 252(e) agreement, provided to a nonregulated activity will be charged to the nonregulated activity at the amount set forth in the applicable interconnection agreement approved by a state commission pursuant to section 252(e) and credited to the regulated revenue account for that service.
( 2 ) Costs shall be directly assigned to either regulated or nonregulated activities whenever possible.
( 3 ) Costs which cannot be directly assigned to either regulated or nonregulated activities will be described as common costs. Common costs shall be grouped into homogeneous cost categories designed to facilitate the proper allocation of costs between a carrier's regulated and nonregulated activities. Each cost category shall be allocated between regulated and nonregulated activities in accordance with the following hierarchy: ( i ) Whenever possible, common cost categories are to be allocated based upon direct analysis of the origin of the cost themselves.
( ii ) When direct analysis is not possible, common cost categories shall be allocated based upon an indirect, cost-causative linkage to another cost category (or group of cost categories) for which a direct assignment or allocation is available.
( iii ) When neither direct nor indirect measures of cost allocation can be found, the cost category shall be allocated based upon a general allocator computed by using the ratio of all expenses directly assigned or attributed to regulated and nonregulated activities.
( 4 ) The allocation of central office equipment and outside plant investment costs between regulated and nonregulated activities shall be based upon the relative regulated and nonregulated usage of the investment during the calendar year when nonregulated usage is greatest in comparison to regulated usage during the three calendar years beginning with the calendar year during which the investment usage forecast is filed.
( c ) A telecommunications carrier may not use services that are not competitive to subsidize services subject to competition. Services included in the definition of universal service shall bear no more than a reasonable share of the joint and common costs of facilities used to provide those services.
[52 FR 6560, Mar. 4, 1987, as amended at 52 FR 39534, Oct. 22, 1987; 54 FR 49762, Dec. 1, 1989; 62 FR 45588, Aug. 28, 1997; 67 FR 5702, Feb. 6, 2002]
§ 64.1300 Payphone compensation obligation. ( a ) For purposes of this subpart, a Completing Carrier is a long distance carrier or switch-based long distance reseller that completes a coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call or a local exchange carrier that completes a local, coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call.
( b ) Except as provided herein, a Completing Carrier that completes a coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call from a switch that the Completing Carrier either owns or leases shall compensate the payphone service provider for that call at a rate agreed upon by the parties by contract.
( c ) The compensation obligation set forth herein shall not apply to calls to emergency numbers, calls by hearing disabled persons to a telecommunications relay service or local calls for which the caller has made the required coin deposit.
( d ) In the absence of an agreement as required by paragraph (b) of this section, the carrier is obligated to compensate the payphone service provider at a per-call rate of $.494.
[71 FR 3014, Jan. 19, 2006]
<PAGE>   1


                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                          SCB COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-1590) pertaining to the SCB Computer Technology, Inc. 1995 Stock
Incentive Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-36971)
pertaining to the SCB Computer Technology, Inc. 1997 Stock Incentive Plan of our
report dated June 16, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of SCB Computer Technology, Inc. included in the Annual Report Form
10-K for the year ended April 30, 1998.



                                                      /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Memphis, Tennessee
July 24, 1998