alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHNNY RIVERA, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 05-338 Erie

v. )

)

MARILYN BROOKS, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was received by the Clerk of Court on

November 14, 2005 and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan

Paradise Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act,

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed on November 30,

2006, recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot. 

The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. 

Service was made on Petitioner by certified mail at SCI Albion, his last address of

record, and on Respondent. Petitioner has filed no objections to Magistrate Judge

Baxter’s Report and Recommendation. After de novo review of the petition and

documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following

order is entered:

AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2006;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 

DISMISSED as moot.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed on

November 30, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00338-SJM-SPB Document 10 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 1
109 STAT. 802 PUBLIC LAW 104–87—DEC. 29, 1995

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1878:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):

Dec. 18, considered and passed House.

Dec. 22, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 104–87

104th Congress

An Act

To extend for 4 years the period of applicability of enrollment mix requirement

to certain health maintenance organizations providing services under Dayton

Area Health Plan.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENDING PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY OF ENROLLMENT

MIX REQUIREMENT TO CERTAIN HEALTH MAINTENANCE

ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDING SERVICES UNDER DAYTON

AREA HEALTH PLAN.

Section 2 of Public Law 102–276, as amended by section 13644

of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, is amended

by striking ‘‘December 31, 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 1999’’.

Approved December 29, 1995.

106 Stat. 126.

Dec. 29, 1995

[H.R. 1878]
#### METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, etc., Petitioner, v. Aaron E. NORTHEY, Respondent.

No. 40379.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 23, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and BOYD, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### William MARKHAM, as Tax Assessor of Broward County, Florida, Petitioner, v. SHERWOOD PARK LTD. inc., a Florida corporation, and Sherwood Forest Ltd., Inc., of Hollywood, a Florida corporation, Respondents.

No. 39774.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 3, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1971.

Gaylord Á. Wood, Jr., Ft. Lauderdale, for William Markham, as Tax Assessor.

John U. Lloyd, County Atty., and Betty Lynn, Asst. County Atty., for Bd. of County Commissioners of Broward County, Fla.

Jack F. Weins of Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick & Burke, Hollywood, for respondents.

Richard L. Lapidus, Miami, for Hemispheres Development Corp., amicus curiae.

DREW, Justice, retired:

This case 1 has been certified to us by the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, to be one which passes upon a question of great public interest.2 The question certified to be of great public interest is not stated in the certificate as we have suggested it should be, but it clearly appears from the decision that it relates to the construction of Sec. 193.11(4), F.S.1967, F.S.A., and is substantially the same question as that certified to this Court in Culbertson .v. Seacoast Towers East, Inc.3 by the District Court of Appeal, Third District.

The District Court, Third District, in Seacoast Towers, held:

> “Generally, a building ready for occupancy, except for certain finishing touches necessary for final completion would be deemed substantially complete. * * * Where a building, or a large part of it has been occupied, although additional labor and materials may be necessary for final completion, it may be presumed to be substantially completed. * * *»

*130In the case now here on certificate from the Fourth District, that Court held:

> “We construe that it was the intent of the legislature not to tax the property other than as unimproved unless it was complete to the point where it could be used for the purposes intended. * * * ”

The decision of this Court in Seacoast, decided while this case was pending here, supra note 3, approved the above quoted holding of the Third District Court and is dispositive of the question presented here. The two rulings are — consistent.

The decision of the District Court, Fourth District, is therefore approved and is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ„ concur.

1

. Sherwood Park Ltd., Inc. v. Meeks, Fla. App., 234 So.2d 702.

2

. Florida Constitution, Art. V, See. 4(2), F.S.A.; F.A.R. 4.5(c) (6), 32 F.S.A.

3

.236 So.2d 761. The question certified was that said decision “construes the meaning of the term ‘substantially completed’ as used in ¶ 193.11(4) Fla.Stat. [F.S.A.] and therefore affects the collection of taxes in this state.”
**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 United Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brenda M.
      Hudson-Nelson, 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 to the best of my knowledge and
      belief:





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





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








/s/
      Brenda M. Hudson-Nelson





Brenda
      M.
      Hudson-Nelson


Chief
      Financial Officer


April
      5,
      2007
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2839 

To clarify the maximum hiring target for new air traffic controllers, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2023 

Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. MARSHALL, Mrs. SHAHEEN, 

Mr. LUJA ́N, and Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation 

A BILL 

To clarify the maximum hiring target for new air traffic 

controllers, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Air Traffic Controllers 

5 Hiring Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MAXIMUM HIRING. 

7 Subject to the availability of appropriations, for each 

8 of fiscal years 2024 through 2028, the Administrator of 

9 the Federal Aviation Administration shall set as the hiring 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2839 IS

1 target for new air traffic controllers (excluding individuals 

2 described in section 44506(f)(1)(A) of title 49, United 

3 States Code) the maximum number of individuals able to 

4 be trained at the Federal Aviation Administration Acad5 emy. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit
23
 
 Consent
of  Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 The Board
of Directors
 TranSwitch
Corporation:
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-114238, 333-69005, 333-105332, 333-109102, 333-109571, 333-131772,
333-140509 and 333-145336) on Form S-3, (No. 333-153148) on Form S-4, and
(Nos. 333-75800, 333-70344, 333-44032, 333-83187, 333-31849, 333-03607,
33-94234, 333-89798, 333-131773, 333-126129 and 333-151113) on Form S-8 of
TranSwitch Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated March 12, 2009,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of TranSwitch Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive loss, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008,
and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which report appears
in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of TranSwitch Corporation
and subsidiaries.
  /s/    UHY
LLP
 
 New
Haven, Connecticut
 March 12,
2009
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25155]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB review; comment request

September 16, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Financial Management Service (FMS)

    OMB Number: 1510-0066.
    Form Number: None.
    Type of Review: Reinstatement.
    Title: Management of Federal Agency Disbursements.
    Description: Recipients of Federal disbursements must furnish the 
Financial Management Service (FMS) with their bank account number and 
the name and Routing and Transit Number (RTN) of their bank. Recipients 
without a bank account must certify that in writing to FMS.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Individuals or 
households, Not-for-profit institutions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,300 .
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 15 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 325 hours.

Clearance Officer: Jacqueline R. Perry (301) 344-8577, Financial 
Management Service, 3361-L 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20785.
OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports, Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-25155 Filed 9-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-P
WITHDRAWN 3-6-14

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00302-CV

TODD PHILLIPPI,

Appellant

v.

CITI RESIDENTIAL LENDING, INC., ET AL,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. C-08-3657

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 16, 2013, the Clerk of the Court sent the following letter to Appellant:

The required filing and fax fees of $20 for your faxed Motion to 

Extend Time to File Appellant’s Brief filed on September 24, 2013 are 

PAST DUE. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5; Appendix to TEX. R. APP. P., Order 

Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). See also 10TH 

TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207(b); 51.208 

(West Supp. 2012); § 51.941(a) (West 2005).

Unless you are exempt, you must: (1) file an indigence affidavit as 

provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1; or (2) pay the 

required filing and fax fees. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1. If you fail either to 

file an indigence affidavit or to pay the filing and fax fees within 14 days 
Phillippi v. Citi Residential Lending, Inc. Page 2

after the date of this letter, the motion will be dismissed without further 

notification. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5.

You also owe an additional $20 for two previous fax fees that are 

PAST DUE. 

Fees may be paid by check or money order, payable to the “Tenth 

Court of Appeals.”

On November 8, 2013, Appellant paid the required filing and fax fees of $20 for his 

Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant’s Brief; however, Appellant continued to owe 

$20 for required fax fees that were past due.

On November 27, 2013, the Clerk of the Court sent a letter to Appellant 

reminding him of the foregoing. Appellant was also informed that unless he is exempt, 

he must: (1) file an indigence affidavit as provided by Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 20.1; or (2) pay the required filing and fax fees. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1. 

Appellant was also notified that if he failed to file an indigence affidavit or to pay the 

required filing and fax fees within fourteen days after the date of the letter, this appeal 

may be dismissed without further notification. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c).

More than fourteen days have passed since the November 27 letter, and 

Appellant has not filed an indigence affidavit or paid the required filing and fax fees; 

accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c). 

 

REX D. DAVIS

Justice
Phillippi v. Citi Residential Lending, Inc. Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 9, 2014

[CV06]
16303	Waterman	Drive

Van	Nuys,	California	91406

Tel:					+1	818.902.0229	

Fax:			+1	818.902.9278	

www.helinet.com

May 14, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re. Petition to Amend FAA Exemption No. 11160 (the “Exemption”)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Helinet Aviation Services, LLC, hereby requests approval to amend the Exemption to permit Helinet to 

operate an additional model of UAS – the DJI Inspire 1. The FAA has previously authorized use of the DJI 

Inspire for commercial purposes on multiple occasions (e.g., Exemption Nos. 11318, 11447, 11458, 11461, 

and 11463). 

On February 2, 2015, the FAA issued the Exemption to Helinet to utilize the DJI S1000 and Gryphon 

Dynamics X8 UAS for motion picture and television filming. 

Helinet’s amended Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM) is being submitted separately 

pursuant to 14 CFR §11.35(b). Section 6 (pages 5-6 and 11-12) of the FOPM contains the proposed 

amendment. 

All UAS operations will continue to fully adhere to the conditions of the Exemption and all operations will be 

in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption.

Thank you for your consideration of our request.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 818.902.0229.

Sincerely yours,

Jack Snyder

Vice President and General Counsel

Helinet Aviation Services, LLC
#### Dudley George HANEMANN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 38677.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 25, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1970.

Robert P. Miller, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James Robert Yon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of certiorari having heretofore issued, argument having been heard, and the court having examined the record and briefs, it appears that the writ was improvidently issued. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari heretofore issued in this cause is discharged. See State v. Lowe, 130 So. 2d 288 (Fla.App.1961).

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

DREW, J., dissents with opinion.

DREW, Justice

(dissenting).

I dissent. I am in complete agreement with the views expressed and the judgment reached by Judge Rawls in his dissenting opinion in the district court, appearing at 221 So.2d 230.
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John BRANNON, Appellee.

No. 76-2011.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1977.

Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Dennis L. Curran, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.

Carr & Emory, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Sutton v. State,*327 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
#### COMMODORE PLAZA AT CENTURY 21 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. Norman COHEN, Trustee, Appellee.

No. 77-1294.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 25, 1977.

*732Joseph S. Paglino, Miami, for appellant.

Prates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richman & Greer and Ursula Mancusi-Ungaro, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: *Commodore Plaza at Century 21 Condominium Association, Inc. v. Cohen,*350 So.2d 502 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977).
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                            MICROFIELD GRAPHICS, INC.

                        CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

                                                      TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
                                                 ---------------------------
                                                 DECEMBER 28,    DECEMBER 30,
                                                      1996          1995
                                                 -------------  ------------

Actual weighted average
shares outstanding for
the period                                         3,176,660      2,414,887

Dilutive common stock
options and warrants
using the treasury stock
method                                                --             21,895
                                                   ----------     ----------

Total shares used in per
share calculations                                 3,176,660      2,436,782
                                                   ----------     ----------
                                                   ----------     ----------


Net loss                                        $ (2,599,146)  $ (1,303,747)
                                                   ----------     ----------
                                                   ----------     ----------

Net loss per share                              $      (0.82)  $      (0.54)
                                                   ----------     ----------
                                                   ----------     ----------


Note:  Preferred stock and common equivalent shares issued during the 
12-month period prior to the Company's initial public offering are included 
in the calculations as if they were outstanding through the date of the 
initial public offering, even though anti-dilutive, pursuant to Staff 
Accounting Bulletin No. 83.
#### Manuel SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-128.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 18, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
y 

Jon M. Capacasa 

TDD (804) 698

4021 

www.deq.virginia.gov 

June 15, 2012 

Director, Water Protection Division 

USEP A Region III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

(804) 698-4000 

1-800-592-5482 

Re: Vessel General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Clean 

Water Act (CWA) section 401 Certification- Virginia 

Dear Mr. Capacasa: 

Thank you for your letter of December 9, 2011 where you ask for the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality's determination regarding certification under CWA section 

401 for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VGP to cover discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of commercial and non-recreational vessels greater than or 

equal to 79 feet in length and the NPDES sVGP to cover discharges incidental to the normal 

operation of non-recreational, non-military vessels less than 79 feet in length. 

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality hereby provides unconditional §40 1 

Water Quality Certification on these General Permits. Please contact me if you have questions at 

(804) 698-4038 or melanie.davenpmt{(Vdeq.virginia.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Melanie D. Davenport 

Water Division Director
From: "Briggman, Kimberly A."

To: DioxinInteragency@EPA Date: 03/29/2010 01:58 PM Subject: Dioxin Interagency Draft Report Comments

Hi,

Please find a few comments below for your considera tion regarding the Dioxin Interagency Draft Report in the context of openness and transparency. My apo logies for not sending these in on Friday.

1. What was the public response to the Nov. 2008 Federal Register notice requesting submission of new/missing dioxin studies? No where in the draft report does it state the

response. 2. Has EPA funded any of the studies it cites or has included in the literature survey? For openness and transparency, it would be helpful to k now if any preferential treatment (or not) was being given to such studies.

Best, Kimberly

_ _ _ Kimberly Briggman, Ph.D. Senior Policy Analyst- Physical Sciences & Engineer ing Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) FTD
CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          24,104
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,958
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,854
<INVENTORY>                                     13,261
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,053
<PP&E>                                          45,801
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,108
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,201
<BONDS>                                         58,130
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           128
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,796
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,486
<SALES>                                         48,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               161,325
<CGS>                                           36,701
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                54,540
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,582
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,199
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,102
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (835)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       263
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>