alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 2 0 , 2016

Exemption No. 15462 A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 5788

Mr. Timothy A. Worthy

Tango Whiskey Innovations LLC

1212 Knoll Ridge Drive

Cedar Park, TX 78613

Dear Mr. Worthy :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter posted to the public dock et on July 22, 2016 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Tango Whiskey Innovations LLC (hereinafter petitioner

or operator) for an amendment to your current exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a)

and ( c ), 61.101(e)(4 ) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a) , 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1),

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) allows the petitioner to conduct UAS operations

. You

requested an amendment to change the company name from Tango Whiskey Concepts LLC to

Tango Whiskey Innovations LLC.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 15462

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained2

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is

granted an amendment to change the operator name

.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, Tango Whiskey Innovations LLC is hereafter referred to as the

operator. All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 15462 remain in

effect

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

T his exemption terminates on March 31, 2018 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

John S. Duncan

Di rector, Flight Standards Service
# C_2007255EN.01003102.xml

| 27.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/31

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4885 — Ineos/Nova/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 255/06)

On 28 September 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4885. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4885. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
EXHIBIT 12

<TABLE>

                TRANSAMERICA FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
         COMPUTATION OF CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
<CAPTION>


                                                   Nine Months Ended September 30,
                                                        1999              1998
                                                     (Dollar amounts in millions)
<S>                                                  <C>                <C>

Fixed charges:
         Interest and debt expense                   $   327.5          $  279.9
         One-third of rental expense                      18.0              18.9
                                                     ---------          --------

Total                                                $   345.5          $  298.8
                                                     =========          ========

Earnings:
         Net income                                  $   102.8          $   97.3
         Provision for income taxes                       66.1              59.8
         Fixed charges                                   345.5             298.8
                                                     ---------          --------

         Total                                       $   514.4          $  455.9
                                                     =========          ========


Consolidated ratio of earnings
      to fixed charges                                    1.49              1.53
                                                          ====              ====
</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Carl E. Sassano, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Transcat, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Transcat, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: February 6, 2007/s/ Carl E. Sassano  Carl E. Sassano   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Tokheim
Corporation's May 31, 1996, quarterly financial statements and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000098559
<NAME> TOKHEIM CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
        
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1996
<CASH>                                            2005
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    38668
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1138)
<INVENTORY>                                      38776<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 80830
<PP&E>                                           84289<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                   56917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  118897
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            37372
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             7134<F3>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         18903<F4>
<OTHER-SE>                                         169<F5>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    118897
<SALES>                                         107167
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                107167
<CGS>                                            81356<F6>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    81356<F6>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (506)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (132)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (132)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
<FN>
<F1>Represents gross intentory net of LIFO and loss reserves.
<F2>Represents gross PP&E.
<F3>Represents redeemable preferred stock of $24,000 less Guaranteed ESOP of
$12,761 and treasury stock of $4,105.
<F4>Represents common stock of $19,409 less Guaranteed ESOP of $303 and treasury
stock of $203.
<F5>Represents retained earnings of $8,796 less minimum pension liability of
$3,868 and foreign currency translation adjustments of $4,759.
<F6>Includes product development expenses and excludes depreciation.
</FN>
         

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Brant Meleski, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of InfraREIT, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of InfraREIT, Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 18, 2015 |  |  |  | /s/ Brant Meleski                                
|                     |  |  |  | Brant Meleski                                    
|                     |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                     |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)                    

The foregoing certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of InfraREIT, Inc. under Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language of such filing.
No. 59159.

protest 247137-K (New York).

#### Epstein’s, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**Chief FinancialOfficer Certification**

 

I, Daniel R. Bartholomew, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Trinity Capital Corporation;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officersand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a)             Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)            Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)             Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting, and;

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)             All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)            Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 
| Date: August 6, 2004 | /s/ DANIEL R. BARTHOLOMEW |   |
|---------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                      | Daniel R. Bartholomew     |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

1

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ZINA HALFKENNY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Civil Action 2:11-CV-1145 

 Judge Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge King 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

ORDER

 On January 31, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge 

recommended that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed and that 

this action be dismissed. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 15. 

Although the parties were advised of their right to object to that 

recommendation and of the consequences of their failure to do so, 

there has been no objection. 

 The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 154, is ADOPTED AND 

AFFIRMED. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is 

AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED. 

 The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT pursuant to 

Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley 

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cv-01145-ALM-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 02/20/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 48681.

#### Protests 10326-K, etc., of Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
- fplr2248-1
- fplr2248-2
- fplr2248-3
- fplr2248-4
- fplr2248-5
- fplr2248-6
- fplr2248-7
- fplr2248-8
- fplr2248-9
- fplr2248-10
- fplr2248-11
- fplr2248-12
- fplr2248-13
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-0158V

Filed: December 7, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

MARGERY HEBDEN,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria 

acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.

Jeffrey T. Sprague, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On January 31, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving the tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis 

(“Tdap”) vaccine on June 24, 2017. Petition at 1, ¶ 5. Petitioner further alleges that she 

received the vaccination in the United States, suffered the residual effects of her injury 

for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action 

or received compensation for her injury, alleged as vaccine caused. Id. at 1, ¶¶ 13, 15. 

The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
On December 7, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury 

is consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as 

defined on the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “based 

on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for 

compensation under the Act.” Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1135

LEONNEL CEDRICK YONTA,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: October 1, 2008

Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Danielle L. C. Beach-Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOC.,

PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting

Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant

Director, Paul T. Cygnarowicz, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Leonnel Cedrick Yonta, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial

of his applications for relief from removal. Yonta first

challenges the finding that he failed to show changed or

extraordinary circumstances justifying the untimely filing of his

asylum application. We have reviewed Yonta’s claims and conclude

that we lack jurisdiction to review them. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(a)(3) (2006); Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5 (4th

Cir. 2007); Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 747-48 (6th Cir.

2006) (collecting cases). 

Next, Yonta challenges the finding below that he failed

to qualify for withholding of removal. “To qualify for withholding

of removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a clear

probability of persecution because of his race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political

opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002)

(citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Having conducted

our review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the

finding that Yonta did not establish eligibility for withholding of

removal. Finally, we uphold the finding below that Yonta failed to

demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be

tortured if removed to Cameroon. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008).
3

Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the

petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART
Exhibit 11.1

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

The following information sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net increase in net assets per share resulting from operations for
the year ended December 31, 2016:



|                                                                    |  |   |            | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | - | ---------- | 
|Numerator for increase in net assets per share  basic and diluted: |  | $ | 24,252     | 
|Denominator for basic weighted average shares:                      |  |   | 12,869,937 | 
|Earnings per share  basic and diluted:                             |  | $ | 1.88       |