alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 2, 2015

Mr. Vasiley Udolkin

11041 Southwest 143 rd Court

Miami, FL 33186

Dear Mr. Udolkin :

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

§ § 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1)

and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b ) of 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 n o t Process Your Request

We received your July 10, 2015

, exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2847 , but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t 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 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.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dminist ration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

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.

If We Do Not Hear From You

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

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
#### Henry Steers, *Respondent, v.*The City of Brooklyn, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Dykman, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
Before the Third Division,

July 29, 1943

No. 48606.

#### Petition 6280-R of Young’s Market Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared that the bottles in question were entered at the invoice value and were so appraised but that after appraisement it was discovered that certain packing charges which appeared on another portion of the invoice had not been considered at the time of entry and appraisement. The •collector filed an appeal and the value of the merchandise was advanced by the .addition of the packing charges. The traffic manager of the importing firm testified he was familiar with the shipment, that he passed the papers over to the customs broker to make the entry, and had no reason to believe that the valuation of the merchandise included packing or that it was different from that shown on the invoice. He further testified that the merchandise was entered according to instructions given to the customs broker. The only other witness was the party who made the entry as customs broker, and he stated, among other things, that his failure to include the packing charges in the entered value was due to oversight. Following *Linen Thread Co.*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 395, T. D. 41322) the petition was granted.
No.  00000                                                                SHARES


                            DIGITAL ROOSTER.COM INC.

              AMALGAMATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO


THIS  CERTIFIES  THAT                                          CUSIP 25388G 10 3


is  the  Registered  owner  of                                        fully paid
and  non-assessable  Common  shares  without  par  value in the Capital Stock of

                            DIGITAL ROOSTER.COM INC.

transferable only on the books of the Company by such registered owner in person
or  by  attorney  upon  surrender  of  this  Certificate  properly  endorsed.

      This  Certificate  is  not  valid  until countersigned by the Transfer
      Agent  and  Registrar  of  the  Company.

      IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF the said Company has caused this Certificate to be
      signed  by  its  duly  authorized  officers.

DATED


EXECUTIVE  VICE  PRESIDENT                    PRESIDENT

The  shares  represented  by  this certificate are transferable at the principal
office  of  Montreal  Trust  Company  of  Canada,  in  Toronto.



COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED
       MONTREAL TRUST COMPANY OF CANADA                    TORONTO
                 TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR

BY______________________________________________________
                              AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE


<PAGE>
     For Value Received ________________ hereby sell, assign and transfer to you

                              -------------------------------------------------
                              |                                               |
                              -------------------------------------------------
                             PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER OF TRANSFEREE

________________________________________________________________________________
            PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS OF TRANSFEREE

________________________________________________________________________________


________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________Shares
of  the  Capital  Stock  represented  by  the  within Certificate, and do hereby
irrevocably  constitute  and  appoint

________________________________________________________________________Attorney
to  transfer  the said Stock on the Books of the within named Company, with full
power  of  substitution  in  the  premises.



Dated______________________________



                        ________________________________________________________



In presence of


___________________________________________________


<PAGE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Ronald B Kalich, certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FastenTech, 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 this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter 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 and material weaknesses 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 4, 2006 |  |                                      
|                     |  | /s/ Ronald B. Kalich                 
|                     |  | Ronald B. Kalich                     
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  | FastenTech, Inc.                     



33
No. 40256.

#### Protest 948189-G of Amtorg Trading Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Penicle*(24 C. C. P. A. 436, T. D. 48901) peppermint leaves were held free of duty under paragraph 1722 as claimed.
#### THE BOROUGH OF TOTOWA, RESPONDENT, v. THE STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT ET AL., APPELLANTS.

Submitted December 9, 1918

Decided February 6, 1919.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following *per curiam*was filed:

“The borough of Totowa levied an assessment for taxes to the extent of $35,000 on the property of the Mausoleum Builders of New Jersey, which the county board of taxes canceled, and on appeal to the state board it affirmed the cancellation notwithstanding that the Court of Errors and Appeals of this state had declared that this identical property was subject to taxation. The ground upon which the state board rests its action is a statute of 1916, page 477, which provides, section 6, that All mausoleums, vaults, crypts or structures intended to hold or to contain the bodies of the dead, now erected or which may hereafter be erected and located within any duly authorized cemetery organized in accordance with the laws of the State of New Jersey, shall be exempt from taxation in like manner as such cemeteries are now exempt by law/

“The state board conceding that the act is unconstitutional so far as it confers immunity from taxation, said it was bound by its language, and therefore affirmed the action of the county board. It is our opinion that granting the act to be constitutional it does not apply to lands purchased by a corporation not a cemetery association, and that the decision of the Court of Errors and Appeals has not been affected by this new legislation. But aside from this the paragraph of the law exempting from taxation this property, is manifestly unconstitutional. Its title is An act to prescribe the conditions and restrictions under which public vaults, crypts or mausoleums for the interment of human bodies are constructed, and fixing penalties for failure to comply therewith/

*647“The section of the act which is intended to exempt from taxation is in no way germane to the subject to which the title of the act refers, which is limited to the manner of construction and penalties for failure to comply therewith, and gives no sort of intimation that exemption from taxation was the subject of the act, and the exempting paragraph has no more place there than would a charter for a railroad company.

“The order of the countjr board and of the state board should be set aside, and the original assessment affirmed.”

Eor the appellant, *Michael Dunn.*

For the respondent, *Walter E. Hudson.*

Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, White, Peppenheimer, Williams, Gardner, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— if one.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-3394

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kenneth D. Perkins

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: February 11, 2013

Filed: March 15, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

 Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Perkins appeals the sentence imposed by the District Court after he 1

pleaded guilty to escaping from the custody of the transitional halfway house where

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri. 
he was confined under a federal criminal judgment. See 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). On

appeal, he argues that because the court imposed a three-year period of supervised

release to be served after completion of an eighteen-month term of imprisonment, his

sentence is longer than necessary to serve the goals of sentencing and is thus

substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and a

sentence within a properly calculated U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range is presumed

to be reasonable, United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009). 

Perkins does not contest the Guidelines range recommended in the presentence

investigation report and adopted by the DistrictCourt. Rather, Perkins argues that his

sentence became substantively unreasonable when the court imposed a period of

supervised release to be served after his uncontested term of imprisonment. We

conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the threeyear termofsupervised release—a termthat was authorized by statute. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(a) (authorizing court to impose a term of supervised release after

imprisonment); id. § 3583(b)(2) (authorizing a term of supervised release not to

exceed three years for a Class D felony). The fact that Perkins would have preferred

a longer term of imprisonment over a term of supervised release does not render

unreasonable a presumptively reasonable sentence. 

To the extent Perkins argues that the court did not adequately consider the

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, we reject his argument and note that the District Court

stated that it had taken into consideration all of the § 3553(a) factors, particularly

Perkins’s “quite remarkably extensive record” and his apparent unwillingness to

“conform [his] conduct [to] what’s required under the law.” Sent. Tr. at 7. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

______________________________

-2-
#### BERTHA E. FEICK, EXECUTRIX, &c., RESPONDENT, v. HILL BREAD COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS.

Submitted July 8, 1918

Decided November 18, 1918.

Proceedings on prerogative writs are civil eases, and, therefore, appellate proceedings on judgment in those cases are to be prosecuted by appeals and not writs of error.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 91 *N. J. L.*486.

Eor the appellants, *Frank E. Bradner.*

For the respondent, Pitney, *Hardin & Skinner*and *Edward O. Stanley.*

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court sustaining a demurrer to an alternative writ of *mandamus*and ordering the issuance of a peremptory writ.

The respondent questions whether an appeal will lie on the ground that proceedings on prerogative writs are not governed by the Practice act of 1912. *Pamph. L., p.*374 . This *514is a misconception. The contention of counsel is doubtless based on section 3 of that act, which provides that there shall be but one form of civil action in common law courts which shall be denominated "action at law,” but which shall not apply to proceedings on prerogative writs. That simply means that rules to show cause, writs, &c., in proceedings in the court of, first instance shall obtain as theretofore, but has nothing to do with appeals from judgments in those proceedings.

The Practice act of 1912 *(Pamph. L., p.*382, § 25) provides that writs of error in civil cases are abolished and that in lieu an appeal may be taken in any case in which the appellant would theretofore have been entitled to that writ. As *mandamus*is not a criminal case it must be a civil one, and, therefore, appeal and not error is the only allowable appellate proceeding under that act.

On the meritorious questions involved, the Supreme Court, in our opinion, reached the right result, and the judgment under review herein will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Kalisch in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— None.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


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





The
      undersigned, Xiaoling Li, Chief Financial Officer of CHINA NEW ENERGY GROUP
      COMPANY (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.  The
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the
“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  Information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 14th
      day of August 2008.


/s/
                  Xiaoling LiXiaoling
                  LiChief
                  Financial Officer(Principal
                  Financial Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      China New Energy Group Company and will be retained by China New Energy Group
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.





The
      forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      and
      is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
      made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
      language in such filing.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Calypso Financial Services,  Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Edward F. Cowle, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of the
     Company.


/s/ Edward F. Cowle
----------------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Principal Accounting Officer
October 1, 2004

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT 31.1





CERTIFICATION





I, Todd Sterck, certify that:





(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form Strategic Mining Corp.;





(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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





(4) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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;





(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’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





(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and





(5) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date: April 15, 2011





/s/ Todd SterckTodd SterckChief Executive Officer,

Chief Financial Officer and Director