alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Castaneda, Val (FAA) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Castaneda, Val (FAA) 

Tuesday, April 07, 2015 1:14 PM 

'sdickerson@satx.rr.com' 

FAA Extension Request Notice - Please read 

Dear Ms. Dickerson, we apologize for not being able to follow up to your request: It is incomplete. We received your 

letter requesting an extension of Ryan's exemption (10750). We cannot process your request because the extension has 

to follow the same format as the original request for exemption. I will be uploading a very similar letter as the excerpt 

below to your docket, but I wanted to get this information to you as quickly as possible. Although we move as quickly as 

the process allows us, we normally need between 45-60 days to process these types of requests. Please keep that in 

mind as you plan your travel. We are currently granting these requests for five years now and I don't see anything 

changing between now and when we receive your complete request. 

SAMPLEThe FAA apologizes for not being able to meet your needs. This letter is to inform you that we are unable to 

process your request for an extension ofExemption No. 10750 from § 121.3ll(b) ofTitle 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations ( 14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 

days. 

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

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 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. 

• 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 infom1ation, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

I r you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described above to reach us 

within 30 days. We have included a website where you can download sample letters that may help you with 

your request for an extension of your exemption -- http://kidsfl ysafc.com/instructions/cares-for-special-ncedsfl ycrs. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from 

you. 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 extension. Under normal circumstances, the exemption process may take up to 

120 days, there fore, you should plan accordingly. 

1 
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. Again, we 

offer an apology and we look forward to hearing from you. 

2
oi- (4-ooM-£R

4 ppetfate. Gause M?.

Court of Crti/iifty} nP/700'^

Austin /£ 7£70(- 4445" AUi g*TO

Dear Clerk:

EacJoscJ p)ao3e -Pindtnv/ Pre 5© Defendants A/latian-*-<>< e^rf-Atncft

TTj** to R(e Petition £>r tW^nare/ fe^, fl^ £|e ^

rY(<rciGn arid bnncj ft -b attention op -the CWt.

"P/ease dats-stamp-this (dfcer flwd n?fcaro rfc "fe me rft /w«j

qcilrx^s shown, beW

COURT OFCRIMIWAUppeA!j

c?n cvr)u1 r • ivN^fj- j-«»

AUG 27 2015

Abe/Acosta, clerk Sincerely

1401 siate- S^S0' ra
'.«..

I\ID (57- 14-00/WCJ?

|HTt4£

Courr 0F ^Ri^1 ^uAppeal

fta5nM;T^cA5

REX EA^

z

FW*w IWI to. fll-ffr-ooiH-Cfr

-Trwl case No. . :W5^3ft,bi(,

Comes n<w Rex/W.~Sfrt<gr, Petoner;aod-G(est>\is A}otor\ -Por e^ctooaon d-f sc^((^*)ckius mw/hich-to^Ue #Teb±±br\c£ ftseinsfcK'nany K«vieo,Xt\ support of-thisTAotion, appellant shews -the &urt-the-following J

X.

"The. ?^tt6aer unc cow ©feed in -the. I31 ttts-tnefc CturtoP liibofik Qsuntjj,

TS-xft6 af-(Jke OCfeneeof D^i Si^lorMore, m-tfe Cause. Wo 2.013- 436, Uk,

S^A State o-PTexos V5. ^^i6e£. "The ^etrboner tfpps&led 4o-the-

(^ocjrfe c£ Arppexfe T^ Sap^e^e OlttaiQ I P/s-trct ."The G#se atis a^inrwoJ

On Mar«K3L20l6".
TL. t, H\ "Thepn-asyjt de«di<ne€>r-G(,m ^eT^ton^T)|aif^^r3 i^w B unlfrouyi "Jfte: Bftttoner has mob flajues^ianj edefihor\ prior -to-bhis nspest

m.

Pe-trtioioers ffeauest-for an attend &base upon-lh^-Gllo^nci "6^ :~fetboner

iufc not inCbroried <5-P thecfeusion erf -bht&wrt <s-f Appeals meffirmw hisdase cint

T"^, 2-015" Sincethsct-bme Vehiboner has been attemptino-to tfflln i<e<^l

representation*) tft/s matter". His attorna* d* the tfppml |4Ui fas w>4W»ed[PebW -fctoL he u^.lj not^p^sentVm 0^

rertiaontor Usdftetionafy ftcuieuj.

SjOha^Ftee, T^titioner pftfys the Courtqrants-the moiioo an<J e\rb£fld -thedaadline4r-filim4rl)^rett6oam l^su;?*; fee Ma. 2413-43%-Mk "to

gdt3 6T-14-0OIH-6R

C\cRBF\(Lm"ioN of S^fojid^r

JT&r&f t^ta4r«^ awd ComscL copy trffche above and ^Wu/g "Krst AMw

to US. Mad ^postage prepaid; ^rs^cJflSSj-to the. /tfiWj -ftr^jfe, ^ j^

at T>0, 'Bw )05"3U, UifctoakTTetfis TM08, anJ-to 5W^%^mtm koto*

Pi>>B* ^°5,Austin;iexp5 7BTI * -bh.5 )Z c^o-f Au^a5t; 20/5

X u?06 in-formed #•£ rm deeiSlOA £>n mu Appeal (^ ^L ^ 2016^ ba

T^WSde fecial MOi l! ^ ^^)' ar~~J

ies\ pnPse.
U."

.. i

in

11^^

W1

tfc

'•>• i I H %
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29339]



[[Page 60074]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-47-000]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

October 31, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 24, 1997, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 
500 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48243, filed in Docket No. 
CP98-47-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.212 of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and 
157.212) for authorization to install and operate a turbine meter at 
its St. Henry Meter Station, located in Mercer County, Ohio, under 
ANR's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-480-000, pursuant 
to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in 
the request that is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    ANR proposes to install one 3-inch turbine meter at its existing 
St. Henry Meter Station, located in Mercer County, Ohio. ANR states the 
St. Henry Meter Station currently consists of one 4-inch turbine meter. 
ANR declares it provides deliveries to West Ohio Gas Company at this 
location. ANR asserts it is proposing to add the turbine meter at the 
St. Henry Meter Station in order to meet customer demand that sometimes 
exceeds the capability of the existing meter when gas pressure at the 
station is low (less than 400 psig).
    ANR states the total cost of the proposed facility is estimated to 
be approximately $57,500.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29339 Filed 11-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

and 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 Xiangtian
(USA) Air Power Co., Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended July 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Zhiqi Zhang Rong, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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: April 24 2015        
| | ---------------------------
| |                            
| | /s/ Zhiqi Zhang            
| | Zhiqi Zhang                
| | Principal Executive Officer
| | Principal Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03038]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Chapter 2

[Docket No. DARS-2014-0012]

Review of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy 
(DPAP) is currently conducting an assessment to identify impacts 
experienced by industry resulting from contracting statutes.

DATES: Submit written comments to the address shown below on or before 
March 14, 2014. Comments received will be considered by DoD in the 
formation of a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense if a revision 
to the definition is necessary and appropriate.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Mr. Michael Canales, Room 5E621, 3060 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Comments may also be 
submitted by fax at (703) 614-1254, or by email at 
michael.j.canales4.civ@mail.mil.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Canales, DPAP/CPIC, by 
telephone at (703) 695-8571, or by email at 
michael.j.canales4.civ@mail.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the assessment is to support 
an internal Department of Defense (DoD) effort to reduce compliance 
impacts that do not achieve the benefits intended by contracting 
statutes. As part of this assessment, DPAP would like to receive the 
views of interested parties identifying particular impacts associated 
with specific contracting statutes. There is an extensive body of law 
and regulation that govern the Department's business. We are seeking to 
better understand the impact experienced by industry resulting from 
requirements based on statute. Our initial review identified 
approximately 400 DFARS requirements based solely on statute. The 
Director, DPAP, is soliciting public input to identify particular 
impacts associated with specific contracting statutes, with reference 
to--
     Particular impacts associated with specific contracting 
statutes;
     Why the identified impact does not achieve the intended 
benefit of the identified legislation, or why the intended benefit is 
not helpful to the Department; and
     Any recommendations for alternative approaches to achieve 
the intended benefit of the identified legislation.
    We are also interested in candidate DFARS and component supplements 
requirements that, although not based in statute, warrant similar 
consideration.

Manuel Quinones,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
[FR Doc. 2014-03038 Filed 2-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
**EXHIBIT 32.4**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2005, for Texas-New Mexico Power Company ("Company"), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2005 ("Report"), I, Thomas G.Sategna, Vice President and Corporate Controller of the Company, certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)     theReport fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)     theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:   August 8, 2005 | By: | /s/ Thomas G. Sategna |
|----------------------------------|-----|-----------------------|
|                                  |     | Thomas G. Sategna     |
|                                  |     | Vice President and    |
|                                  |     | Corporate Controller  |
### NUMBER 13 - 18 - 00571 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ ROSENDO TORRES III, Appellant ,
v. NAVARRO PLACE APARTMENTS , Appellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras Appellant Rosendo Torres III appealed a judgment entered in trial court cause number 2018

- CCV

- 61523

- 5 in the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas. On Octobe r 15, 2018 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5 (a),(d), (e) and Rule 25.1(d),(e)

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 9.5 (a),(d), (e) ; id. R. 25.1(d),(e). The Clerk directed2

appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with the district clerk ’ s office within thirty days from the date of that notice. On November 19, 2018 , the Clerk notified appellant that the se defect s had not been corrected and warned appellant that the appe al would be dismissed if the defect s were not cured within ten days. To date, the defect s ha ve not been corrected

. See id. R. 37.3 ; id. R. 42.3(b),(c). The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s failure to
correct the defect s , i s of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. R.
37.3 ; id. R. 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSE D for want of prosecution.

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice

D elivered and filed the 17th day of January, 2019

.
#### Robert R. FRANK, Appellant, v. SOUTHEAST FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MAIMI, f/k/a the First National Bank of Miami, a United States banking associate, Appellee.

No. 77-2387.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 15, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1978.

Frank, Strelkow & Gay, North Bay Village, for appellant.

*829Steel, Hector *&*Davis and Donald M. Middlebrooks, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Robert R. Frank, appeals a final judgment for the plaintiff Southeast First National Bank of Miami. The judgment was entered after a trial before the court without jury. The complaint by the Bank was for the recovery of money paid to the defendant by mistake. The defendant pled an estoppel to collect the money because of an alleged change in his position in reliance upon the payment. The issue was entirely factual and in the absence of a point directed either to eviden-tiary rulings or claimed procedural errors, the judgment of the court is not subject to reversal unless the record is such that it shows that reasonable men could not have failed to believe the defense proved. See *Goldberger v. State,*144 So.2d 875 (Fla.3d DCA 1962); and see *Allied Chemical Corporation v. Eubanks Industries, Inc.,*155 So.2d 740, 742 (Fla.3d DCA 1963).

Our review of the record finds ample support for the trial judge’s finding that the defense was not established.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Al Everett BOYETTE, Appellee.

No. 70-160.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 25, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
----

----

|   | (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      as of and for the period(s) covered in the  Report. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      May 4, 2009 |   |   |
|------------------------|--------|--------|

|   | By:    | /s/      Richard M. Lavers   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|   |   | Richard      M. Lavers       |
|   |   | Chief      Executive Officer |
Exhibit 99.5

 

**CONSENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP**

 

We hereby consent to (i) the inclusion in Cenovus Energy Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010; and (ii) the incorporation by reference in Cenovus Energy Inc.’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-163397), Form F-3 (File No. 333-166419), and Form F-9 (File No. 333-167876) of our audit report dated February 18, 2011, relating to Cenovus Energy Inc.’s Consolidated Financial Statements as of December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, and for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2010 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Cenovus Energy Inc. as of December 31, 2010.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chartered Accountants

Calgary, Alberta

February 25, 2011

 

 

----
Motion Granted, Judgment Set Aside, Case Remanded, and Memorandum 

Opinion filed October 22, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00698-CV

JOSE HERRERA AND PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., Appellants

V.

JANE PORTER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-40459

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 10, 2019. On October 1, 2019, 

the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to a settlement 

agreement. In their joint motion, the parties advise that they have reached an 

agreement to settle and compromise the judgment, and they accordingly request the 

court to set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand 

the case to the trial court for rendition of a judgment in accordance with the parties’ 
2

settlement agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). The motion is GRANTED.

We set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and 

remand this case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the 

parties’ settlement agreement.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
Exhibit 11: Page 1 of 2 

WESTERN STATES OFFICE AND 

PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND

SUSPENSION APPLICATION 

Exhibit 11
Redacted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury Redacted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury

Western States Office and Professional Employees Pension Fund 

Exhibit 11 

Plan Sponsor Certifications Relating to Plan Amendments 

Pursuant to Section 6.06 of IRS Revenue Procedure 2016-27, the undersigned Trustees hereby certify 

that if the Plan receives final authorization to implement the proposed suspension as described in Section 

432(e)(9)(H)(vi) of the Code and chooses to implement the authorized suspension, then, in addition to the 

plan amendment implementing the suspension, the following plan amendments will be timely adopted 

and not modified at any time thereafter before the suspension of benefits expires: 

(1) A plan amendment providing that in accordance with section 432(e)(9)(C)(ii) of the Code the 

benefit suspension will cease as of the first day of the first plan year following the plan year in 

which the plan sponsor fails to maintain a written record of its determination that both: 

(a) All reasonable measures to avoid insolvency continue to be taken during the period of the 

benefit suspension. 

(b) The plan is projected to become insolvent unless benefits continue to be suspended. 

(2) A plan amendment providing that any future benefit improvements must satisfy the requirements 

of§ 432(e)(9)(E) of the Code. 

Michael Parmelee, Co-Chair 

Authorized Trustee on behalf of the Board of 

Trustees for the Western States Office and 

Professional Employees Pension Fund 

;L-10-17 

Date 

Suzanne o , Co-Cha\r . 

Authorize T ustee on ~half of the Board of 

Trustees for the Western States Office and 

Professional Employees Pension Fund 

Date 

Exhibit 11: Page 2 of 2
----

**EXHIBIT      32.4**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | the                  Report fully complies with the requirements of § 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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                    August 8, 2006 | By:    | /s/                    Charles N. Eldred      |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                    |   | Charles                    N. Eldred          |
|                                    |   | Senior                    Vice President, and |
|                                    |   | Chief                    Financial Officer    |
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with
the Annual Report of Dehaier Medical Systems Limited (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2010 (the Report), I, Ping Chen,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|               |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|-------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|March 31, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Ping Chen          
|               |  |  |  |  |  | Ping Chen              
|               |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### Sheri GROSSINGER, Appellant, v. Merle D. HYDE and Insured Driveway System of Florida Incorporated, Appellees.

No. 69-322.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 23, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.