alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 15, 2015

Mr. Jace Nelson 

3561 North 350 East 

North Ogden, UT 84414 

Dear Mr. Nelson: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. 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 entered your May 15, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1702), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent 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. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us 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. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 47142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19950]

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of briefing/meeting.

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

DATE AND TIME: Friday, August 12, 2011; 9:30 a.m. EDT.

PLACE: 624 Ninth Street, NW., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425.

Briefing Agenda

    This briefing is open to the public.
    Topic: The Civil Rights Implications of Eminent Domain Abuse.
    I. Introductory Remarks by Chairman.
    II. Speakers' Presentations.
    III. Questions by Commissioners and Staff Director.
    IV. Adjourn Briefing.

Meeting Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public.
    I. Approval of Agenda.
    II. Approval of the July 15, 2011 Meeting Minutes.
    III. Program Planning:
     Approval of the 2011 Enforcement Report.
     Approval of Age Discrimination Briefing Report.
    IV. Management and Operations:
     Staff Director's report.
    V. State Advisory Committee Issues:
     Re-chartering the Georgia SAC.
     Re-chartering the Oklahoma SAC.
    VI. Adjourn.

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, 
Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela 
Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at signlanguage@usccr.gov at least seven 
(7) business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Dated: August 2, 2011.
Kimberly A. Tolhurst,
Senior Attorney-Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2011-19950 Filed 8-2-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
Exhibit (j)



   CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We  consent  to  the  references  to  our  firm  under  the  caption  "Financial
Highlights"  in the DWS Large Cap Value Fund Class A, Class B, Class C, Class S,
and  Institutional  Class  Shares,  the DWS Dreman Small Cap Value Fund Class A,
Class B, Class C, Class S, and Institutional  Class Shares,  the DWS Dreman High
Return  Equity  Fund  Class  A,  Class  B,  Class  C,  Class  R,  Class  S,  and
Institutional  Class Shares, the DWS Dreman Mid Cap Value Fund Class A, Class B,
Class  C,  Class  S,  and  Institutional   Class  Shares,  and  the  DWS  Dreman
Concentrated  Value  Fund Class A,  Class B,  Class C, and  Institutional  Class
Shares  (collectively  the "Funds")  Prospectuses  and  "Independent  Registered
Public  Accounting Firm" and "Financial  Statements" in the Funds' Statements of
Additional Information,  and to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective
Amendment Number 54 to the  Registration  Statement (Form N-1A, No. 33-18477) of
our report dated  January 21, 2008, on the  financial  statements  and financial
highlights of the DWS Large Cap Value Fund, DWS Dreman Small Cap Value Fund, DWS
Dreman High Return  Equity Fund,  DWS Dreman Mid Cap Value Fund,  and DWS Dreman
Concentrated  Value Fund,  included in the Funds' Annual  Reports dated November
30, 2007.



/s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
February 25, 2008
EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-62684, 33-94372 and 333-60217) and the
Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.
333-08197) of Evans Systems, Inc. of our report dated January 13, 1999, except
for the last paragraph of Notes 2 and 7 and Note 13 as to which the date is
August 20, 1999, appearing on page F-2 of this Form 10-K/A.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas
September 7, 1999
#### Max KOFSKY, Appellant, v. STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, an Agency of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-385.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 25, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
### SERVE D NOVEMBE R19 , 201 0 

## vPARTMENT OF , ' iAMf^PORWlO N U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N • : C T OFERATiON

S OFFIC E O FHEARING S . ' ^

- WASHINGTON , D C ,,,.,,,., , , qD 2

- 3 3 IN TH E MATTE RO F CONTINENTA L AIRLINES , INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10SW001 6 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DMSNO . FAA-2010-107 3

NOTIC E O FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor e designate da s Cas e No . 2009SW270060 ) ha s bee n assigne dt o Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwin . Al l future pleading s an dothe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do n th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an dth e othe r

y 

### persons o n th e attache dServic e List .

li e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Jiadg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No . CP10SW001 6 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Thoma s Newto n Boiling , Respondent' s Counse l Managin g Attomey , Regulator y Affair s Continenta l Airlines , Inc. , Responden t 160 0 Smit hStreet , 15 * Floo r

HQSL G Houston , TX 7700 2 TEL : 713-324-560 6 FAX: 713-324-516 1 Ti mDuff , Complainant' s Counse l Attomey , Offic e o f

Regiona l Counsel , ASW- 7 Southwes t Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 260 1 MeachamBlvd . Ft . Wdrth,T X 7613 7 TEL817-222-509 9 FA X 817-222-5945/509 2 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Building , Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202

- 366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX: 202-366-753 6

' Service was b y U.S . Mail . For servic e i n person o r by expeditedcourier , us e the following address : Federa l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2Wl6<K) , Washington , DC 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.2


                  FIRST AMENDMENT TO MARSH SUPERMARKETS, INC.
               1999 SENIOR EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN


         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Marsh Supermarkets, Inc., an
Indiana corporation (the "Company"), has previously adopted the Marsh
Supermarkets, Inc. 1999 Senior Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan (the
"Plan");

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.1 of the Plan, the Company's Board of
Directors has retained the right to amend the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Company's Board of Directors now desires to amend the
Plan.

         NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the premises and by resolution of
the Company's Board of Directors, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         1.       Section 6.2 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:

                  6.2      Change in Control. Upon a Change in Control or at
         such other times as the Board of Directors may determine, the Company
         shall either place assets of the Company in a rabbi trust (the
         "Trust") or distribute assets to Participants or to trusts or other
         accounts designated by Participants. The determination as to whether
         assets are placed in the Trust or distributed to Participants (or to
         trusts or other accounts designated by Participants) shall be made by
         the Board of Directors in its sole discretion. The amount of assets to
         be placed in the Trust or distributed to Participants or to trusts or
         other accounts designated by Participants upon the occurrence of a
         Change in Control or at such other time as the Board may determine
         shall be an amount equal to the Supplemental Retirement Benefit of the
         Participants as of the effective date of any such determination or
         Change in Control, as determined by the actuary of the Retirement Plan
         using the assumptions contained in the definition of Actuarial
         Equivalent in the Retirement Plan for determining lump sum
         distributions after July 1, 1997. The Trust, if created, shall conform
         to the model form of rabbi trust agreement approved by the Internal
         Revenue Service in Revenue Procedure 92-64 (as amended from time to
         time) or in any successor thereto.

         2.       Except as expressly stated herein, all other sections of the
Plan remain in full force and effect.

         This First Amendment to the Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. 1999 Senior
Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors of
the Company and became effective as of February 13, 2003.
<TABLE>
<S>     <C>
Exhibit 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors



The Board of Directors
Atlantic Coast Airlines, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration  statement nos.
333-15795 and 33-67492 on Form S-8 of our report dated January 28, 1998,  except
as to note 17 which is as of March 4, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance
sheet of Atlantic  Coast  Airlines,  Inc. and subsidiary  (the  "Company") as of
December 31, 1997 and the related  consolidated  statements of operations,  cash
flows and changes in stockholders'  equity for the year then ended, which report
appears in the December 31, 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company.


                                                                          /S/
                                                                 --------------------------
                                                                 KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Washington, D.C.
March 23, 1998
</TABLE>
#### Dorothy Hebert ARDOIN et al. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO. et al.

No. 60992.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 5, 1977.

In re: Bentley Laboratories, Inc. and Gulf Insurance Co. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 350 So.2d 205.

Writ Denied In Part, Granted In Part. We find no error requiring review by this Court as to any assignment relating to the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants cast; accordingly, writs are denied as to further review of this judgment, including its modification for limited remand by the Court of Appeal.

However, insofar as the applicants urge that erroneous rulings as to the “locality rule” prevented the defendants from securing a factual determination that the negligence of Dr. James Bozeman also contributed to the injury, we grant the writ to determine whether, for purposes of third-*707party demands, error was committed by the rulings complained of by Assignments 1, 2, 3, of Docket Nos. 60,992, and 61,008 and by Assignment 2 of Docket No. 61,011, which errors had the effect of depriving the defendants of evidence relevant to a determination of this doctor’s negligence and whether same was a contributory cause of decedent’s death.

The writs are denied as to all other assignments of error urged including the only assignments raised in # 60,993.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the ease; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
# • RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 17N

. PermitUfe

FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION STATEANALOG IS:EQUIVALENT MORESTRINGENT BROADERIN SCOPE PART 270 -EPAADMINiSTERED PERMIT PROGRAM: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM WAC 173-303 SUBPART D- CHANGES TO PERMIT MAJOR MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION AND REISSUANCE OF PERMITS modify permit

### to assure compliance 270.41(a)(5)- 830(311a)(v} 

# x SUBPART E- EXPIRATION AND CONTINUATION OF PERMITS 

# • DURATION OF PERMITS liveyear review

### tor land disposal permits 270.50rd) 806(11)(d) 

# x



# • July 15, 1985 -Page 19of25
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54040-54041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27617]


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

U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION


Meeting

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission 
will hold its 49th Meeting in Arlington, VA on November 3 and 4, 1997. 
On Monday, November 3, the Commission will conduct an invitation only 
program review. This review will concentrate on three topics:

(1) Global Change in the Arctic.
(2) Arctic Native Environmental Health Issues.
(3) Petroleum Exploitation in the Arctic.

    On Tuesday, November 4 the Commission will hold a Business Session. 
Agenda items include:

(1) Call to order and approval of the Agenda.
(2) Approval of the minutes of the 48th Meeting.
(3) Reports of Congressional Liaisons.
(4) Agency Reports.

    Any person planning to attend the Tuesday meeting who requires 
special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign 
language interpreters must inform the Commission in advance of those 
needs.
    Contact Person for More Information: Dr. Garrett W. Brass, 
Executive Director,

[[Page 54041]]

Arctic Research Commission, 703-525-0111 or TDD 703-306-0090.
Garrett W. Brass,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 97-27617 Filed 10-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BARRY CHAZIN )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 06-90 Erie

v. )

)

MARILYN BROOKS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

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

21, 2006 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 May 4, 2006,

recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be transferred to the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania. 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, where he is incarcerated, and on Respondents. 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 9th day of June, 2006;

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

transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed on

May 4, 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 1:06-cv-00090-SJM-SPB Document 4 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH DECEMBER 31, 1996 FORM 10-K FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,120,456
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               46,399,040
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,915,156
<INVENTORY>                                 10,820,169
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            60,496,350
<PP&E>                                       4,810,062
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,191,193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,419,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,466,967
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,485,734
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,466,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,419,698
<SALES>                                    229,861,024
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           229,896,300
<CGS>                                      192,287,596
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              192,287,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            21,114,558
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               179,025
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,864,737
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,629,412
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,627,786
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,001,626
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,001,626
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### A. P. KRUEGER et ux., Petitioners, v. M. M. BRADFORD et al., Respondents.

No. 40465.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 17, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 240 So.2d 210.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Robert D. GROVES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-432.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 28, 1978.

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

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Upon a review of the evidence, we find it conflicting but sufficient to justify the verdict and support the judgment of conviction of murder in the second degree.

However, we must vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in order for the appellant to be given credit for time served in jail from arrest to sentencing. *Sutton v. State,*334 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The judgment is also defective because it orders confinement at hard labor. *McDonald v. State,*321 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Finally, the judgment recites the Appellant was convicted after entering his plea of guilty which is not true. He was tried by a jury and found guilty of second degree murder after having been charged with first degree murder. The use of a “form judgment” when not in the proper form was part of the cause of this error.

The judgment is affirmed and the sentence is vacated. The matter is remanded for resentencing in a proper manner not inconsistent herewith.

Sentence is vacated and remanded.

CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

Denying certiorari, Fla., 359 So.2d 1214.
#### Johnny Bee MOYE and Wendell Robinson, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. EE-352, FF-211.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 10, 1977.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Theodore E. Mack, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Patti Eng-lander and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. At-tys. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgments adjudicating the defendants guilty of aggravated battery but reverse the sentences of ten years because at the time the crimes were committed aggravated battery was a third degree felony for which the maximum sentence was five years. We, therefore, vacate the sentences imposed on the defendants and remand these cases to the trial court for the imposition of correct sentences. It is unnecessary that the defendants be present.

McCORD, C. J., and MILLS and BOYER, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID MORRIS BARREN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 233 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of November, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.