alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 23, 2015

Eddie Weeks

818 Maxine Drive

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Dear Mr. Eddie Weeks:

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

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 Not Process Your Request

We received your June 22, 2015 exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA-2015-3340, but 

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not 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 specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 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 Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

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. 
2

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

Enclosures
3
4
Exhibit 10.16



ADDENDUM TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT



This Addendum (the Addendum) is entered into as of January 1, 2005, by and among NEW YORK RADIATION THERAPY
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a New York corporation (MANAGEMENT SERVICES) and YONKERS RADIATION MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C., a New York professional corporation (the PC). This Addendum amends Section 3.1 of the Administrative
Services Agreement dated January 1, 1999 between the parties (the Agreement) to adjust the monthly Service Fee of $562,500.00 paid in 2004 to a monthly Service Fee of $605,650.00, and replaces the Addendum of that same Section dated
January 1, 2004. From and after the date hereof, Section 3.1 shall read as follows:



3.1. Service Fee. For the services to be provided hereunder by MANAGEMENT SERVICES, the PC shall pay to MANAGEMENT SERVICES a
monthly Service Fee of $605,650.00. The parties agree that the Service Fee represents the fair market value of the services provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES hereunder and that the parties shall meet annually to reevaluate the value of services
provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES and shall establish the fair market value thereof for purposes of this Section 3.1.



|          |  |                                                      |  |                                   
|--------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------
|Accepted: |  | NEW YORK RADIATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC.
|          |  |                                                     
|          |  | By:                                                  |  | /s/ David Koeninger               
|          |  |                                                      |  | David Koeninger                   
|          |  |                                                      |  | Vice President and CFO            
|          | 
|Accepted: |  | YONKERS RADIATION MEDICAL PRACTICE,
P.C.            
|          |  |                                                     
|          |  | By:                                                  |  | /s/ Daniel E. Dosoretz            
|          |  |                                                      |  | Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D. President
# C_2013009EN.01003701.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/37

---

Order of the General Court of 24 October 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission

(Case T-219/12) (1)

1

(Action for annulment and damages - Public service contracts - Exclusion of the applicant from the tendering procedure - Annulment of the tendering procedure after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 9/66

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Saobraćajni institut CIP d.o.o. (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: A. Lojpur, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and E. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for, first, annulment of a contract notice published on 27 March 2012 concerning the preparation of technical documentation for a rail modernisation project, excluding the applicant from participating in the tendering procedure, and, second, damages.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

1

---
#### George Conover, appellant, *v.*Guarantee Trust Company et al., respondents.

[Decided October 11th, 1918.]

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Learning, whose opinion is reported in *88 N. J. Eq. 450.*

*Mr. William M. Clevenger,*for the respondent.

*Mr. Clarence L. Cole,*for the appellants.

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will he affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Learning.

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Heppenheimer, Williams — 9.

*For reversal*— None.
Exhibit 10.28
                                                                         Summary
                                                                     Translation
                                                                     -----------


Guaranty  Contract  signed by and between  Shenzhen BAK Battery Co.,  Ltd.  (the
"Company") and Longgang  Branch,  Shenzhen  Development  Bank (the  "Development
Bank") dated as of December 18, 2003
>>   Contract number: Shenfa Longgang bao zi No.200312057.
>>   As  guarantor,   the  Company   undertakes  to  assume  joint  and  several
     responsibilities to secure the performance of the loan agreement (principal
     contract) signed by and between Shenzhen  KuiYongZhenDa  Development Co.Ltd
     which include the loan principal,  interest, penalty interest, expenses for
     the Lender to realize its creditor's rights, and maximum secured amount for
     the loan principal is RMB10 million.
>>   Guaranty  period:  Guaranty  Contract  starts from the signing date of this
     Guaranty  Contract and ends in two years time from expiry of the  principal
     contract.

Terms that have been  omitted:  indebtedness  to be secured and maximum  amount;
commitment  of the  guarantor;  liability;  dispute  settlement;  miscellaneous;
effectiveness; validity; and attention.
No. 47700.

#### Protests 870358-G, etc., of Morris Shoenthal, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 47291 the hats or hoods in question, in chief value of ramie, not blocked or trimmed, and not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained, were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1), as claimed.
Eat Plants

How We

 A diversity of managed and native 

pollinators supports healthy wildlands 

and a nutritious food supply in North 

America. In turn, native plant communities 

that sustain pollinators are an essential 

foundation for ecosystem integrity and 

diversity. Learn more at www.pollinator.org.

 La diversidad de polinizadores nativos y 

manejados soportan el buen funcionamiento de 

las áreas naturales así como la disponibilidad 

de alimentos nutritivos en Norteamérica. Las 

comunidades de plantas nativas que sostienen 

a los polinizadores, por su parte, son la 

base escencial para el mantenimiento 

de la integridad y diversidad de los 

ecosistemas. Para más información visite

www.pollinator.org.

La présence de pollinisateurs 

domestiques et sauvages diversifiés assure 

un environnement et un approvisionnement 

alimentaire sains en Amérique du Nord. 

De même, la diversité de plantes indigènes dont 

dépendent les pollinisateurs est essentielle à 

l’intégrité de nos écosystèmes. Veuillez 

consulter pollinator.org pour de 

plus amples renseignement.

Pollinators

Honey Bee

Apis mellifera

Sweat Bee

Halictus ligatus

Stingless Bee

Melipona beecheii

Bumble Bee

Bombus impatiens

Hoverfly

Metasyrphus americanus

Lesser Long-nosed Bat

Leptonycteris yerbabuenae

Anna’s Hummingbird 

Calypte anna

Yucca Moth

Tegeticula california 

Monarch Butterfly

Danaus plexippus

Squash Bee

Peponapis pruinosa

Chocolate Midge

Forcipomyia hardyi

Fig Wasp

Pegoscapus mexicanus

Plants

Chocolate

Theobroma cacao

Blueberry

Vaccinium corymbosum

Butter Beans

Phaseolus coccineus

Tomato

Solanum lycopersicum

Strawberry

Fragaria x ananassa

Chives

Allium schoenoprasum

Strangler Fig

Ficus aurea

Chilli Peppers

Capsicum annuum

Cranberry

Vaccinium macrocarpon

Pumpkin

Cucurbita pepo

A

1 9

F

B 5

2 10

G

C 6

3 11

H

D 7

4 12

I

E J 8

A

A

B

B

C

C

1 2 3 4 5

D

D

F

F

G

G

J

J

I

I

H

H

E

E

Pollinators & Seeds

Supporting Healthy Ecosystems and Food Security

6 7

12

11

8

9

10
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Julianne M. Biagini, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, asamended, of Endwave Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date: September 23, 2005 /s/ JULIANNE M. BIAGINI   Julianne M. Biagini   Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Military Sealift Command-chartered MV Ocean Giant Arrives in Antarctica as Part of Operation Deep Freeze

By Military Sealift Command Pacific 

                SAN DIEGO  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Operation Deep FreezeMcMurdo StationMilitary Sealift CommandNational Science Foundation
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Fred L. Bradfute, Appellant.

County Court, Westchester County,

April 29, 1966.

*Ferone & Ferone*for appellant. *Leonard Rubenfeld, District Attorney (Jerome K. Karver*of counsel), for respondent.

*1093Robert J. Trainor, J.

By decision rendered on November 18, 1965 (48 Mise 2d 583), a conviction for speeding in violation of section 1-2-H of the Larchmont Village Ordinance, was reversed on the grounds that the record contained insufficient evidence of the speeding ordinance.

The testimony of the police officer on direct and cross-examination indicates the existence of signs defining the speed limit, placed at all entrances to the village, without further describing the physical makeup of the signs.

Section 1683 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law provides for the posting of signs defining the speed limit without making provision for greater specificity. Subdivisions (c) and (d) of section 1110 establish a legal presumption that a speed ordinance has been properly enacted when signs and traffic devices in approximate conformity with the Vehicle and Traffic Law have been erected.

The People are entitled to rely on the foregoing presumptions (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1110) and need not prove the enactment and filing of an ordinance in the absence of proof to the contrary by the defense. *(People*v. *Kesten,*15 N Y 2d 857.)

Reargument of the appeal on which the aforesaid decision is based is granted and on the reargument the original decision is recalled and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
# C_2012243EN.01002502.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/25

---

Action brought on 6 June 2012 — Argo Group International v OHIM — Arisa Assurances (ARIS)

(Case T-247/12)

2012/C 243/45

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Argo Group International Holdings Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda) (represented by: R. Hoy, S. Levine, and N. Edbrooke, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arisa Assurances SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul or alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 March 2012 in case R 193/2011-2, so that the applicant’s mark is registered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul or alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 March 2012 in case R 193/2011-2, so that the applicant’s mark is registered;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in colour ‘ARIS’, for goods and services in class 36 — Community trade mark application No 7390404

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 307470 of the figurative mark in colours ‘ARISA ASSURANCES S.A.’ for goods and services in class 36

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The applicant submits that OHIM and the Board erred as a matter of law in concluding that the marks are legally similar and in concluding ipso facto that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2014194EN.01002101.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2014 — Hagenmeyer and Hahn v Commission

(Case T-17/12) (1)

1

((Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Health claims made on foods - Refusal to authorise a reduction of disease risk claim - Designation of a risk factor - Lawfulness of the procedure authorising reduction of disease risk claims - Action for annulment - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons))

2014/C 194/26

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Moritz Hagenmeyer (Hamburg, Germany) and Andreas Hahn (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: T. Teufer, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and S. Grünheid, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervening party in support of the defendant: Council of the Euroepan Union (represented by: I. Šulce, Z. Kupčová and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

Intervening party in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1170/2011 of 16 November 2011 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk (OJ 2011 L 299, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Moritz Hagenmeyer and Mr Andreas Hahn to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Moritz Hagenmeyer and Mr Andreas Hahn to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

1

---
# C_2013101EN.01001802.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/18

---

Order of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Ubee Interactive v OHIM — Augere Holdings (Netherlands) (Ubee Interactive)

(Case T-407/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Opposition withdrawn - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 101/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ubee Interactive Corp. (Jhubei City, Taiwan) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Augere Holdings (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 July 2012 (Case R 1849/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Augere Holdings (Netherlands) BV and Ubee Interactive Corp.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

1

---