alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2009068EN.01004401.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 68/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 68/44

---

European Parliament legislative resolution of 31 January 2008 on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (13593/6/2007 — C6-0410/2007 — 2006/0196(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Council common position (13593/6/2007 — C6-0410/2007) (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council common position (13593/6/2007 — C6-0410/2007) (1),

1

| — | having regard to its position at first reading (2) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0594), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its position at first reading (2) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0594),

2

| — | having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

| — | having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0505/2007), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0505/2007),

| 1. | Approves the common position; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the common position;

| 2. | Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the common position; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the common position;

| 3. | Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 254(1) of the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 254(1) of the EC Treaty;

| 4. | Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Union;

| 5. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 307 E, 18.12.2007, p. 22.

1

(2)  Texts Adopted, 11.7.2007, P6_TA(2007)0336.

2

---
§ 800.112 Reporting requirements. ( a ) *OPM specification of reporting requirements.* OPM will specify the data and information that must be reported by an MSP issuer, including data permitted or required by the Affordable Care Act and such other data as OPM may determine necessary for the oversight and administration of the MSP Program. OPM will also specify the form, manner, processes, and frequency for the reporting of data and information. The Director may require that MSP issuers submit claims payment and enrollment data to facilitate OPM's oversight and administration of the MSP Program in a manner similar to the FEHB Program.
( b ) *Quality and quality improvement standards.* An MSP issuer must comply with any standards required by OPM for reporting quality and quality improvement activities, including but not limited to implementation of a quality improvement strategy, disclosure of quality measures to enrollees and prospective enrollees, reporting of pediatric quality measures, and implementation of rating and enrollee satisfaction surveys, which will be similar to standards under section 1311(c)(1)(E), (H), and (I), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of the Affordable Care Act.
#### Jesse Seligman, *Appellant, v.*George E. Fisher and others, *Respondents*.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements and injunction restored. Opinion by

Ingalls, J.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-79,617-02

EX P ARTE CHRISTO P HER JOHNS ON, Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1171238-B IN THE 184th DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of capital murder and sentenc ed to life imprisonment. The First Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Johnson

v. State , No. 01-11-00192- CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] , delivere d October 4, 2012, no pet.). st A p p licant contends that his appellate counsel rende red ineffe ctive ass is ta n c e b e c a u s e c o u n s e l failed to timely notify him that his conviction had been aff irmed and failed to advise him of his rig ht to file a pro se petition for discre tionary revie w. Appellate counsel filed an aff idavit with the trial court. Ba sed on that aff idavit, the trial court2

has enter ed finding s of fac t and conclusions o f l aw t h at appellate counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been aff irmed and failed to advise him of his rig ht to file a pro se petition for discretionar

y revie w. The trial court rec ommends that relief be g rante d. Ex parte Riley , 193 S.W .3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionar

y revie w of the judgme nt of the First Court of Appea ls in Cause No. 01-11-00192- CR that aff irmed his conviction in Cause No. 01-11-00192- CR from the 184th District Court of Har ris County

. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionar y revie w with this Court within 30 day s of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Deliver ed: J une 12, 2013 Do not publish
§ 109.227 Verification of vessel compliance with applicable stability requirements. ( a ) The master or person-in-charge shall determine that the vessel complies with all applicable stability requirements in the vessel's trim and stability book, operating manual, stability letter, Certificate of Inspection, and Load Line Certificate, as the case may be, and then enter an attestation statement of the verification in the log book, at the following times: ( 1 ) Prior to transitioning from the transit condition to the operating condition;
( 2 ) Prior to transitioning from the operating condition to the transit condition;
( 3 ) Prior to significant changes in deck load or ballast;
( 4 ) At other times as required by the vessel's trim and stability book or operating manual; and
( 5 ) At all other times necessary to assure the safety of the vessel.
( b ) When determining compliance with applicable stability requirements the vessel's draft, trim, and stability must be determined as necessary and any stability calculations made in support of the determination must be retained on board the vessel for a one month period or until a change of location, if shorter.
[CGD 89-037, 57 FR 41823, Sept. 11, 1992]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee—Cross Appellant, v. George POWERS, Defendant—Appellant—Cross Appellee.

Nos. 03-50201, 03-50233.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted * May 20, 2004.

Decided June 2, 2004.

*828Consuelo S. Woodhead, Esq., Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roger S. Hanson, Esq., Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HAWKINS and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, District Judge.**

*

 The Panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App.P. 34(a).

**

 Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

The law of the case doctrine bars reconsideration of all of the issues — save those concerned with Powers’ sentence— which he seeks to raise in this appeal. Those issues, concerning the validity of his convictions, were raised and decided in Powers’ first appeal. *See United States v. Scrivener,*189 F.3d 825, 827 (9th Cir.1999).

Powers’ argument, that the district court’s loss finding was clearly erroneous because it conflicted with the loss finding undergirding his vacated sentence, lacks merit. At the first sentencing hearing, the court made no finding of loss under the clear and convincing evidence standard, finding that the government had proven the $1.6 million intended loss by only a preponderance of the evidence. At the resentencing hearing, the court again found the $1.6 million was shown only by a preponderance, but also found that a loss of $1.1 million was shown by clear and convincing evidence. There is no inconsistency in the loss finding so as to render it clearly erroneous.

We agree with the government’s cross-appeal that the district court erred in considering the evidence of Powers’ ability to pay restitution in the amount of $300,000 under a clear and convincing, rather than a preponderance, standard. Under the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e), “[a]ny dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.” In addition, *829while § 3664(e) places the burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim on the government, the “burden of demonstrating the financial resources of the defendant and the financial needs of the defendant’s dependents, shall be on the defendant.” *Id.*Thus, on remand, the district court should reconsider the restitution amount under the preponderance standard and in light of the *PreSentence*Report’s conclusion that Powers had the resources to pay considerably more than $150,000. Accordingly, we vacate the restitution order and remand for reconsideration of the restitution amount.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
HellNY.com 

Helicopter Flight Services, inc. 

February 10, 2011 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 Washington, DC 20590 

Catherine Yelle 

Chief Pilot 

Helicopter Flight Services, Inc 

Certificate # H44L404H 

112 Charles Lindbergh Drive 

Teterboro, NJ 07608 

Phone #201-228-3337 

To whom it may concern, 

I am writing to seek an exemption from 14 CFR 120.117(b) and 120.225(b), that state an 

air tour operator defined in part 91.147 must implement a separate mandated drug and 

alcohol testing program. 

Currently, HFS operates under two separate certificates, a part 135 certificate and 

recently was granted a 91.147 LOA in September, 2010. All 91 safety sensitive 

employees were drug tested under the part 135 drug program, as HFS was unaware of 

the requirement of implementing a separate 91.147 drug testing program upon receipt 

of the 91.147 LOA back in September, 2010. We are seeking authorization to maintain 

all safety sensitive employees under one program which is currently in place and has 

been used for Part 91.147 and Part 135 safety sensitive employees. There are currently 

I I Part 91 pilots under the Part 135 drug and alcohol testing program. 

Granting HFS the exemption would not adversely affect safety, as all safety sensitive 

employees are drug tested in accordance with 120.217, however, it is done under the 

current Part 135 drug program. 

Thank you for your time. 

Sincere^ yz 

Catherine YeUe 

Chief Pilot 

Helicopter Flight Services, Inc. 

Helicopter Flight Services, Inc. 

112 Charles Lindbergh Drive - Hangar 111- Teterboro, NJ 07608 

201-288-3337
Exhibit 31.2




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

I,  Michael  Novielli,  Interim CFO  of  the  registrant,  certify  that:

     1.     I  have  reviewed  this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Flexxtech
Corporation;

     2.     Based  on  my  knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue  statement  of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to  make  the  statements  made,  in light of the circumstances under which such
statements  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly  report;

     3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information  included  in  this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects  the  financial  condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant  as  of,  and  for,  the  periods presented in this quarterly report;

     4.     The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing  and  maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange  Act  Rules  13a-14  and  15d-14)  for  the  registrant  and  have:

          a.     designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material  information  relating  to  the  registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during  the  period  in  which  this  quarterly  report  is  being  prepared;

          b.     evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the  registrant's disclosure
controls  and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this  quarterly  report  (the  "Evaluation  Date");  and

          c.     presented   in   this  quarterly  report  any  changes  in  the
registrant's internal controls and  procedures are presented in this report our
conclusions  about  the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end  of the period covered by this report and based on such evaluation

     5.     The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I have disclosed,
based  on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee  of  registrant's  board  of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the
equivalent  functions):

          a.     all  significant  deficiencies  in  the  design or operation of
internal  controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's  auditors  any  material  weaknesses  in  internal  controls;  and

          b.     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other  employees  who  have  a  significant  role  in  the registrant's internal
controls.

Date:  August  18,  2003                    /s/  Michael Novielli
                                           ---------------------
                                           Michael  Novielli
                                           Interim Chief Financial Officer
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. IN THE MATTER OF GOJETAIRLINES, LLC (VD GEAR PINS) ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) FAA Docket No. CP10CE0003 DMS No. FAA-2010-0025 NOTICE OF APPEAL

NOTICE OF APPEAL Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.233 ofthe Rules of Practice Respondent GoJetAirlines LLC, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Notice of its intentto appeal the Initial Decision ofAdministrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin served May 20, 2011.

Dated: May

# ~2011

, III Esq. Vice Preside 

### &General Cotmsel Trans States Holdings, Inc. 11495 Navaid Rd., Ste. 340 Bridgeton, MO 63044 Phone: 314-222-4316 Fax: 314-222-4311 dhayes@transstates.net Attorney for Respondent GoJetAirlines LLC

1CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifythat a copy ofthe foregoing Notice ofAppeal was sent this

# ~ay of May, 2011, as indicated below, to the following: Original 

### &One Copy: via certified mail/return receipt requested. Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building
- Suite 2W1000 One Copy: Via certified mail/return receipt requested David B. Kessler Office of Regional Counsel Central Region, ACE-7 Federal Aviation Administration 901 Locust, Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 Via certified mail/return receipt requested The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, ALJ Office of Hearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAve., S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 Washington, DC 20590

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6668

JERRY ALLEN BAILEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RAINE LOCKE BELL; GRAHAM C. MULLEN; ROBERT

CONRAD, JR.; GORDON WIDENHOUSE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. William L. Osteen, District

Judge, sitting by designation. (CA-01-36-V)

Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 30, 2001

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Allen Bailey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Allen Bailey appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the

district court. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994).

Finding that Bailey’s informal brief sufficient to present the

issues on appeal, we deny Bailey’s pending motion to file a formal

brief. Bailey’s motion to extend the time in which to file a supplemental brief is moot and is denied for that reason. Similarly,

we deny Bailey’s motion for counsel and for 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
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CARROL Y. CHERRY EATON

, Appellant,

v.

JACOB SCHIELE EATON

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2236

[ March 15, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Merrilee Ehrich , Judge; L.T. Case No. 16

- 1 1774

.

Carrol Y. Cherry Eaton, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, T AYLOR and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### H e a l t h F i r s t A m a l g a m R e c o v e r y P r o g r a m

C o n t a c t H e a l t h F i r s t

8 0 0

. 3 3 1

. 1 9 8 4

A s a n A D A M e m b e r

, y o u d e s e r v e t h e b e s t t h a t d e n t i s t r y h a s t o o f f e r

. W h y s h o u l d y o u r a m a l g a m w a s t e s o l u t i o n b e

a n y d i f f e r e n t ? I n t r o d u c i n g H e a l t h F i r s t ' s A m a l g a m R e c o v e r y P r o g r a m

, t h e o n l y s o l u t i o n o f i t s k i n d i n t h e i n d u s t r y

.

O u r p r o g r a m o f

f e r s A D A M e m b e r s e x c l u s i v e s a v i n g s ( u p t o 3 3 % o f f M S R P ) t h a t c a n ' t b e f

o u n d a n y w h e r e e l s e

. B u t

t h a t ' s n o t a l l

. W i t h o u r p r o g r a m

, y o u a l s o r e c e i v e : H e a l t h F i r s t ' s A m a l g a m R e c o v e r y P r o g r a m o f f e r s A D A M e m b e r s

a c o s t

- e f f e c t i v e

, w o r r y

- f r e e c o m p l i a n c e s o l u t i o n w i t h e x c l u s i v e

, m e m b e r s

- o n l y p r i c i n g

.

A c o m p l e t e r e c o v e r y s o l u t i o n t h a t m e e t s t h e A D A ' s r e c o m m e n d e d b e s t p r a c t i c e s f o r t h e r e s p o n s i b l e h a n d l i n g o f

a m a l g a m w a s t e

.

F e a t u r e s t h e R e b e c E n v i r o n m e n t a l C a t c h H G ® a m a l g a m s e p a r a t o r

, t h e m o s t d u r a b l e a n d l o n g

- l a s t i n g s e p a r a t o r

i n t h e i n d u s t r y

, w i t h h a r d w a r e g u a r a n t e e d t o l a s t t h e l i f e t i m e o f y o u r p r a c t i c e

.

E n s u r e s j u s t o n e c o l l e c t o r r e c y c l e p e r y e a r

, a n d p r o v i d e s w a s t e w a t e r f i n e i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n o f u p t o $ 5 0 0

. N e v e r

w o r r y a b o u t h i d d e n r e c y c l i n g f e e s o r e x p e n s i v e f i n e s a g a i n

.

A u t o m a t i c r e m i n d e r s f r o m T h e O n T r a Q ® C o m p l i a n c e M a n a g e r i m p r o v e y o u r p r a c t i c e ' s l e v e l o f c o m p l i a n c e

,

e n s u r i n g t e a m m e m b e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p r o p e r h a n d l i n g o f a m a l g a m w a s t e

. Y o u ' l l a l s o g e t c e r t i f i c a t e s o f

p a r t i c i p a t i o n

, s o y o u ' l l a l w a y s h a v e p r o o f o f y o u r p r o c e s s

.

C h a i r

- s i d e t r a p s a n d f i l t e r s u n i q u e l y s u i t e d t o y o u r p r a c t i c e

, a n d A D A A p p r o v e d a m a l g a m b u c k e t s t o c o n t a i n a l l

o f y o u r a m a l g a m w a s t e p r o p e r l y

.

S t a y c o m p l i a n t

, p r o t e c t t h e e n v i r o n m e n t

, a n d s a v e m o n e y

, a l l a t t h e s a m e t i m e

.

C a l l t o d a y

, a n d s p e a k w i t h a H e a l t h F i r s t C o m p l i a n c e C o u n s e l o r t o g e t a c u s t o m q u o t e f o r t h e u n i q u e n e e d s o f y o u r V i s i t S i t ep r a c t i c e

.

A D A B u s i n e s s E n t e r p r i s e s

, I n c

. d / b / a A D A B u s i n e s s R e s o u r c e s i s a w h o l l y

- o w n e d s u b s i d i a r y o f t h e A m e r i c a n D e n t a l A s s o c i a t i o n

.
#### § 3.27 Bicycles.

A person may not operate a bicycle, motorbike, or similar vehicle without a horn or other warning device, and, if the vehicle is operated between dusk and dawn, it must be equipped with an operating headlight, and taillight or reflector.