alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Request for Additional Information - V2 Flow Controls LLC 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Shortall: 

 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-

2533). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition. 

 

• Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed wing, rotorcraft, lighter than air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload). This 

information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). 

 

Please submit the additional information (non proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any 

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you 

want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 9/1/15. If we 

do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 267-2999. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Jake J Troutman 

Program Analyst | Rulemaking 

FAA Office of Aviation Safety 

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division 

202-267-9521 

 

Thank you for your interest in aviation safety. 

FAA Office of Rulemaking 

Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 8:36 AM 

To: sshortall@v2flowcontrols.com 

Cc: May, Rick (FAA) 

 

Request for Additional Information - V2 Flow Controls LLC Page 1 of 1

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&... 9/9/2015
From: Greg Heiple [mailto:gheiple@gregheiple.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 1:14 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33--- Responding To--- Request for Information Regarding Lifetime 

Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries 

Importance: High

Please consider this simple suggestion---------- 

Q: The Department of Labor is wondering if they should offer, "Lifetime Income Options" for 

401k plans. Is this a good idea?

A: If we let a little air out of the 401k's tires, we think so.

Allow us to explain. It's not what you think.

A truck got stuck under a bridge. The bridge was hugely important to this particular community. 

 There was no money in the budget to fix a broken bridge. If the bridge was damaged, the results 

would be catastrophic for the economy. Experts from around the world were brought in to come 

up with a solution. They had no luck.

An 11 year old riding his bike by this fiasco said, "Let the air out of the tires".

It worked.

"Let the air out of the tires".

***

Our, "Let the air out of the tires" solution for the DOL's "Lifetime income option" is:

Bifurcate the monthly 401k statements.

There is no cost with our solution.

There is no financial literacy program to implement with our solution.

There is no need to offer or create new financial products with our solution.

Treat the statement like a scale (scale of justice). Spend from the left, invest on the right.

To see an example of a bifurcated statement call us.

To see an example of how to create a lifetime income by balancing a scale, call us.

Greg Heiple

218 E. Eufaula

Norman, OK 73069

405-447-5535
1 In The


### Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 23

- 00227

- CV

__________________ CHANCE M. PERRY , Appellant

V.

COURTNEY L. PERRY , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. E200 480

- D

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
Chance M. Perry
, Appellant, filed “ Appellant’s No t ice of Non

- Suit
, ” which

we will treat as an unopposed motion to dismiss his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.
42.1(a)(1). Pe rry filed the notice, which we are treating as a motion, before we

decided the appeal.
We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISM I SSED. PER CURIAM Submitted on April 10, 2024 Opinion Delivered April 11, 2024 Before Horton
, Johnson and Wright, JJ

.
From: James Proper [mailto:jproper4@neo.rr.com] 

Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 12:27 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: IRA's and 401k's

Regarding the Federal Government proposal to Manage and Control the dollars 

in the IRA and 401k retirement accounts. My comment is: Do not do this, leave 

these accounts alone. Leave them as they are.

 

Jim
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Frank Dalene, certify that: (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Hamptons Luxury Homes, Inc.; (2) Based on my knowledge, this 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  report; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report; (4) The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and 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 based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in the report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that has occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and (5) The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date:  August 14, 2007 /s/ Frank Dalene______ Frank Dalene
From: Greg Skarda [mailto:gskarda@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 12:44 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

I completely support the proposed Labor Department proposal that all investment advisors who 

advise clients on retirement investments must have a fiduciary duty toward 

those clients. The arguments by the investment advising community of increased costs and 

less choice for investors are patently self-serving and clearly spurious. Please enact the 

proposed "fiduciary duty" requirements as soon as possible.
From: Paulete Adams [mailto:paulette.adams@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:56 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB39

To Whom This May Concern:

 The purpose of this e-mail is to briefly comment on the proposed 90 day delay to the 

applicability of the Final Rule amending the claims procedure requirements applicable to ERISA-covered 

employee benefit plans that provide disability benefits. The 90 day implementation delay is not 

warranted because the insurance industry and plan administrators had the opportunity to provide input 

into the regulations during the comment period. The decision making process is now closed and the 

DOL has produced well-reasoned regulations. While the insurance industry and plan administrators 

may not agree with all of the changes to the regulations their time to provide input has passed. It is not 

fair to ask participants and beneficiaries to wait another 90 days to implement the current rules 

regulations and effectively give the insurers another comment period. The new regulations will benefit 

plan participants and beneficiaries who have patiently, and in accordance with the process, waited 

through the comment and rules issuing procedures. The participants and beneficiaries of plans now 

deserve the effects of the changes to the final rules and regulations immediately. 

 Thank you for your consideration, 

 Paulette Adams Bradham 

--

Adams Bradham P.C.

P.O. Box 5097 

Alpharetta, Georgia 30023

Phone: 770-650-4145

Fax: 770-234-5206

This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or 

entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged or 

confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are 

not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have 

received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of 

the message.
EXHIBIT 23(a)


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

To the Board of Directors
Colonial Commercial Corp.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-37025) on Form S-8 of Colonial Commercial Corp. of our report dated April
14, 2004 with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Colonial Commercial
Corp. as of December 31, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year ended December 31,
2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K
of Colonial Commercial Corp.



                                                                      Weiser LLP


April 14, 2004





<PAGE>
From: Peter Donohue [mailto:ptrdonohue@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 10:49 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

Are all u guys up there nuts??????????
#### Flemming *v.*Southern Pennsylvania Traction Company, Appellant.

*Negligence*— Street *railways*— Passenger—Alighting *from car*— Ice *on steps*— Case *for jury.*

In an action against a street railway company for personal injuries to a passenger, the case must be submitted to the j ury where the plaintiff testifies that in alighting from a car she slipped on hardened snow or ice which had accumulated on the step from a storm that ended some hours before the accident, although several witnesses for the defendant testified that a snowstorm was going on at the time the plaintiff slipped.

Argued Nov. 19, 1914.

Appeals, Nos. 251 and 252, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., June T., 1912, No. 163, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Ethel Flemming, by her father and next friend John Flemming, and John Flemming v. Southern Pennsylvania Traction Company.

Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Head, Kephart and Trexler, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Broomall, J.

At the trial the plaintiff testified that in alighting from one of defendant’s cars about 7.30 in the evening of January 26, 1912, she slipped on ice or packed snow which had accumulated on the step from a snowstorm which had ended in the middle of the day. Three witnesses for the defendant testified that a snowstorm was going on at the time of the accident.

The court submitted the case to the jury.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, John Fleming, for $778.54 and for Ethel Fleming $737.54. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was in submitting the case to the jury.

*John B. Hannum,*for appellant,

cited: Sutton v. Penna. R. R. Co., 230 Pa. 523; Fearn v. West Jersey Ferry Co., *506143 Pa. 122; Bernhart v. West Penn. R. R. Co., 159 Pa. 360; Lonyer v. Lehigh Val. R. R. Co., 196 Pa. 610.

April 19, 1915:

*John E. McDonough,*for appellees.

Under the authority of Neslie v. Second & Third St. Pass. Railway Company, 113 Pa. 300, and Sutton v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 230 Pa. 523, the question here was one for a jury.

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

Two verdicts were returned by the jury and the two appeals are presented in one argument. The plaintiff’s right to recover depended entirely on oral testimony and the controverted facts were so fairly submitted by the trial judge that no exception was taken to his charge. The appellant contends that binding instructions should have been given in its favor, and subsequently that a judgment should have been entered non obstante veredicto.

The fair preponderance of the testimony was in favor of the defendant’s claim as to the cause of the accident, and the jury might well have found that Miss Fleming was mistaken in regard to the fall of snow, and the condition of the car step when she had her accident, but her statements were positive, and under the authority of Neslie v. Second & Third St. Pass. Ry. Co., 113 Pa. 300, and Sutton v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 230 Pa. 523, the controverted facts were properly submitted to the jury.

The judgment in each case is affirmed.
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II 

No. CV-13-933

AMANDA BORDER

APPELLANT

V.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF 

HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR 

CHILD

APPELLEES 

Opinion Delivered February 12, 2014

APPEAL FROM THE GREENE

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. JV-2012-81] 

HONORABLE BARBARA HALSEY, 

JUDGE

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW GRANTED

RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge

This is a no-merit appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of appellant 

Amanda Border to her child, B.B. Border’s attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as

counsel and a no-merit brief pursuant to Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human 

Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9(i) 

(2012), asserting that there are no issues of arguable merit to support the appeal. The brief 

includes a discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination order, 

all matters in the record that might arguably support an appeal, all adverse rulings, and a 

statement as to why counsel considers each point raised as incapable of supporting a 

meritorious appeal. The clerk of this court sent a copy of the brief and motion to Border, 

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 116
2 

advising her that she had the right to file pro se points for reversal. Border did not 

respond.

After careful review of the record in accordance with Rule 6-9(i) of the Rules of 

the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, we hold that this appeal lacks merit. 

Counsel complied with our requirements for no-merit termination cases, and we affirm by 

memorandum opinion. In Re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 

(1985); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 5-2(e).

Affirmed; motion to withdraw as counsel granted.

GLADWIN, C.J., and BROWN, J., agree. 

Deborah R. Sallings, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, for appellant. 

No response.

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 116
null

493.37497
# THE NATIONAL BRICK RESEARCH CENTER 

# N ATI 

# O NAL 100 Clemson Research Blvd. (3 IZ I C K Anderson, SC 29625 

# Ak

C'ENTER 

### (864)656-1095 AASH70 R18 ACCREDITED tA80RATORY Chloride Mass Balance Report
COMPANY INFORMATION Name: Glen-Gery Corporation Plant: Glen-Gery Corporation Route 61 Shoemakersville, PA 19555 Report Name: Chloride Mass Balance Technician: Taghi Darroudi Al Mark Young 

### RESULTS Chloride Potential HCI Concentration HCI Content Potential HCI Emissions (Dry Sample) (Dry Sample) Emissions Ng (per ton) Ibs Ng CI-/g fired Ng HCl/g HCl/g fired HCl/ton of LOT (%) clay fired clay clay fired Test Date L-5062 Dried 5.67 46.73 48.04 May 29, 2007 L-5062 Fired 0.00 0.00 48.04 0.10 L5063-001 5.95 45.08 46.35 May 29, 2007 Dried L5063-001 17.17 17.65 28.70 0.06 

### Fired L5063-101 5.85 39.71 40.82 May 29, 2007 

### Dried L5063-101 21.17 21.76 19.06 0.04 Fired

CERTIFICATION

~ .

~ 

## ; + `

~ 

## ' ,vl ~'~ r•~ J ~ ,. C

~ ,f.' ~ 4'r''Y ~ ''k^..,... ~
Denis Brosnan, Director Jim Frederic, Associate Director Lab Reference: #2006, #2009

# THE NATIONAL BRICK RESEARCH 

# N ATIONAL CENTER 100 Clemson Research Blvd. 

# Ak 1-i IZ I C K Anderson, SC 29625 PESEAR('11 ('I-"N'[[;R 

### (864)656-1095 AASHTO R18 ACCREDITED LABORATORY 

### Fluoride Mass Baiance Report COMPANY INFORMATION Name: Glen-Gery Corporation Report Name: Fluoride Mass Balance

~~ 

### -



# eAir' 1w4

... ~



### ~ RESULTS Plant: Glen-Gery Corporation Route 61 Shoemakersville, PA 19555 Technician: Taghi Darroudi



### Mark Young

Potential HF Potential HF Emissions ug Emissions Ib. Fluoride Equivalent HF /g fired HF / ton fired LOI (%) (ug/g) HF ug/g clay clay Test Date L-5062 Dried 5.67 690.84 727.46 May 29, 2007 L-5062 Fired 0.00 0.00 727.46 1.45 L5063-001 5.95 687.88 724.34 May 29, 2007 Dried L5063-001 284.75 299.85 424.49 0.85 

### Fired L5063-101 5.85 695.36 732.22 May 29, 2007 Dried L5063-101 277.11 291.80 440.42 0.88 Fired

CERTIFICATION

• ~ ~r~';~ ~ '~ . :, , ~ ,~ : ,, ~.~ ,:; ~ . ~ i'1 ~ . 7 ;+ ~v;~~ Q/ `Ci-

— ~`~~~~~ .. •

~` ~~%~r;~
Denis Brosnan, Director Jim Frederic, Associate Director Lab Reference: #2006, #2009
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 01595

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

01595\01595_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

01595\01595_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

01595\01595_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 01595\01595_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01595\01595_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01595\01595_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01595\01595_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01595\01595_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01595\01595_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01595\01595_PartF.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01595\01595_PartG.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01595\1595_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 01595\Correspondence with Plant ID 1595.doc.pdf email correspondence with plant

x 01595\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01595_ Part A section 5 question A5-2 MAP-1 Riverside 1595.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01595\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01595_ Part A section 5 question A5-3 WB-1 Riverside 1595.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7036 DOMINIC SABBIA,

Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 08-3638. ON MOTION Before GAJARSA, FRIEDMAN, and LINN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves for an extension of time and moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and dismiss this appeal as premature. Dominic Sabbia opposes both motions. On November 21, 2008, Sabbia filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims' November 12, 2008 order. The docket sheet of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims indicates that the November 12 order is a notice of docketing and that proceedings are ongoing in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Sabbia contends that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has made a constructive final decision and requests that the court award benefits to him, his mother,and his children immediately. However, Sabbia does not explain how the Court of

Appeals for Veterans Claims made a "constructive final decision." The court notes that Sabbia filed his notice of appeal seeking review by this court only fifteen days after his notice of appeal seeking review by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim was filed. This court's jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing final decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. In this case, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has not issued a final decision. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The Secretary's motions are granted. The appeal is dismissed. Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT 

# MAY - 5 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date

cc: Dominic Sabbia Jessica R. Toplin, Esq. s17 Jan Horbaly Clerk 64U Till F

MAY -5 2009

an, CliRK ISSUED AS A MANDATE: 

# MAY - 5 2009

2009-7036 2
Exhibit 34.4


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of FirstEnergy Service Company:





We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying “Report on assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria for Asset-Backed Securities”, that FirstEnergy Service Company (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Company acted as servicer involving phase-in recovery property (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii-iv), 1122(d)(2)(iii-vi), 1122(d)(3)(ii, iii), 1122(d)(4)(iii, v, vi, viii, ix, xi-xiii, xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform or the servicing activities are applicable to the Platform but are excluded from the scope of management's assertion and are not reported on herein.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.











/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





March 29, 2016