alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: OCTOBER 18, 2012 

lt\ \1 OCT \ q p I! 3 S 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

. IN THE MATTER OF 

LEADING EDGE AVIATION, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil PenaltyAction) 

DMS No. FAA-2012-0783 

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' DISCOVERY REQUEST 

The October 12, 2012 request of Respondent Leading Edge Aviation, Inc. 

·("Respondent") to extend the deadline for the completion of discovery to February 

28, 2013 ("Motion") is not opposed by Complainant Federal Aviation Administration 

("Complainant") in its Response of October 18, 2012. 

Respondent's Motion is hereby GRANTED. The Procedural Order of August 

27, 2012, paragraphs 2 and 3, is modified to change "November 9, 2012" to 

"February 28, 2013." 1 

Attachment - Service List 

Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

1 To the extent that the relief requested in Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion is inconsistent with this 

order, it is denied. 
Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Dock,et Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Fred C. Begy, III, Respondent's Counsel 

Chuhak &Tecson, Attorneys at Law 

30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 

Chicago, IL 60606 

TEL: 312-855-5442 

FAX: 312-368-9422 

Carri A. Conlon, Respondent's Counsel 

Chuhak &Tecson, Attorneys at Law 

30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 

Chicago, IL 60606 

TEL: 312-855-4617 

FAX: 312-444-9027 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-:-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2161 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

US. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0783 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
July 30 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DEREK ANTHONY WEST , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00622

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. We further order app ellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
1

Subject: Samsung Testing Results 

Date: January 3, 2013, 11:00 to 11:40 AM

Re: Samsung Semiconductor Testing Results for Point of Use (POU) Abatement Systems and

Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) for Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (F-GHGs)

Background: Samsung requested a phone call with EPA to discuss the results of tests 

conducted in 2012 to measure the DRE of point of use abatement systems. These results are 

relevant to the recently proposed rule, “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Proposed 

Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I” [77 FR 63538, October 16, 

2012]. EPA is documenting the phone call for docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028. 

Attendees:

EPA –Anhar Karimjee, Deborah Ottinger, Jennifer Bohman

Samsung – Tim Jones

Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) Consultant - John Holmes

Eastern Research Group – Brian Palmer, EPA contractor

Summary:

Samsung reported that they tested the F-GHG DRE of the POU abatement systems on 24 units at 

their US semiconductor manufacturing facility. These abatement systems are manufactured by

CSK and are controlling emissions from etch processes. The abatement systems are not 

designed or intended to control F-GHG emissions. Instead, they are primarily intended to control 

ammonia and fluorine gas emissions. Samsung reported that their facility in South Korea has the 

same CSK abatement systems in place, but also has an additional system that is designed 

specifically to control F-GHG emissions.

The DRE was measured using the EPA’s DRE protocol that is incorporated by reference into 

subpart I. The testing was performed by a testing contractor (URS Corporation) that is 

experienced with this method and the source category.

The CSK systems at the US facility were able to achieve substantial emission reductions of some 

of the F-GHGs that were measured. However, the measured DRE of perfluoromethane (CF4) was 

substantially below the default DRE value of 60 percent that is included in the present 40 CFR 

part 98 subpart I and that is included in the proposed amendments as a default DRE for CF4. 

Samsung reported that the systems have no manufacturer-claimed DRE for CF4. However, 

Samsung is working with the manufacturer to see whether the systems’ performance can be 

improved to achieve a 60 percent DRE for CF4. Samsung stated that they assumed no DRE for 
2

the abatement systems when calculating the F-GHG emissions included in their 2011 annual 

report.

Samsung and SIA stated that they will submit comments on how the final rule should consider 

these testing results. SIA also stated that they would only include data from systems designed to 

control F-GHGs in any data submitted to EPA in support of the proposed default DRE values in 

proposed Table I-16 of the proposed amendments.

EPA noted that the comment period for the proposed amendments will close on January 16, 

2013. EPA encouraged Samsung and SIA to submit any data that are available as soon as 

possible so that other commenters can consider the data before the end of the comment period.
No. 99-7907.

#### Bekederemo *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 99-7600.

#### Slaughter *v.*Kentucky.

Sup. Ct. Ky. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 96-5884.

#### Odoms *v.*Hatcher, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1377 

CAF 11-02268 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF AQUILA S.C. 

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

CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

DAVID C., JR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 3.) 

PATRICIA M. MCGRATH, LOCKPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

BARBARA L. WIDRIG, MAYVILLE, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

ROBERT W. SCHNIZLER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, JAMESTOWN, FOR AQUILA

S.C. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County

(Judith S. Claire, J.), entered October 20, 2011 in a proceeding

pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other

things, adjudged that respondent David C., Jr. permanently neglected

the subject child, Aquila S.C. and transferred custody and

guardianship of the subject child to petitioner. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Matter of Emerald L.C. (___ AD3d ___ [Dec.

21, 2012]).

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Destin Drone Services, LLC Personal Presence Home Watchers and Services, LLC Paul W. Anderson 387 Bay Tree Drive Miramar Beach, FL 32550

(850) 460
- 4818 pwa850@gmail.com September 25, 2015 U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management Sy stem 1200 New Jersey

Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590
To whom it may concern, I, Paul Anderson, am formally petitioning to make two changes to my exemption granted under: **Exemption No. 12988 Regulatory Docket No. FAA** **−2015−2650** 1) The name of the company listed be changed to **Destin Drone Services, LLC** . I have formed a new LLC with a different n ame in order to better serve my customer base. Personal Presence Home Watchers and Services, LLC can be removed from th e exemption as it will not be conducting any UAS operations. 2) A second model of UAS be listed alongside the DJI Phantom 3 as part of this exemption : the **DJI Inspire 1** . Please contact me if you need any further information or if an entirely new petition must be fil ed. Sincerely , Paul Anderson Destin Drone Services, LLC & Personal Presence Home Watchers and Services, LLC
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<LEGEND>        This schedule contains summary financial
                information extracted from the December 31,
                1998 audited financial statements and is
                qualified in its entirety by reference to
                such financial statements.

<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998

<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998

<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS

<CASH>                                      48,507

<SECURITIES>                                11,345

<RECEIVABLES>                               42,068

<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,481

<INVENTORY>                                      0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           107,493

<PP&E>                                      23,167

<DEPRECIATION>                              21,714

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             136,254

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       82,733

<BONDS>                                          0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0

<PREFERRED>                                      0

<COMMON>                                       179

<OTHER-SE>                                  52,777

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               136,254
<PAGE>






<SALES>                                    727,220

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           735,153

<CGS>                                      684,362

<TOTAL-COSTS>                              762,615

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71

<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (27,533)

<INCOME-TAX>                                     0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (27,533)

<DISCONTINUED>                                   0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0

<CHANGES>                                        0

<NET-INCOME>                               (27,533)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (1.54)

<EPS-DILUTED>                                (1.54)


</TABLE>
##### 



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
  (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 of the Company as of the dates indicated and results
of operations of the Company for the period indicated.
 Dated: November 8, 2007/s/ G. Anthony EppolitoG. Anthony EppolitoVice President and Chief Financial Officer
 30
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 Annual Report of China Recycling Energy Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Xinyu Peng, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company and Secretary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




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




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





Date: March
      16, 2010
              /s/
      Xinyu PengXinyu
      PengChief
      Financial Officer and
Secretary
#### Henry SZABLA, Appellant, v. CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK, MN, et al., Appellees.

No. 04-2538.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 23, 2006.

Timothy Robert Maher, Boris Parker, Saliterman & Siefferman, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.

Jon Kermit Iverson, Paul D. Reuvers, Jason James Kuboushek, Iverson *&*Reu-vers, Bloomington, MN, Joseph E. Flynn, Susan Steffen Tice, Jardine & Logan, Lake Elmo, MN, for Appellees.

On December 1, 2005, the court issued a panel opinion and judgment in this matter affirming in part the district court’s entry of summary judgment against Appellant Szabla and reversing that portion of the district court’s opinion which granted summary judgment for the City of Brooklyn Park on Appellant Szabla’s claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. On December 15, 2005, the City of Brooklyn Park filed a petition for rehearing en banc. In its petition for rehearing en banc, the City of Brooklyn Park asked the court to overturn that portion of the December 1, 2005, panel opinion and judgment which reversed the district court’s order granting it summary judgment on Szabla’s Section 1983 claim. On February 2, 2006, the court granted the City of Brooklyn Park’s petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the December 1, 2005, panel opinion and judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the grant of rehearing en banc is limited to the issues raised in the City of Brooklyn Park’s petition for rehearing en banc. In all other respects, the panel opinion and judgment of December 1, 2005, are reinstated.
Exhibit 23.1


                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Caprius, Inc.
Fort Lee, New Jersey

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-47517, 33-70834 and 33-78928) of our report dated
November 14, 2003 except for Notes E and N which are as of February 18, 2004,
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Caprius, Inc. appearing in
the Company's Annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30,
2003. Our report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding uncertainties as to
the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.


                                                  /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


Boston, Massachusetts

February 18, 2004
**Exhibit
      32.1**





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350)





I,
      Thomas
      W. Martin, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of ICON Capital
      Corp., the General Partner of the Registrant in connection with the Quarterly
      Report of ICON Income Fund Eight B L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q/A
      for
      the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report") certify, pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
      knowledge:





1.
            The
                Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                13(a) or
                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m);
                and





2.
            The
                information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
                all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                of
                the Partnership.








*Dated:
      December 11, 2007*





*/s/
      Thomas W. Martin*


Thomas
      W.
      Martin


Chairman,
      Chief Executive Officer and President of the General Partner


(Principal
      Executive Officer)


ICON
      Capital Corp.


General
      Partner of ICON Income Fund Eight B L.P.
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 Big Sky Industries IV, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer 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:



(1)

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



(2)

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



Dated: February 2, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer

Big Sky Industries IV, Inc.
Exhibit 23(c)

                      [Peters Elworthy & Moore Letterhead]

NCT Group, Inc.
20 Ketchum Street
Westport                                    Our Ref:          PRC/LCT
Connecticut 06880                           Date:             April 24, 2002
USA

Dear Sirs

We consent to the inclusion of our opinion on the financial  statements of Noise
Cancellations  Technologies (Europe) Limited as of December 31, 2001 and for the
years ended  December  31, 2001 and 1999  included in the Annual  Report on Form
10-K.

Yours faithfully

/s/ PETERS ELWORTHY & MOORE
---------------------------
    Peters Elworthy & Moore
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0617 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ANTHONY THOMAS DISHON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 15, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brie f on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 9 2022

05/09/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0616
#### Jerry CLAPPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 75-1869.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 24, 1976.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Public Defender, and Randolph Murrell, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paul H. Zacks, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAGER, C. J., and CROSS and DOW-NEY, JJ., concur.
#### Al J. SCHECHTER, Trustee, Appellant, v. Jean K. HORN, Appellee.

No. 75-935.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 17, 1977.

Rehearing Denied July 29, 1977.

Maurice M. Garcia, of Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick & Schneider, Hollywood, for appellant.

George I. Platt, of Becker & Poliakoff, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in *Diamond v. Woodlands Homeowner’s Association, Inc.,*348 So.2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed June 10, 1977).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

CROSS and ALDERMAN, JJ., and NE-WELL, EMERY J., Associate Judge, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                             0000720462
<NAME>                                            Market Guide Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1
<CURRENCY>                                      0

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    FEB-28-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.00000
<CASH>                                          1,838,408
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,254,869
<ALLOWANCES>                                    34,000
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                3,522,323
<PP&E>                                          2,723,867
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,097,653
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  8,012,939
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,300,568
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        4,792
<OTHER-SE>                                      5,885,166
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    8,012,939
<SALES>                                         8,839,521
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                8,839,521
<CGS>                                           3,061,807
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   6,781,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              90,002
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,999,792
<INCOME-TAX>                                    275,846
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,723,946
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (214,277)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,509,669
<EPS-BASIC>                                   0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.35



</TABLE>
No. 99-7813.

#### Felix *v.*Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jerome ZAMP.

No. 60074.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1977.

In re: Jerome Zamp applying for writs of habeas corpus, prohibition, mandamus and a stay order.

Application denied; the showing made does not warrant relief demanded.
#### Ronnie James LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-909.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 22, 1977.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, and Laura Sistrunk, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Marsha G. Madorsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, J., and DEAN, ROY E., Associate Judge, concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents, with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting:

I would reverse for a new trial. During cross-examination of a state’s witness, Detective Winger, defense counsel elicited the following testimony:

> “Q. And after you advised him that you were not going to ask him any questions, he didn’t say anything, did he?

> A. No.”

Shortly thereafter, on redirect examination by the prosecutor, the following took place:

> “Q. Did he *ever*give you any explanation whatsoever as to a shooting?

> A. No, sir.”

At this point defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the grounds that this exchange constituted an improper comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent. The trial court denied the motion but, the next morning, gave the jury a lengthy instruction to disregard such testimony. The trial court recognized the error and did his best to correct it by the detailed instruction to the jury.

On appeal the state contends that the error was harmless, in view of the question asked by the defense. I cannot agree. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that the harmless error doctrine should not be applied to these situations. *Bennett v. State,*316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975). And, even if such doctrine could be applied, I cannot accept the state’s argument that the questions by the defense and the state were the same. Obviously, the implication of the state’s question was that the defendant had an obligation to give an explanation of the incident involved and that he never gave such an explanation. This is reversible error by the state. *Farese v. State,*328 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).