alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
F iled : March 1 , 20 11

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10

- 6580 ( 6:09

- cv
- 00924

- SB )

PERRY LEE WATFORD,
Petitioner

– Appellant,

v.
ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden,
Respondent

– Appellee.

O R D E R

The C ourt amends its opinion filed February 28, 2011 , as follows:

On the cover sheet, district court information
section, the case number is corrected to read “ 6:09

- cv
- 00924

-
SB .”

For the Court

– By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **6 5**  **80**

PERRY LEE WATFORD ,
P etitioner

– Appell ant ,

v.
ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden , Respon d e nt

– Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 6 : 09

- c v - 0 0 9 2 4

- SB )

Submitted : February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by unpublished per curiam opinion

.

Perry Lee Watford , Appellant Pro Se

. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in th is circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Perry Lee Watford seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006)

. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)

. When the district court den ies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Mill er
- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable

claim of the deni al of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S.

at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Watford has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense wit h oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.13
 RESOLUTE ENERGY CORPORATION
RESTRICTED STOCK GRANT AGREEMENT
(Non-Employee Directors)
 Agreement Corporation  ] Participant  Date of Grant
 RECITALS
 Plan
   AGREEMENT
 Grant of Restricted Stock
 Stock Common Stock Restricted Stock
 Plan Incorporated
 Vesting and Forfeiture
 Vesting Schedule Vesting Date
 Date
    
    Number of Shares Vested




---



##### 



Continuing Provision of Services
 Acceleration of Vesting on Death or Disability Disability
 Accelerated Vesting of Restricted Stock
 Issuance and Limits on Transferability
 Certificates
 2




---



##### 



Status of Stock
 Withholding
 Tax Election
 3




---



##### 



Binding Effect
 Applicable Law
 Conflicts and Interpretation
 Amendment
 Defined Terms
 [Signature Page Follows.]
 4




---



##### 



RESOLUTE ENERGY CORPORATIONBy:Name:Title: PARTICIPANT:[NAME]
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

119) IV-C-85 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:57 AM Sheet 119 of 232 
f * 

ju-i.'IP'-el 

P.2 

RCi George Parker 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement 

national Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

400 Seventh Street, 3.w. 

Washington, DC 20590 

^ » 

Dear «r. Parker: 

We very such appreciated the opportunity to meet with you 

and your staff on January 12 to discuss the ongoing analyses of 

NWTSA recall data, among other setters, As you know, there are 

a number of unresolved issues concerning the interpretation of 

the files which you have collected, Por our part, we are 

aailous to continue our discussions and resolve any lenaining 

questions. 

In connection with this process, there is something which 

you could do which would greatly facilitate our discussions and 

our understanding of your analysis. We feel some confusion as 

to how you currently classify the various groups of recalls. 

To clear up this confusion, I request that you give us your 

classification of the 38 recalls which HHTSa believes are 

relevant to the adoption of onboard controls. In particular, I 

would* like to know how you would divide them aaong the 

following three broad categories: 

(1) Those recalls uniquely associated vith evaporative 

control system components. 

(2) Those recalls involving other fuel aysten conpon-ants 

whicti you believe say be affected by onboard control 

hardware. 

(3) Those recalls related to fnel quality (e.*?., 

volatility) or other fuel syatsa problems. 

It would suffice for our purposes If you would send us a 

list of the recalls falling into aach category. Tf vou believe 

that there are sons relevant recalls which cannot he classified 

in one of the above three categories, please identify those 

also. 

SDSB:Anderson:McManus:2565 Plymonth Rd.:X496:1/21/88:ID#:5637W 

Last reviewed by Charles Gray: 
P.3 

/V* 

mited aaoaat of time avallabia, I 

nding to this latter aa soon as poss 

rvard to continoad diicussiona on 

you again for your cooperation. 

Sincerely Tours, 

Chester J. Prance, Chief 

Standards Development and Support Branch
##### 



COMPREHENSIVE CARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Exhibit 32.2 Certification of CFO 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 Comprehensive Care Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 7, 2005 (the Report), Robert J. Landis, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Robert J. LandisRobert J. Landis
Chairman, Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerApril 7, 2005
 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to Comprehensive Care Corporation and will be retained by Comprehensive Care Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
June 26, 2015

Ms. Jerry Rodgers 9791 Mesa Springs Way Unit 85 San Diego, CA 92126

Dear Ms. Rodgers:

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 March 11, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 0617), 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 reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

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

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.2

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
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In  connection  with the  Annual  Report  of  Shawcore  Development,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the year ended  August  31,  2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Gary
Burkinshaw  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.


Date: November 17, 2010


/s/ Gary Burkinshaw
------------------------------
Gary Burkinshaw
Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
See Rhodes v. State, 240 S.W.3d 882, 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (observing 1

that estoppel by contract bars a party who accepts benefits under a contract from

questioning the contract’s existence, validity, or effect).

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0364-10

JULIO CESAR PUENTE, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 HARRIS COUNTY

KEASLER, J., filed a concurring opinion in which KELLER, P.J., and HERVEY, J.,

joined. 

CONCURRING OPINION

I would hold that Julio Cesar Puente is estopped from challenging his sentence as

illegal. As the record clearly shows, Puente and the State reached an agreement whereby 1

Puente pled guilty in exchange for the State’s consideration to abandon the allegation that
PUENTE CONCURRING OPINION—2

the victim was under six years old, which raised the minimum punishment to twenty-five

years’ imprisonment. Puente was punished in accordance with the agreement and his

punishment for the lesser-included offense was authorized. It is absurd to permit Puente to

attack the propriety of his sentence on the basis that the indictment was not properly amended

under the terms of the plea agreement. There is no reason to hesitate to hold Puente to the

terms of the valid plea bargain agreement. We should not be addressing the merits of his

claim under these circumstances, and the court of appeals should have declined to do so as

well.

DATE DELIVERED: September 22, 2010

PUBLISH
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****Chart: 19004          Edition: 39          Edition Date: November 2010          Clear Dates: NM - 5/19/2012     LNM - 5/8/2012**Download RNCNotice ListingFind A Chart SiteOCVLeftIndex-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NOAA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NOAA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ABINGTON HEIGHTS SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Respondent

v.

PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS 

BOARD,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 118 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of October, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Did the District violate its bargaining obligation under the Public Employe 

Relations Act by contracting with Johnson College to teach courses for high 

school credit without bargaining with the exclusive employe representative 

of the District’s teachers?

(2) Did the District violate its bargaining obligations under Pennsylvania law, 

where binding Pennsylvania precedent under the Public Employe Relations 

Act recognizes that contracting out any bargaining unit work affects a term 

and condition of employment regardless of whether there is an impact on 

employe wages and hours?

(3) Did the District violate its bargaining obligation under the Public Employe 

Relations Act, where Section 15-1525 of the Public School Code does not 

expressly preclude the District’s teachers from teaching dual enrollment 

courses, nor does Section 15-1525 of the Public School Code otherwise 

prohibit the District from bargaining with the exclusive representative of the 

District’s teachers over who is to teach high school credit courses in a dual 

enrollment program?
[118 MAL 2022] - 2

Additionally, the parties are directed to provide briefing on the effect that the recent 

amendments to 24 P.S. § 15-1525, see Act of July 8, 2022, P.L. 620, No. 55, have on the 

above issues.
S K Y K I N G A E R I AL V I S U A LS

205 Bulifants Blvd., Suite B | Williamsburg, Virginia 23188 | 757.229.0557

terence.haglund@skykingav.com

12 November 2015

US Department of Transportation, Docket Operations

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12K140 

Washington, DC 20590

RE:	Request	for	Amendment under	Section	333	of	the	FAA	Modernization	and	Reform	Act	

and	 Part	 11	 of	 the	 Federal	Aviation	Regulations	 for	 additional	UASs; Exemption	#11958,

FAA	Docket	No.	FAA-2015-1197 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Terence G. Haglund, doing business as Sky King Aerial Visuals, LLC, (“Petitioner”) requests an 

amendment to his Section 333 Exemption, No. 11958, Docket FAA-2015-1197. 

In order to provide the safest possible service, we consistently look to new and better technology. 

To meet that need, we would like to add the following UASs to our Section 333 exemption: DJI 

Phantom 3, DJI s900, DJI s1000, 3DR Solo, FreeFly Alta, and FreeFly CineStar. 

Grant of this amendment would not set precedent; all of these UASs are standard production 

models and have been approved by the FAA in other exemptions: 

DJI	Phantom	3	

• Precedent	setting	exemptions#	11804A,	11728A,	12117,	11447B	

• Manual:	

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Profe

ssional_Quick_Start_Guide_en_v1.2.	pdf

DJI s900

• Precedent setting exemptions# 12301, 12281, 12410, 11914, 11804A 

• Manual: http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/s900/en/S900_User_Manual

_v1.2_en.pdf
DJI s1000

• Precedent setting exemptions# 12301, 12281, 12410, 11184, 11160 

• Manual: http://download.dji-innovations.com downloads/s1000/en/S1000/en/S1000

_User_Manual_v1.10 _en.pdf

3DR Solo 

• Precedent setting exemptions #11309A, 11935, 12120, 11240A, 11274A 

• Manual: http://3drobotics.com/wpKcontent/uploads/2015/08/v5_08_21_15.pdf

FreeFly Alta 

• Precedent setting exemptions #11728A, 12103

• Manual:http://d27w8s76bjlz9v.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/28175748

/ALTA-Manual)RevB.pdf

FreeFly Cinestar 

• Precedent setting exemptions # 11804A, 12092, 11253A, 11825

• Manual:http://d27w8s76bjlz9v.cloudfront.net/wpKcontent/uploads2014/07/cinestar8

Manual-v4.pdf

The above listed UASs will be used in accordance with the conditions and limitations of 

exemption No. 11958 to conduct aerial data collection. The UASs require the same procedures as 

the UAS that have already been approved for use, and their use shall be in compliance in all 

regards with the requirements set forth in Exemption #11958. 

Petitioner thanks you for your time and prompt consideration of the requested amendment for 

Exemption No. 11958. Please do not hesitate to contact Petitioner should you have any 

questions or should you require any additional information to support the request. 

Sincerely, 

SKY KING AERIAL VISUALS LLC

 

Terence G. Haglund
3x!puaddVAppendix

E PROCEDURES FOR DEPOSIT OF CIVIL FORFEITURESAppendix

E Procedures: Enforcement Forfeiture Payments Follow these procedures when mail comes
in that includes payment
of a forfeiture we have assessed
to a company
or individual. Note: Norrnafly, these checks are made payable
to ‘State Treasurer

- School Fund”.

If incoming mail includes

a check made payable
to “DHFS” that does not appear to be payment for a certificaton, accreditation,

or processhig fee. notify the Regulatory Specialist (Fred Johnson)
so he can cetermine

if it is a forfeiture payment. 1. Upon receipt: a. Date stamp the letter. Note:

It is important that these payments are promptly identified as forfeiture payments have
a deadline for receipt.

If a check
is not received by the deadline we may initiate additional enforcement actions. b. Copy the check onto th original letter either on the back or front,
if possible. c. Make

1 copy of the letter with the copy of the check on it. d. Make

1 copy of the check. e. Take the original letter (with the copy of the check on it) to Fred and ask him if this is a lead or asbestos forfeiture. Write this info on the Memo line of the check. d. Endorse the back of the check with the Bank Stamp. Note:
If a forfeiture check
is made out to “DHFS” rather than to the school fund, we can still accept the check and endorse

it. Write “State Treasurer— School Fund” on the check above where ‘DHFS” has been designated
as the payee then endorse and process as below. 2. For today’s deposit: a. Print

3 copies of the appropriate completed Deposit Form (DMT-392). b. Place

1 copy of the deposit form (DMT-392),

1 copy of the letter with the copy of the check on it and any other envelope contents
in the Enforcernent 1 Forfeiture Deposits red binder (located above the printer). c. Take the check and

1 copy of the check and 2 copies of the deposit form (DMT-392)

to the Cashier’s Office on the

7 th Floor. Note Hig hlight Lead-Sohoof Fund Forfeiture”
or Asbestos-SchooI Fund Forfeiture”on the Deposit to-n bern
e submitting

to the Cashiers Office. or, h. If not depositing the same day, place

a Post-it note on the check indicating

it is a forfeiture payment and place the check and any associated materials

in the holding drawer of the file cabinet until the day it will be deposited, then process for depositaccording

to the procedures

in steps a.- c. above. K:\BEOH\ALS_DocsProcedures\Current

ALS Procedures\Processffig Payments
to School Fund 11-07
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Soupman, Inc. (the Registrant) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the year ended August 31, 2015 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                     |     |                               
|-------------------- | --- | ------------------------------
|Date: March 25, 2016 |    
|                     |     |                               
|                     | By: | /s/ Jamieson Karson           
|                     |     | Name: Jamieson Karson         
|                     |     | Title: Chief Executive Officer
|                     |     | (Principal Executive Officer) 





|
|
|
#### Gloria M. HUDSON, Appellant, v. Joseph A. HUDSON, Appellee.

No. 73-468.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 27, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; Roger F. Dykes, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.