alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AAM-11-221-E April 8, 2011

Exemption No. 10239 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0247

Mr. James T. Harvilchuck Drug Program Manager Better Living Aviation, Inc. 130 S. Clow International Pkwy Bolingbrook, Illinois 60490

Dear Mr. Harvilchuck:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 6, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Better Living Aviation, Inc (BLA) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Codeof Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow BLA to cover its safetysensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to BLA.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that2

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Better Living Aviation, Inc. an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow BLA to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation, subject to

the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Better Living Aviation, Inc. are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the auspices of the Better Living Aviation, Inc. part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50939

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARTIN PAUL DE-LA-ROSA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:16-CR-317-5

Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Paul De-La-Rosa appeals the 235-month, within-guidelines 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. 

He argues that the district court erred in failing to apply the purity rate to the 

drug quantity attributed to him at the sentencing hearing and in assessing a 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 6, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50939 Document: 00514824619 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2019
No. 17-50939

2

criminal history point for a prior sentence that was imposed outside the 

applicable time period of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e).

As De-La-Rosa correctly concedes, our review is for plain error. To show 

plain error, he must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that 

affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error 

but should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

At a minimum, De-La-Rosa has not satisfied the third prong of the plain 

error test with regard to either alleged error. As to whether his substantial 

rights were affected, his base offense level and guidelines range remain the 

same after the 96.5 per cent purity rate is applied to the 88 ounces of 

methamphetamine attributed to De-La-Rosa. Likewise, his criminal history 

category and guidelines range remain the same after subtraction of the 

contested criminal history point. De-La-Rosa thus fails to demonstrate “a 

reasonable probability that, but for the district court’s error[s], [he] would have 

received a lower sentence.” United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 647 (5th Cir. 

2010).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-50939 Document: 00514824619 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2019
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT YBARRA,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

DENNIS SMITH, Warden, FCI-Phoenix,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 11-15874

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01447-DGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Robert Ybarra appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his motion

for contempt and for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

JAN 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-15874

Ybarra contends the district court abused its discretion by denying the

motion because the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) violated the district court’s

December 21, 2010, order to stop collecting restitution payments through the

Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”). 

We review the denial of a motion for contempt for abuse of discretion. 

Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 464 (9th Cir. 1989). The record

shows that the BOP began collecting restitution payments again after Ybarra

voluntarily entered into a contract and agreed to participate in the IFRP. 

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion

for contempt. See United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2008)

(“[N]othing in the text of the statute or our prior decisions places any limits on the

BOP’s operation of an independent program, such as the IFRP, that encourages

inmates voluntarily to make more generous restitution payments than mandated in

their respective judgments.”).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

       CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cox
Communications, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, I,
James O. Robbins, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) 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/ James O. Robbins
                                             -------------------------------
                                             Name: James O. Robbins
                                             Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                             Date: May 7, 2003
#### James Edward PATILLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-156.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 9, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Order entered November 4, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00896-CR

WARREN DAVIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F08-51421-Y

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On October 22, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief had not been filed. On October 31, 2013, we received appellant’s brief, 

together with an extension motion. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we 

VACATE the October 22, 2013 order requiring findings.

We GRANT the October 31, 2013 extension motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed 

as of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
#### Arthaniel IRVIN, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Appellee.

No. 76-15.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 14, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1978.

Terence William Ackert, Altamonte Springs, for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus having been granted with full appellate review, the appealed order is

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
ChildTaxCredit.Gov

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF

THE TREASURY

HOW TO MAKE SURE YOUR

FAMILY GETS THE EXPANDED

CHILD TAX CREDIT

The expanded Child Tax Credit sends families up to $3,600/child under age 6 and

$3,000/child age 6 through 17. This expansion can help cut child poverty in half!

**Even if you don't usually file taxes, you can now qualify for the Child Tax Credit.**

Your family needs to use the online IRS Non-filer Sign-up Tool. You'll provide a little bit

of information and then sign up to receive Child Tax Credit payments.

If you list child dependents on your tax return + filed in the past two years, you will

AUTOMATICALLY start receiving monthly Child Tax Credit payments in July.

The IRS moved quickly to launch a Child Tax Credit Update Portal within months of

the American Rescue Plan’s passage. The portal allows taxpayers to opt out of advance

payments and to add new bank account information.

Find all of these resources at

ChildTaxCredit.Gov
##### 



Exhibit 32 Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350  The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer of CT Communications, Inc. (the Company), each hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March
31, 2004, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/ Michael R. ColtraneMichael R. ColtraneChief Executive OfficerMay 5, 2004/s/ James E. HausmanJames E. HausmanChief Financial OfficerMay 5, 2004
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to CT Communications, Inc. and will be retained by
CT Communications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30747]



[[Page 62578]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. RP96-366-006 and FA94-15-002]


Florida Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 18, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 12, 1997, Florida Gas Transmission 
Company (FGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendices A and B to 
the filing.
    FGT states that on August 5, 1997, FGT filed a Stipulation and 
Agreement of Settlement (Settlement) in Docket Nos. RP96-366, et al. 
resolving all issues in its rate proceeding, including consolidated 
matters. Pursuant to Article XIII, the Settlement shall become 
effective upon the first day of the first month following the issuance 
of a final Commission order. On September 24, 1997, the Commission 
issued an order approving the Settlement (September 24 Order). Because 
no party requested rehearing as of October 24, 1997, the Settlement 
became effective November 1, 1997.
    FGT states that the instant filing is made in compliance with the 
September 24 Order which directs FGT to file revised tariff sheets to 
reflect the settlement rates within thirty days of the effectiveness of 
the Settlement.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests should be filed 
in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make Protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30747 Filed 11-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
----

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:         | /s/ William Pagano      |   |
|-------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | William Pagano          |   |
|        | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|        | Date: May 12, 2010      |   |

----
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 11
                             CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        Computation of Earnings Per Share


                                  Three Months Ended        Nine Months Ended
                                     September 30,             September 30,
                                   2001        2000          2001        2000
                                   ----        ----          ----        ----
Computation of share totals
 used in computing earnings
 per share:

Weighted average number
 of shares outstanding         18,797,855   18,853,398   18,834,216   18,826,726

Basic average shares
 a-outstanding                 18,797,855   18,853,398   18,834,216   18,826,726

Incremental shares arising,
 from outstanding stock
 options                           47,233       88,634       40,961      115,308
                              -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------

 b-Totals                      18,845,088   18,942,032   18,875,177   18,942,034
                              ===========  ===========  ===========  ===========

 c-Net Income                 $ 2,797,185  $27,333,773  $ 7,913,746  $37,503,444
                              ===========  ===========  ===========  ===========

Net Income Per Share
 Basic - c/a                  $      0.15  $      1.45  $      0.42  $      1.99
                              ===========  ===========  ===========  ===========

Net Income Per Share
 assuming full dilution c/b   $      0.15  $      1.44  $      0.42  $      1.98
                              ===========  ===========  ===========  ===========
Exhibit 35.3



LOGO

SUBSERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

SALLIE MAE, INC.

12061 Bluemont Way

Reston, VA 20190

Pursuant to Section 13.03 of the Omnibus Subservicing Agreement dated
March 23, 2009 among Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. (Subservicer), Sallie Mae, Inc. as the master servicer and administrator (the Servicing Agreement), the undersigned certifies that (a) a review of the
Subservicers activities during the period from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement, has been made under my supervision; and (b) to the best of my knowledge, based on
such review, the Subservicer has fulfilled all of its obligation under the Servicing Agreement, in all material respects, during such period.

GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC.

|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|LOGO                   
|Jill M. Leitl          
|Chief Servicing Officer
|February 6, 2012       



|                                                                                                                                         |  |  |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC. 2401 INTERNATIONAL LANE | MADISON, WI
53704-3192 PHONE: 608.246.1800 | WEB: MYGREATLAKES.ORG |  |  |  |
**Exhibit 32.1.1**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Kevin Burke, the Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (the“Company”) certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: November 7, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statement of operations and consolidated balance sheet and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000022301
<NAME> COMCAST CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             751
<SECURITIES>                                     4,842
<RECEIVABLES>                                      655
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (150)
<INVENTORY>                                        375
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,715
<PP&E>                                           6,405
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,640)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,176
<BONDS>                                         10,806
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              577
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           907
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,254
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,645
<SALES>                                          1,859
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,859
<CGS>                                            (447)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (1,818)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (57)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (169)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (184)<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                        32
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (152)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (5)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (192)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.24)
<FN>
<F1>
Income before income tax expense and other items excludes the effect of
minority interests, net of tax, of $34.2.
</FN>


</TABLE>