alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
July 9, 2015

Mr. William Lewis

1507 Military Cutoff Rd. #108

Wilmington, NC 28403

Dear Mr. Lewis:

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

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

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

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 30, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2575), 

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any 

further, you must send us all of the following:

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

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

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

benefit the public as a whole.

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

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

seek an exemption.

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

What You Should Do

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

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

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

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

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
§ 143.545 Pressure vessels. ( a ) In lieu of meeting the requirements of § 143.300, pressure vessels installed on new towing vessels must meet the requirements of this section.
( b ) Pressure vessels over 5 cubic feet in volume and more than 15 psi maximum allowable working pressure must meet ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels under 90 Meters (295 Feet) in Length (incorporated by reference, see § 136.112 of this subchapter), Part 4, Chapter 1, Section 1.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2008 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2008

     To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the 
 development of hydroelectric power on the Diamond Fork System of the 
                         Central Utah Project.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2009

 Mr. Matheson (for himself and Mr. Chaffetz) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the 
 development of hydroelectric power on the Diamond Fork System of the 
                         Central Utah Project.

    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 ``Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower 
Facilitation Act''.

SEC. 2. COST ALLOCATIONS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in order to facilitate 
hydropower development on the Diamond Fork System, the amount of 
reimbursable costs allocated to project power in Chapter 6 of the Power 
Appendix in the October 2004 Supplement to the 1988 Bonneville Unit 
Definite Plan Report, with regard to power development within the 
Diamond Fork System, shall be considered final costs as well as costs 
in excess of the total maximum repayment obligation as defined in 
section 211 of the Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 (Public 
Law 102-575), and shall be subject to the same terms and conditions.

SEC. 3. NO PURCHASE OR MARKET OBLIGATION; NO COSTS ASSIGNED TO POWER.

    Nothing in this Act shall obligate the Western Area Power 
Administration to purchase or market any of the power produced by the 
Diamond Fork power plant and none of the costs associated with 
development of transmission facilities to transmit power from the 
Diamond Fork power plant shall be assigned to power for the purpose of 
Colorado River Storage Project ratemaking.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 1. | The                transition report of the Company for the six-month period ended June                30,                2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this                date                (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: January                28, 2008 |  By:                              |  /s/                Jeffrey Eisenberg  |
|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                             | Jeffrey                Eisenberg       |
|                                             | Chief                Executive Officer |

----
#### Loraine Richmond, Appellant and Respondent, *v.*John R. H. Richmond et al., Respondents and Appellants.

*Richmond*v. *Richmond, 123*App. Div. 117, affirmed.

(Argued October 12, 1909;

decided October 26, 1909.)

' Cross-appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 31, 1908, upon the submission of a controversy, under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as to the ownership of an extraordinary dividend declared by a corporation, stock of which formed part of the assets of an estate in which the plaintiff and defendants were interested and in whom vested the right to purchase additional stock issued by such corporation.

*Helen Z. M. Badgers, William L. Marcy*and *AdeTberi Moot*for plaintiff, appellant and respondent.

*Louis L. Babcock*for defendants, respondents and appellan ts.

Judgment affirmed, without costs to either party, on opinion of Spring, J., below.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, IIiscook and Chase, JJ.
§ 143.460 Towing machinery. ( a ) Towing machinery such as capstans, winches, and other mechanical devices used to connect the towing vessel to the tow must be designed and installed to maximize control of the tow.
( b ) Towing machinery for towing astern must have sufficient safeguards, *e.g.,* towing bitt with crossbar, to prevent the machinery from becoming disabled in the event the tow becomes out of line.
( c ) Towing machinery used to connect the towing vessel to the tow must be suitable for its intended service. It must be capable of withstanding exposure to the marine environment, likely mechanical damage, static and dynamic loads expected during intended service, the towing vessel's horsepower, and arrangement of the tow.
( d ) When a winch that has the potential for uncontrolled release under tension is used, a warning must be in place at the winch controls that indicates this. When safeguards designed to prevent uncontrolled release are utilized, they must not be disabled.
( e ) Each owner or managing operator must develop procedures to routinely examine, maintain, and replace capstans, winches, and other machinery used to connect the towing vessel to the tow.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0154. STACEY J. GOLDRING v. SHELENA MAUREN SPENCER et al.

Stacey J. Goldring filed this application for discretionary appeal from the state

court’s order dismissing her civil complaint. A party may appeal directly from “[a]ll

final judgments, that isto say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below,

except as provided in Code Section 5-6-35.” OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). The order that

Goldring wishes to appeal is a final judgment, and no provision of OCGA § 5-6-35,

the discretionary appeal statute, appears to apply here. Thus, Goldring had a right of

direct appeal.

We will grant a timely application for discretionary appeal if the lower court’s

order is subject to direct appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Accordingly, this

application is hereby GRANTED, and Goldring shall have ten days from the date of

this order to file a notice of appeal with the trial court. If she has already filed a

notice of appeal in the trial court, she need not file a second notice. The clerk of the

trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to

the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/09/2014

December 09, 2014
#### EMANUEL KLINE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CAMDEN FORGE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted October 12, 1928

Decided March 28, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chiee Justice, and Justice Parker.

Eor the plaintiff, *Charles W. Letzgus.*

Por the defendant, *Howard L. Miller.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment of $2,500 for personal injury and injury to his automobile, due to collision with a truck of the defendant company, driven by an employe named Elliott. It is urged for the rule that the verdict was against the weight of evidence and that the damages are excessive.

The plaintiff was driving north on Woodbury Pike toward Camden across the junction of the pike with the east and west road, where there was a traffic light. Just north of the crossing and between it and a bridge and on the west side of the pike was a gasoline station where the plaintiff turned in to get gas and oil. When he came out again with the object of crossing to the easterly side of the Woodbury Pike, and of turning again toward Camden, his car was run into by the defendant’s truck which was going south. There is the usual contradiction in the evidence with respect to the precise conditions at that time. The plaintiff claimed that the nearest southbound cars were one hundred and fifty feet away and that he had ample time to make the crossing in *329front of them, and that after he had crossed he saw defendant’s car coming from the bridge at high speed in a sort of zigzag course, and although he drew over to the extreme easterly side of the road he was unable to avoid it. In this he was corroborated to some extent by the gasoline man. On the other hand Elliott testified that he was proceeding at moderate speed and that the plaintiff suddenly shot out in front of him around another car which was on his right. Both Elliott and another witness named Johanson were somewhat shaken on cross-examination, but we need not go into the details. We consider that the verdict of the jury was justified by the evidence.

Nor do we consider that the verdict was so excessive as to require our interference. The plaintiff was badly shaken up and had a number of doctor bills to pay; his car was practically destroyed. There is a claim that a previous physical condition from which he had suffered and which was practically cured had been revived, and much of the dispute in the testimony relates to this point. On the whole, we do not consider that the verdict was so excessive as to require us to set it aside or indicate the acceptance of a reduced amount.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50590

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS RAYMUNDO HERNANDEZ-MACIAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-373-ALL-DB

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Luis Raymundo Hernandez-Macias appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Hernandez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction

that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a

separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been

alleged in his indictment. Hernandez maintains that he pleaded
No. 03-50590

-2-

guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the

two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for

that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Hernandez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
§ 122.518 Inflatable survival craft placards. ( a ) Every vessel equipped with an inflatable survival craft must have approved placards or other cards containing instructions for launching and inflating inflatable survival craft for the information of persons on board posted in conspicuous places by each inflatable survival craft.
( b ) Under the requirement in § 160.051-6(c)(1) in subchapter Q of this chapter, the manufacturer of approved inflatable liferafts is required to provide approved placards containing such instructions with each liferaft. Similar placards must be used for other inflatable survival craft.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 935, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51353, Sept. 30, 1997]
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            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  Quarterly Report of Network Installation Corporation,
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),

I,  Michael  Cummings, Chief Executive 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  results of operations of the Company.

/s/  Michael  Cummings
--------------------------------------
Michael  Cummings
Chief  Executive  Officer
Dated:  March  22,  2004

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United  States  Code)  and  is  not  being  filed  as part of the Report or as a
separate  disclosure  document.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015–7528 Directorate Identifier: 2015–NM–004-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 2 $ 170.00 $390 $ 560.00 166 $92,960.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $92,960

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

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* NO 

*Explanation:
Docket Number: FAA-2013-0208
#### § 144.610 Ventilation in a vessel more than 65 feet in length.

A vessel of more than 65 feet (19.8 meters) in length with overnight accommodations must have a mechanical ventilation system unless a natural system, such as opening windows, portholes, or doors, will provide adequate ventilation in ordinary weather.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-178]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review 
Group, Subcommittee G--Education.
    Date: February 6-7, 2007.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Washington Court Hotel, 525 New Jersey Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20001.
    Contact Person: Sonya Roberson, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of 
Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive 
Blvd., Room 8109, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-1182, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d3f222f283f3e223e0d202c242163232425632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee9c818c8b9c9d819dae838f8782c0808786c0898198">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 9, 2007.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-178 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>