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

[Federal Register: April 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 83)]
[Notices]               
[Page 22891]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30ap10-157]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

 
Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending April 17, 2010

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions To Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0093.
    Date Filed: April 13, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion To Modify 
Scope: May 4, 2010.
    Description: Application of Open Joint Stock Company Transaero 
Airlines (``Transaero'') requesting an foreign air carrier permit and 
exemption authorizing Transaero to provide: (i) Scheduled foreign air 
transportation of persons, property and mail between Moscow, Russian 
Federation, on the one hand, and New York, New York and Miami, Florida, 
on the other hand; and (ii) charter foreign air transportation of 
persons, property and mail between a point(s) in the Russian 
Federation, on the one hand, and a point(s) in the United States, on 
the other hand, and other charter flights as permitted.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2005-21533.
    Date Filed: April 12, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion To Modify 
Scope: May 3, 2010.
    Description: Application of Friendship Airways, Inc., d/b/a Yellow 
Air Taxi reapplying for issuance of commuter air authority to enable 
Yellow Air Taxi to engage in interstate and foreign scheduled air 
transportation operations utilizing small aircraft.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-10094 Filed 4-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
/Letterhead/

                             Schvaneveldt & Company
                          Certified Public Accountant
                          275 East South Temple, #300
                           Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
                                  (801) 521-2392


Darrell T. Schvaneveldt, C.P.A.

                           Consent of Independent Auditor
                           ------------------------------


     I consent to the use of my financial statements dated April 6, 1998, for
Appalachian Oil & Gas Company, Inc. at June 30, 1996 in the Form 10KSB
filing and the reference made to me therein.


/S/ Schvaneveldt & Company
--------------------------
April 21, 1998
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

GERALD L. ROGERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASIA EUROPE AMERICAS BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1483-MJP

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DIRECTING INSTITUTION TO

CALCULATE, COLLECT, AND

FORWARD PAYMENTS

Plaintiff Gerald L. Rogers has filed an action to proceed in forma pauperis in this 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having reviewed that application, the court finds and ORDERS: 

(1) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. As set forth

below, an initial partial filing fee will be collected, and thereafter each month plaintiff is

required to pay 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his account until

the full amount of the filing fee is satisfied.

(2) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and plaintiff’s approved application to proceed in

forma pauperis, the agency having custody of the above named plaintiff is directed to calculate

an initial partial filing fee equal to 20 percent of the greater of either: (1) the average monthly

Case 2:05-cv-01483-MJP Document 4 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER

PAGE -2

deposits to the prisoner’s account; or (2) the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account

for the 6-month period immediately preceding the date of this Order. The initial partial filing fee

should be forwarded to the court clerk as soon as practicable.

Subsequently, if the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, each month the financial officer

of the correctional facility is directed to collect and forward payments equal to 20 percent of the

prisoner’s preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account. In the event that the

monthly payment would reduce the prisoner’s account below $10.00, the financial officer should

collect and forward only that amount which would reduce the prisoner’s account to the $10.00

level. Please note that this $10.00 limit does not apply to the initial partial filing fee described

above. Finally, the monthly payments should be collected and forwarded to the court until the

entire filing fee ($250.00) for this matter has been paid.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff and to the financial

officer of the correctional facility.

DATED this 29th day of September 

A

, 2005.

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01483-MJP Document 4 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2
From: dagmar@kc.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:19:26 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Dagmar Wood

Kansas City, MO 64152
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David Trick, as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(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/ David Trick
|Name:           |  | David Trick                                                    
|Title:          |  | Senior Managing Director, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|Date:           |  | August 9, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                   1,422,522
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                            540,000
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         1,962,522
<PP&E>                                   24,860,645
<DEPRECIATION>                           9,608,586
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           17,555,456
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    763,252
<BONDS>                                  0
<COMMON>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<OTHER-SE>                               16,772,286
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             17,555,456
<SALES>                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,996,667
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         2,928,440
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (582,087)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (582,087)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                             (582,087)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        

</TABLE>
BOSCH, KUHR, DUGDALE, MARTIN & KAZE, PLLP A Professional Limited Liability Partnership 

BURTON 0. BOSCH (1931-2007) 

JOHN B. KUHR (1931-2003) 

BRADLEY E. DUGDALE 

RONALD MARTIN (1937-1998) 

JAMES M. KAZE 

ATIORNEYS AND COUNSELORS 

335 FOURTH AVENUE 

KEITH A. MARISTUEN 

BRIAN LILLETVEDT 

STEPHEN R. BROWN 

MARY ANN MOOG 

GLENN G. MACLEOD 

JAMIE N. BEDWELL 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

P.O. BOX 7152 

HAVRE, MONTANA 59501 

February 23, 2016 

TELEPHONE 

( 406) 265-6706 

TELEFAX NUMBER 

(406) 265-7578 

E-MAIL 

blilletvedt@bkdlaw.org 

RE: Safer Medical of Montana, Inc. and George Ackerson v. City of Fort 

Benton, Montana, Chouteau County, Montana, and Chouteau County 

Joint Airport Board 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-12 

To Whom it May Concern: 

COMES NOW Respondent, City of Fort Benton, Montana by and through its counsel of 

record, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.19(e) and moves for an extension of time to file its 

Answer to the Complaint until Monday, February 29, 2016. Said Motion is based upon 

the grounds and for the reasons that Counsel for the Respondent, City of Fort Benton is 

dealing with a recent medical issue requiring him to be away from his office. 

Counsel for Respondent, City of Fort Benton, has contacted Counsel for Safer Medical 

of Montana and Counsel for Chouteau County Montana and Chouteau County Airport 

Board and advised them of this Motion. Counsel for Safer Medical of Montana and 

Counsel for Chouteau County Montana and Chouteau County Airport Board have no 

objection to the Motion for an extension of time. 

For the above stated reasons and without objection from opposing counsel, 

Respondent, City of Fort Benton, request this Motion be granted. 

Sincerely, 

~~ Brian ffietvedt . 

Attorney for the City of Fort Benton 
Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-1 2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Respondent City of Fort 

Benton, Montana's Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer on the following persons 

at the following addresses or email addresses by electronic mail: 

Adrian A. Miller 

Holland & Hart LLP 

401 North31 51 St. 

Suite 1500 

P.O. Box 639 

Billings, MT 591 03-0639 

AAMiller@hollandhart.com 

Mitchell A. Young 

2717 Skyway Drive, Suite F 

Helena, MT 59602 

myoung@mtcounties.org 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk, AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov 

Dated this 23rd day of February, 2016. 

Emily Hars an 

For the City of Fort Benton
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Defendant also requests that the Court appoint counsel, which the Court will address in

a separate order.

ORDER DENYING REQUEST - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

SHAREBUILDER SECURITIES

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHERINE RUDY, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1568RSL

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

ALTER COURT DATES

This matter comes before the Court on a letter sent by defendant Katherine Putnam, also

known as Katherine Rudy. In the letter, defendant is “asking the court . . . if we can possibly

have the court date moved to a future date.”1

 The Court construes the request as a motion, but

denies the motion. 

If defendant seeks relief from this Court, she must file a motion, and the motion must

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules, particularly Local Rules

7 and 10. The Local Rules can be accessed on the Court’s website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

Furthermore, defendant’s request is too vague to notify the Court and plaintiff regarding what is

Case 2:05-cv-01568-RSL Document 23 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER DENYING REQUEST - 2

sought. If defendant seeks an extension of a pending deadline or date, her motion should specify

the date(s) and provide good cause for an extension. 

DATED this 5th day of January, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01568-RSL Document 23 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 2
#### Phillip V. RANGE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, Respondent.

No. 00-3324.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: July 13, 2001.

Before RADER, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and DYK, Circuit Judge.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
From: kjbmdb@nc.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:38:04 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Brown

Fayetteville, NC 28314
```

[114th Congress Public Law 40]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 129 STAT. 441]]

Public Law 114-40
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide Medicare 
  beneficiary access to eye tracking accessories for speech generating 
devices and to remove the rental cap for durable medical equipment under 
         the Medicare Program with respect to speech generating 
              devices. <<NOTE: July 30, 2015 -  [S. 984]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Steve Gleason 
Act of 2015.>> 
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 42 USC 1305 note.>>  SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Steve Gleason Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. PROVIDING MEDICARE BENEFICIARY ACCESS TO EYE TRACKING 
                    ACCESSORIES FOR SPEECH GENERATING DEVICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1861(n) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395x(n)) is amended by inserting ``and eye tracking and gaze 
interaction accessories for speech generating devices furnished to 
individuals with a demonstrated medical need for such accessories'' 
after ``appropriate organizations)''.
    (b) <<NOTE: 42 USC 1395x note.>> Effective Date.--The amendment made 
by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to devices furnished on or 
after January 1, 2016.
SEC. 3. REMOVING THE RENTAL CAP FOR DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 
                    UNDER MEDICARE WITH RESPECT TO SPEECH 
                    GENERATING DEVICES.

    Section 1834(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395m(a)(2)(A)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in clause (iii), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
            (3) by inserting after clause (iii) the following new 
        clause:
                          ``(iv) <<NOTE: Time period.>>  in the case of 
                      devices furnished on or after October 1, 2015, and 
                      before October 1, 2018, which serves as a speech 
                      generating device or which is an

[[Page 129 STAT. 442]]

                      accessory that is needed for the individual to 
                      effectively utilize such a device,''.

    Approved July 30, 2015.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 984:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 114-178, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Ways and Means).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015):
            Apr. 22, considered and passed Senate.
            July 15, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

REBECCA A. REINERTSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security

Defendants.

CASE NO. C02-1646-RSM

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed the Plaintiff’s Motions for Attorney fees, the Report and

Recommendation of the Honorable Monica J. Benton, United States Magistrate Judge, and the

remaining record, finds and Orders as follows:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Dkt. # 29) is GRANTED in the

amount of $12,403.90 in fees, $820.70 in costs and 236.47 in expenses and, for

attorneys fees for Croil Anderson in the amount of $4,606.62 along with $192.54

in costs and $112.15 in expenses; 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for

defendants, and the Hon. Monica J. Benton.

DATED this 6 day of June , 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:02-cv-01646-RSM Document 44 Filed 06/06/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          14,095
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  142,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               248,799
<PP&E>                                       1,899,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,792,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          232,495
<BONDS>                                      1,661,890
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,845
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,792,142
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               172,214
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               127,843
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,661
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,911
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,750
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,750
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>