alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FAA Exemption Request Exhibit E January 19, 2016
From: AMK Services, To: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Attn: Mr. Anthony Foxx Secretary of Transportation West Building Ground Floor, Room w12
- 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590
- 001 **SUBJE CT:**  **LICENSED PILOT INFOR MATION FOR ROBERT**  **BAILEY** Dear Sir Below is the license information for Robert Bail ey . He is currently on retainer for AMK Services in the event that a licensed pilot is necessary for the ground and air operation of the Phantom 2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) System. His contact information is also included in the event you have any questions or concerns. Name: Robert I Bailey Commercial Airline Certificate: Airline Transport Pilot # 2798873 Medical Certificate: First Class, issu ed 01/20/2015 Contact Information: Tel (941) 276
- 5488 Email: rbailey932@yahoo.com

**Trevis,	Stamper AMK	Services,	LLC**  9291	Crouse	Willison	Rd. Johnstown,	OH	43031 740.202
- 3024 (o) 317.774.1869 (f)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19989]



[[Page 40734]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter A


Acquisition

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This rule is published to give the heading ``Acquisition'' for 
32 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter A. On April 10, 1997 (62 FR 17549), the 
Department of Defense added to subchapter A a new regulation on 
criteria for nominating an acquisition program as a participant in the 
Defense Acquisition Pilot Program. This rule correctly designates a 
heading for subchapter A which was inadvertently omitted in the April 
10 regulation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
L. Bynum or P. Toppings, 703-697-4111.

SUBCHAPTER A--ACQUISITION

    By the authority of 10 U.S.C. 301, the heading for 32 CFR Chapter 
I, Subchapter A is added as set forth above.

    Dated: July 23, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-19989 Filed 7-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-01-M
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Emageon 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; andc)
    
    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
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies 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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Charles A. Jett, Jr.Charles A. Jett, Jr.Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

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 Shallbetter Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Anthony C. Y. Chow, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

> 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Anthony C.Y. Chow



 Anthony C.Y. Chow,

 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

May 14, 2004
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Huifeng Bio-Pharmaceutical Technology
Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of, I, Sanding Tao, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




1. The
Report 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.




Date:
November 13, 2009





/S/
      Sanding TaoSanding
      Tao
              Chief
      Financial Officer




This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not deemed filed by the Company and is not to
be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after
the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
Blairsville, Georgia

\\alismurphy\home\mprlm\projects\landplan\maps\Nottely_land_plan\Nottely_land_plan_for_web.mxd

/

Tile: C5

Jul 24, 2008 Nottely Reservoir

Land Management Plan

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Feet
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4048-4049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2031]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1155-DR]


California; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of California, (FEMA-155-DR), dated January 4, 1997, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Magda Ruiz Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of California, is hereby amended to include the following area among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of January 4, 1997.


[[Page 4049]]


    The County of Santa Clara for Individual Assistance and debris 
removal and emergency protective measures under the Public 
Assistance program.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance.)
Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 97-2031 Filed 1-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-M
May 11, 1944

No. 6008.

#### Nicholas *Gal et al.*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. Reap. Dec. 6995. Motion by plaintiff.
October 16, 1941

No. 46490.

#### Protest 979919-G of Gardex, Inc.

C. D. 524. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
Helicopters, Inc. 

993 River Currents Drive 

Memphis, TN3S103 

United States 

•-^'^t l OPERATIONS 

2m ore 29 A q.-s^ 

December 19, 2011 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

To Whom-lt May Concern: 

Helicopters, Inc. would like to request a waiver to the drug and alcohol testing regulation 

14 CFR part 120. Our company is a part 119 air carrier that is authorized to operate 

under part 91.147 and part 135. 

In accordance with FAA regulation 14 CFR part 120, Helicopters, Inc. is required to 

operate two different FAA-mandated drug and alcohol testing programs (one for part 

91.147 and one for part 135) in order to meet the requirements of this subpart. We 

request that a waiver be provided for Helicopters, Inc. to operate only one drug and 

alcohol testing program under part 135. 

The time and costs associated with managing two, redundant drug and alcohol testing 

programs in burdensome to Helicopters, Inc. The time and costs associated with the 

oversight of Helicopters, Inc.'s two drug and alcohol testing programs is also 

burdensome to the FAA Drug Abatement Division. 

Helicopters, Inc. is a small business with no history of positive drug or alcohol tests. We 

also maintain a DOT PHMSA drug testing program for the work we do providing the 

aerial patrol of natural gas and chemical pipelines. Since Helicopters, Inc. is required to 

manage two FAA drug and alcohol testing programs and one PHMSA drug testing 

-pFogramr-we-do-not-beiieve-that-an-exemption-from-the-FAA-part 91r147-drug-andalcohol testing program will adversely affect the safety of our operations. 

In summary, since Helicopters, Inc. currently manages two FAA drug and alcohol testing 

programs under part 91.147 and part 135, we would like to request a waiver to operate 

only one drug and alcohol testing program in accordance with 14 CFR part 120. 

Sincerely, 

Justin Breeden 

Secretary / Treasurer 

Helicopters, Inc.
No. 00-6563.

#### Lau *v.*Sullivan County District Attorney et al.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         138,293
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  198,891
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,745
<INVENTORY>                                    222,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               559,358
<PP&E>                                       2,577,145
<DEPRECIATION>                               (182,026)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,934,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,088,916
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,000,000
<COMMON>                                     1,996,607
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,960,049
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,934,586
<SALES>                                        878,842
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               878,842
<CGS>                                          841,275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  454,448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,364,998
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               353,937
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             223,592
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,173,021)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,448,767)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (2,724,254)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,173,021)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
#### Irving WALDMAN and North Miami General Hospital, Appellants, v. Harry FRANKEL, as Administrator of the Estate of Mary Frankel, Deceased, and Harry Frankel, Individually, Appellees.

No. 76-2166.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 29, 1977.

Hastings & Goldman and Samuel Z. Goldman, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Michael L. Lechtman, Miami, for appel-lees.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and HAVER-FIELD and HUBBART, JJ.

HAVERFIELD, Judge.

Defendants appeal an order denying their motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

*1326On January 16, 1969 plaintiffs, Mary (now deceased) and Harry Prankel, filed a malpractice action against defendant-appellants, Dr. Irving Waldman and North Miami General Hospital, Inc. The cause was set down for trial on September 9, 1974; however, prior thereto, on September 5 plaintiffs filed a motion for continuance, and their attorney filed a motion for leave to withdraw. These motions were granted on September 13. On September 5, 1975 Stephen Hertz as attorney for plaintiffs filed a notice of appearance along with a set of interrogatories directed to defendant Dr. Waldman. After a lapse of almost one year, plaintiffs on September 2,1976 filed a motion to compel answers to interrogatories but omitted any notice of hearing thereon. On September 8 Dr. Waldman and North Miami General filed motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.420(e). On September 10 plaintiffs filed a notice of hearing on their September 2 motion to compel. After several hearings on the motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute and the filing of memoranda of law with respect thereto, the trial judge denied these motions to dismiss and defendants appeal the order of denial. We affirm.

A ruling on a motion for order of dismissal for failure to prosecute is subject to attack only on the ground that it constitutes an abuse of discretion and this heavy burden rests with the losing party, in this case the defendants. *Popkin v. Críspen,*213 So.2d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); *Eli Einbinder, Inc. v. Miami Crystal Ice Co.,*317 So.2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Furthermore, judicial restraint should be practiced in the court’s inherent power to dismiss actions for want of prosecution to the end that persons have the guarantee and privilege of having their cause adjudicated. *Popkin v. Crispen, supra.*

Turning to the instant case, we find that plaintiffs’ motion to compel answers to interrogatories constituted sufficient record activity. See, e. g. *Musselman Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Badziwon,*263 So.2d 221 (Fla.1972). In addition, defendant Dr. Waldman’s failure to answer the interrogatories attributed to the delay in bringing this cause to trial. Cf. *Grossman v. Segal,*270 So.2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

No abuse of discretion has been demonstrated by the defendants and, therefore, the order denying their motions to dismiss is affirmed.

Affirmed.
No. 46524.

#### Protest 867168-G of New York Merchandise Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 37636 the wooden cabinets in question were held dutiable at 33)4 percent under paragraph 412 as claimed.
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that th i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e li m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCUIT

N o . 0 8 -1 0 7 5 3 c/w N o. 08- 10854 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t if f
- A pp el l ee v. SER G I O CA RR ASC O
- FLO RE S D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 6 : 0 8 - CR- 6 - ALL B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d JO L LYan d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * Se r gi o Car r as c o - Fl o r e s appe al s t he 24- m o nt h se nt e nc e i m po s e d f o l l o w i ng hi s pl ea of

guil t y t o o ne c ountof unl aw f ulr ee nt r y i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326. In his sol e is sue on a pp eal , C arrasco- F l ores rai ses argu m en t s that are f orecl osed by Un i t ed S t ate s v. G om ez- Herrera , 5 2 3 F .3 d5 5 4 , 5 5 7 -6 4 (5 th C ir .), c e r t . de ni e d, 1 2 9 S . C t. 6 2 4 (20 0 8 ), w h i ch h eld th a t an y d i sp a ri ty i n sen ten ci n g b etw ee n fa stt r ac k a nd n o n- fas t - t r ac k j ur i s di c t i o ns i s af unc t i o n o f

C o ngr e s s i o nalpoli c y and

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D April30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o . 0 8 -1 0 7 5 3 c/w N o. 08- 10854

2 i s not“unw ar r ant ed” und er 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 6) . C ar r as c o- Fl or es c onc ede s as mu c h b u ta s s e r t s t h a th e w i s he s t o p r e s e rv e t h e i s s u e f o rf u r t h e rr e v i e w. C a rra sco-F l ore s ra i sedad d i ti on a lsen ten ci n g a rg u m en ts i n th e d is tri ct cou rt, w hi c h he doe s not r ai se her e. H e a l soappeal ed the r evo c at i on o f a pr evi ous lyi m p o s e dt e r m o f

s u p e rv i s e dr e l e a s e , a n dt h e t wo a p p e a l s w e r e c o n s o l i d a t e d . As th e so l e issu e ra i sedi n h i s br i ef pe rtain s to th e foreclosed fa st- track disp a ri ty a r g u m e n t, h e h a s ab a n d o n e da ll o th e ris s u e s . S eeUn itedS ta tes v. Tru jil lo , 502 F .3d3 5 3 , 3 6 0 & n .30 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). The G o ve r nm e nt ’ s m o t i o n f o rs um m ary af

f i r m anc e i s G RA N TE D , a nd the j u d gm en t of

the distri ct cou rt i s A F F IR M E D . T h e G o v e r n m e n t’ s m oti on to di sm i ss an d i t s al t erna t ive m ot i on f or an extensi on of

t i m e t o f

il e a bri ef

are D E N IE D a s u n n e c e s s a r y .
#### David Clark, plaintiff in error *vs.*Josiah Parvin, defendant in error.

*Error to Muscatine.*

A bill of exceptions, signed by by-standers at the trial, must state affirmatively the points reserved, and not what they *understood*to be the judge’s charge. A nd it must be drawn up and signed at the time.

On the trial below a bill of exceptions was tendered, which the judge declined to sign, as he did not consider that he had charged as stated by the exceptor. It was then certified to, as follows :

“ The undersigned were present at the above trial, and understood the court to charge and refuse to charge as stated above.

“J. SCOTT RICHMAN,

“A. WASHBURN,

“ J. B. BARKER.”

The defendant moved to reject the bill of exceptions :

1. Because the same was not filed till some days after the trial.

2. That the exceptions do not appear to have been taken at the trial.

3. That said bill is not signed and sealed by the judge.

4. It does not appear whether the by-stander» signed the bill at tho trial or some days after.

Whicher, for plaintiff in error.

Woodward, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam,

Masok, Chief Justice.

A motion is made in this case to reject the bill of exceptions, on the ground that it is not taken and signed in the manner prescribed by law. The objection appears to be well taken. It is signed not by the judge but by three persons who were present at the trial, who merely state that they *understood*the court to charge as therein set forth. The trial moreover took place on the twenty-eighth day of June, and the transactions in relation to the signing and filing the bill of exceptions appear to have taken place on the second day of July. Where a bill of exceptions is thus signed by by-standers, the statute should be strictly complied with. It should be drawn up and signed at the time of the trial. A party will not in such cases be permitted to wait four days and then procure three persons to *372state what they *understood*the court to charge, in opposition to the recollection of the judge who tried the cause. The motion to reject will therefore be sustained.
No. 99-1032.

#### Abbott Laboratories *v.*Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 96-1197.

#### Goehring et al. *v.*Del Junco et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of nFinanSe Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended September 29, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raymond P. Springer,
      in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







***/s/
                Raymond P. Springer***Date:   November
                9, 2007
            Raymond
                P. Springer
              Chief
                Financial Officer