alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CITY_Of_CORDOVA 

January 22, 2013 

Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington D.C. 20590 

!,'.,:···~ ... · •• :• 

Re: Continuation of Alaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at Cordova,~ Gustavus, 

Petersburg, Wrangell, andY akutat, Alaska, Docket OST -1998-4899 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

This letter is to express strong support for the selection of Alaska Airlines to continue to 

provide essential air service to our community. 

Alaska's service connects Cordova passengers to one or more major communities of 

interest, with single-plane service to Anchorage, Juneau, and Seattle. From these hubs, 

our community can access the airline's extensive route system and benefit from its 

marketing relationships with other carriers. The passenger and cargo aircraft, which 

Alaska Airlines proposes to continue using on this route, provides freight, mail and cargo 

capacity that other carriers simply cannot provide. 

Further, Alaska Airlines aircraft are equipped with Required Navigation Performance 

Technology, which enables the airline to reliably access the airport during inclement 

weather, thus reducing diversions and cancellations and, in tum, enabling people and 

products to dependably reach the com.111unity. 

Simply put, Alaska Airlines' service is critical to the economic well being of our 

community and I support their application to provide Essential Air Service to Southeast 

Alaska. 

Ji Kallander, Mayor 

City of Cordova 

602 Railroad Avenue P.O. Box 1210 Cordova. Alaska 99574 Telephone (907) 424·6200 Fax (907) 424·6000
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Florida Business BancGroup, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, A. Bronson Thayer, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Date:  May 6, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ A. Bronson Thayer
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       | 
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | A. Bronson Thayer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
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 Commerce

###### Bureau of Industry and Security

The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on February 1, 2007, 10:30 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 6059, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.

## Agenda

### Public Session 

1. China Rule.

2. New Chemical Biological Regulations. 

3. Synthetic Genomics. 

4. Chemical Weapons Convention Regulation Updates.

### Closed Session

5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

                    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Yvette Springer at                     *Yspringer@bis.doc.gov.*

The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 5, 2007, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the premature disclosure of which would likely frustrate the implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

Dated: January 16, 2007.

Yvette Springer,

Committee Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 07-210 Filed 1-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HERBERT GILES,

 

Petitioner, Case Number 2:14-cv-13700

 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

v.

RANDY HAAS,

Respondent.

________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. 6]; AND

DENYING APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA

PAUPERIS [Dkt. 9]

Petitioner, Herbert Giles, a state prisoner, filed this case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On

October 2, 2014, the Court summarily dismissed the petition, denied a certificate of appealability,

and denied permission for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Presently before the Court are

Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration and application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. The

motions will be denied.

Local Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. However, a motion for

reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or

by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F.

Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by

which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that a different disposition of the

case must result from a correction thereof. A palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear,

unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

In the present case, the arguments raised by Petitioner in his motion for reconsideration were

already raised in the petition and rejected by the Court in its opinion dismissing the petition. Because

2:14-cv-13700-VAR-RSW Doc # 10 Filed 11/04/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 44
Petitioner is merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by the court, either expressly

or by reasonable implication, when the court denied his motion to amend, the motion for

reconsideration will be denied. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999). 

Petitioner’s application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied as moot. The

opinion and order dismissing the petition already resolved this issue. Petitioner may renew this 

request in the Sixth Circuit. 

Therefore, Petitioner motion for reconsideration is DENIED. [Dkt. 6].

Petitioner’s application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. [Dkt. 9].

SO ORDERED. 

 S/Victoria A. Roberts

 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

United States District Judge 

Dated: 11/4/2014

-2-

2:14-cv-13700-VAR-RSW Doc # 10 Filed 11/04/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 45
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-929 

________________________________________________________________________ 

NUCLEAR SAFETY 

 Arrangement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and GREECE 

Signed at Vienna September 29, 2008 

with 

Addenda 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
GREECE 

Nuclear Safety 

 Arrangement signed at Vienna September 29, 2008; 

 Entered into force September 29, 2008. 

 With addenda.
# C_2013038EN.01002002.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Grupo Bimbo (GRUPO BIMBO)

(Case T-357/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark GRUPO BIMBO - Earlier national word mark BIMBO - Relative ground for refusal - Mark with a reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 38/34

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2011 (Case R 1272/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo, SA and Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 April 2011 (Case R 1272/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo, SA and Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 April 2011 (Case R 1272/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo, SA and Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

1

---
§ 195.30-90 Vessels contracted for before November 23, 1992. Vessels contracted for before November 23, 1992, must meet the following requirements: ( a ) Each vessel must satisfy §§ 195.30-5 through 195.30-15 concerning the number of items and method of stowage of equipment.
( b ) Items of equipment previously approved, but not meeting the applicable specifications set forth in § 195.30-5, may continue in service as long as they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection; but each item in an installation or a replacement must meet all applicable specifications.
( c ) Each respirator must either satisfy § 195.30-5(a) or be a self-contained compressed-air breathing apparatus previously approved by MSHA and NIOSH under part 160, subpart 160.011, of this chapter.
[CGD 86-036, 57 FR 48327, Oct. 23, 1992, as amended by CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51220, Sept. 30, 1997]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,804,779
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  128,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,988,674
<PP&E>                                         517,832
<DEPRECIATION>                                 110,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,680,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          833,657
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,522
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,502,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,680,507
<SALES>                                        782,217
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               794,342
<CGS>                                           86,252
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,341,557
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             459,315
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,984,542)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,984,542)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,984,542)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.78)


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 162

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 162.017-2 Type.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76704, Sept. 18, 2024.

This specification covers the design and construction of pressure-vacuum relief valves intended for use in venting systems on all tank vessels transporting inflammable or combustible liquids.

[56 FR 35827, July 29, 1991]
EXHIBIT 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Thinkpath Inc. (the "Company") hereby
certifies that to the best of my knowledge:

           (a)       The Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
                     period ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report"), to which this
                     certification is attached as an exhibit, fully complies
                     with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
                     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

           (b)       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                     all material respects, the financial condition and results
                     of operations of the Company.



/s/  Kelly Hankinson
-----------------------
Kelly Hankinson
Chief Financial Officer



August 19, 2002
-----------------------



<PAGE>
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Declan A. French, Chief Executive Officer of Thinkpath Inc., certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Thinkpath Inc.;

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
         we 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 45 days prior to the filing
         date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
         the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
         our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

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 the registrant's board of directors:

                  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 23, 2004
                                                /S/ DECLAN FRENCH
                                                Declan A. French
                                                Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1



        CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
International Imaging Systems, Inc. for the three months ended September 30,
2005, I, C. Leo Smith, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of
International Imaging Systems, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

                  (1) such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months
ended September 30, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
International Imaging Systems, Inc.

                                             /s/ C. LEO SMITH
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             C. Leo Smith
                                             Chief Executive and Chief Financial
                                                Officer


         November 15, 2005

                                     - 20 -
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.120-9 Procedure for acceptance. ( a ) Fire retardant resin is not subject to formal approval, but will be accepted by the Coast Guard on the basis of this subpart for use in the manufacture of lifesaving equipment. Coast Guard acceptance of fire retardant resin for use in the manufacture of lifesaving equipment does not guarantee Coast Guard acceptance of the manufactured lifesaving equipment.
( b ) *Resin manufacturer requirements.* The resin manufacturer must submit the test report, material data sheet, including instructions for use, and quality control procedures in accordance with 46 CFR 159.005-9.
( c ) *Independent laboratory requirements.* The independent laboratory must perform each inspection and test required by § 164.120-7 of this subpart, and prepare a report in accordance with 46 CFR 159.005-11 and submit the report to the Commandant for acceptance.
Due to the use of Java script on the Vantage Newsletter page, the functionality of the website has not been replicated. Copies of the newsletters can be found in: ~\netsite-docs\gpo16963\gpo16963\www.blm.gov\pgdata\etc\medialib\blm\es
Nominee
    
    For
    
    
    Vote Withheld
    
    
    Broker non-voteThomas P. Ash
    
    
    1,613,198
    
    
    
    698,497
    
    
    
    1,454,209Jerry F. Whitmer
    
    
    1,638,713
    
    
    
    672,982
    
    
    
    1,454,191
  For
    
    Against
    
    Abstain3,030,144
    
    893,628
    
    15,050
  For
    
    Against
    
    Abstain3,661,532
    
    275,420
    
    2,050
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0938. YOUNG v. THE STATE.

The above-styled appeal was docketed in this Court on February 5, 2016. 

Pursuant to Rule 23 (a) of the Court of Appeals, Appellant Willie Young was

required to file a brief and enumeration of errors in this Court by February 25, 2016.

As of the date of this order, Young has not filed a brief or enumeration of errors, and

has not filed a motion for extension for good cause. 

 Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED. See Court of Appeals Rules 7, 13 and

23 (a). 

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.

03/14/2016

March 14, 2016
#### § 168.05-15 Right of appeal.

Any person directly affected by a decision or action taken under this part, by or on behalf of the Coast Guard, may appeal therefrom in accordance with subpart 1.03 of this chapter.

[CGD 88-033, 54 FR 50381, Dec. 6, 1989]