alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Ralhan, Sanjay (FAA)

From: Ralhan, Sanjay (FAA) Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 9:08 AM To: 'Krista Dial' Cc: Kirk Fitzpatrick; Kirk Fitzpatrick; Greg Bresee; Greg Devlin Subject: RE: AD 2015-22-06 Clarification Request of Need for AMOC

Dear Krista,

Your point is noted, I will issue a global AMOC for Air bus, which will be applicab le to all US registered airplanes. The AMOC will clarify similar intent of “one after another “ and “one after the other” . This will allow operators to utilize the information provid ed in note 1 to paragraph (g) of the AD.

Regards,

Sanjay Ralhan Program Manager - International Branch Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Services Federal Aviation Administration Phone: 425-227-1405 E-mail: Sanjay.Ralhan@faa.gov

From: Krista Dial [ mailto:krista.dial@virginamerica.com ] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 7:42 AM To: Ralhan, Sanjay (FAA); Kirk Fitzpatrick; Greg Bresee; Greg Devlin Subject: AD 2015-22-06 Clarification Request of Need for AMOC

Dear Sanjay,

We have received AD2015-22-06, and in a side by side comparison of the Airbus provided AFM to the AD text, there is a slight difference in the text.

The AD text specifies "Turn OFF then ON SEC 1 and SEC 2 one after another."

The Airbus provided AFM specifi es "Turn off then on SEC 1 and SEC 2 one after the other."

Since the AD specifies the text must be identical, pl ease advise if we should pursue an AMOC for the Airbus AFM text.

I have enclosed the Normal procedures pa ge from the AFM, as provided by Airbus.2 Sincerely,

Krista Dial Manager, AD/CFR and Aircraft Information Systems Virgin America 555 Airport Blvd. Burlingame, CA 94010 650-762-7168 phone 650-648-0537 fax
##### 



Exhibit 32
 Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, 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. Coltrane

Michael R. ColtraneChief Executive OfficerAugust 4, 2006/s/ James E. Hausman

James E. HausmanChief Financial OfficerAugust 4, 2006
Actions Taken by the Committee to Impose Penalties Pursuant to Section 721(h) 

and Unilateral Reviews Initiated Pursuant to Section 721(b)(1)(D)(iii) of the Defense 

Production Act of 1950, As Amended

2019

Action Penalty Amount Description

Civil monetary penalty $750,000 A penalty was assessed for violations of a 2018 CFIUS interim order, 

including failure to restrict and adequately monitor access to protected data, as 

defined in the order. The parties agreed to the penalty amount.
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31308]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[NM-030-5700-77; NMNM 85612]

Public Land Order No. 7296; Withdrawal of National Forest System 
Land for Sacramento Peak Observatory; New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Public Land Order.

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

SUMMARY: This order withdraws 2,432.40 acres of National Forest System 
land from mining for a period of 20 years to protect the scientific 
value of the Sacramento Peak Observatory. The land has been and will 
remain open to mineral leasing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lorraine J. Salas, BLM Las Cruces 
District Office, 1800 Marquess, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005, 505-525-
4388.
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior 
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows:
    1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described 
National Forest System land is hereby withdrawn from location and entry 
under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1994)), but not 
from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, to protect the Sacramento 
Peak Observatory:

New Mexico Principal Meridian

Lincoln National Forest

    T. 17 S., R. 11 E.,
    Sec. 26, SW\1/4\;
    Sec. 27, W\1/2\NE\1/4\, SE\1/4\NE\1/4\, NW\1/4\ and S\1/2\;
    Sec. 28, E\1/2\NE\1/4\ and S\1/2\, unsurveyed;
    Sec. 33, unsurveyed;
    Sec. 34, lots 1 to 4, inclusive, N\1/2\, and N\1/2\S\1/2\.
    The area described contains 2,432.40 acres in Otero County.

    2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the 
applicability of those land laws governing the use of the National 
Forest System land under lease, license, or permit, or governing the 
disposal of their mineral or vegetative resources other than under the 
mining laws.
    3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of 
this order unless, as a result of a review conducted before the 
expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (1994), the Secretary 
determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.

    Dated: November 14, 1997.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 97-31308 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-VC-P
```
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  By:    |  /s/ Igor Svishevskiy                                              |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:  |  Igor Svishevskiy                                                  |
|  Title: |  Chief Executive Officer,Chief Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:  |  February 11, 2011                                                 |
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





I, Leonard Borow, President and Chief Executive Officer of Aeroflex Holding Corp., hereby certify that the Form 10-K of Aeroflex Holding Corp. for the period ended June 30, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aeroflex Holding Corp.





/s/ Leonard BorowName:  Leonard BorowDate:  August 31, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Aeroflex Holding Corp. and will be retained by Aeroflex Holding Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In re ESTATE of Laura E. VERDIER, Deceased. Jean M. VERDIER, Petitioner, v. Willis J. VERDIER et al., Respondents.

No. 44482.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 30, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 281 So.2d 543.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., ¡concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000861065
<NAME>                        ENEX 88-89 INCOME & RETIREMENT FUND-SERIES 3, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         2733
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8517
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11250
<PP&E>                                         906914
<DEPRECIATION>                                 825386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 92778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          90861
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1917
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   92778
<SALES>                                        47786
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               47786
<CGS>                                          25790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  37202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               11412
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   10584
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

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


The undersigned, as the President and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President
of Finance and Assistant Treasurer of Cotton States Life Insurance Company,
certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2003, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Cotton States Life Insurance Company at the dates and for the
periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to SECTION 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.SECTION1350) and no purchaser or
seller of securities or any other person shall be entitled to rely upon the
foregoing certification for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly
disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as
required by law.

                              /s/   J. Ridley Howard
Date:    11/ 12/ 03          --------------------------------------------------
                              J. Ridley Howard
                              President and Chief Executive Officer

                              /s/ William J. Barlow
Date:   11/ 12/ 03           --------------------------------------------------
                              William J. Barlow
                              Vice President of Finance and Assistant Treasurer
Exhibit 11.2 CPI Corp.
Computation of Per Common Share Earnings (Loss) - Basic(Unaudited) thousands, except share and per share data16 Weeks
  Ended
  
  40 Weeks
  EndedNovember
  13,
  2004
  
  November
  8,
  2003
  
  November
  13,
  2004
  
  November
  8,
  2003Basic:Net loss applicable to
  common shares:From continuing operations
  
  $
  (13,438
  )
  $
  (2,421
  )
  $
  (27,607
  )
  $
  (4,715
  )From discontinued
  operations
  
  
  (7
  )
  
  (1,956
  )
  
  (3,744
  )
  
  (3,217
  )Net loss
  
  $
  (13,445
  )
  $
  (4,377
  )
  $
  (31,351
  )
  $
  (7,932
  )Shares:Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding
  
  
  18,423,933
  
  
  18,339,623
  
  
  18,403,416
  
  
  18,339,325Less: Treasury stock - weighted
  average
  
  
  (10,672,236
  )
  
  (10,267,793
  )
  
  (10,476,110
  )
  
  (10,250,099
  )Weighted average number of
  common and common equivalent shares outstanding
  
  
  7,751,697
  
  
  8,071,830
  
  
  7,927,306
  
  
  8,089,226Net loss per common and
  common equivalent shares:From continuing operations
  
  $
  (1.73
  )
  $
  (0.30
  )
  $
  (3.48
  )
  $
  (0.58
  )From discontinued
  operations
  
  
  
  
  
  (0.24
  )
  
  (0.47
  )
  
  (0.40
  )Net loss
  
  $
  (1.73
  )
  $
  (0.54
  )
  $
  (3.95
  )
  $
  (0.98
  )
#### Steven LYNCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1006.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 16, 1973.

Richard S. Rhodes, Orlando, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Andrew I. Friedrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAGER, J., and WHITE, JOS. S., Associate Judge, concur.

OWEN, J., dissents with opinion.

OWEN, Judge

(dissenting).

Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape. I am satisfied that appellant has adequately demonstrated two grounds of reversible error, the first of which would entitle him to discharge, and *33the second of which would entitle him to a new trial.

By bill of particulars the State specified that the offense charged in the information occurred on November 29, 1970 between the hours of 1:00 A.M. and 5:00 A.M. On direct examination, in response to the prosecutor’s request to describe what happened to her on November 29, 1970, the victim testified as to the assault upon her, identifying appellant as the culprit. On cross-examination she admitted that she did not know the date of the offense which she described, and in fact could not even state the month in which it occurred. The State offered no other evidence as to the date of the offense which the victim had described. Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, denied having committed the offense and sought to prove alibi through his own testimony and that of other witnesses. The date of the alleged offense, narrowed as it was by the bill of particulars, was an essential element of the State’s case. In my opinion it was not proven and it was error for the court to have denied appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence.

As part of the State’s case in chief, and over appellant’s objection, the court permitted into evidence a tape recording of certain testimony given at a preliminary hearing. The preliminary hearing was in connection with two separate charges against appellant, one being the instant case and the other being a similar charge involving an alleged assault upon one Brenda Welch at a subsequent date. Testifying at the preliminary hearing were the two alleged victims. Putting aside the questions of (1) whether the State made an adequate showing of the unavailability of Brenda Welch at time of trial, (2) the relevancy of her testimony, and (3) the absence of any basis to justify use of the preliminary hearing testimony of the prosecuting witness in the instant case, the unedited tape concluded with the Magistrate’s announced ruling, plainly audible, of a “finding of probable cause” against appellant. In my opinion, this alone was so prejudicial as to justify granting appellant a new trial.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

December 19, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50759

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT MARTINEZ-GIL,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-91-CR-318-4

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

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Following a jury trial, Robert Martinez-Gil, prisoner number

24434-149, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to possess

heroin and cocaine with intent to deliver. The district court

sentenced him to life in prison. This court affirmed his

conviction and sentence on direct appeal, and his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion to vacate his sentence was unsuccessful. Martinez-Gil’s

numerous moti ons seeking authorization to file a successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion were likewise unavailing. Martinez-Gil thenNo. 03-50759

-2-

filed a “motion to dismiss 21 U.S.C. § 851 enhancement information

for lack of service” in which he argued that the enhancement

information upon which his sentence was based should be dismissed

for want of proper service. The district court determined that

Martinez-Gil was attempting to bring a successive motion to vacate

his sentence without having received this court’s authorization to

do so. The district court thus dismissed the case. Martinez-Gil

now appeals the dismissal of this motion. He argues that the

district court erred in classifying his motion as properly sounding

in 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and he also moves this court for a writ of

mandamus ordering the district court to vacate his life sentence.

Martinez-Gil has not shown that the distr ict court erred in

determining that his motion, which raised a thinly disguised

challenge to his sentence, was really an attempt to bring an

unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v.

Dobre

, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Martinez-Gil had

not obtained this court’s authorizati on to file this motion, the

district court did not err in dismissing Martinez-Gil’s case. S ee

United States v. Key

, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and Martine z-Gil’s

motion for a writ of mandamus is DENIED.
Exhibit 15







May 9, 2005



Northeast Utilities

107 Selden Street

Berlin, CT 06037



We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of Northeast Utilities and subsidiaries for the periods ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, as indicated in our report dated May 9, 2005; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.



We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-34622, 33-40156, 333-108712, 333-116725 and 333-118276 on Forms S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 33-63023, 333-52413, 333-63144 and 333-106008 on Forms S-8 of Northeast Utilities.



We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.





|/s/ | Deloitte & Touche LLP
|--- | ---------------------
|    | Deloitte & Touche LLP





Hartford, Connecticut
Order entered September 24, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00332-CR

JAMES ANTHONY KIRVIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 060407-59

ORDER

The Court DENIES appellant’s September 18, 2013 pro se motion to obtain a copy of the 

record. Appellant is represented by counsel who filed a brief on the merits and is not entitled to 

hybrid representation. See Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981).

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE
13a-14(a) AND RULE 15d-14(a)

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18

OF THE UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Nevada Property 1 LLC (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey S. Burge, 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:



| | (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: March 30, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/    Jeffrey S. Burge
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### LECO INVESTMENTS, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellants, v. Charles MEYER, a single man, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-895.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1973.

Bruno Di Giulian, of Di Giulian & Spellacy, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Coleman C. Sweet, of Buckley & Bland, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Hodges.

PER CURIAM.

Based upon our review of the recent case law with respect to the sufficiency of complaints and when measuring such decisions against the complaint in the instant case we are of the opinion that the allegations were such as to withstand a motion to dismiss. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Walters, Fla.1971, 246 So.2d 563; Iorio v. Layman, Fla.App.1971, 256 So.2d 26; Bond v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., Fla.App. 1971, 246 So.2d 631. See also Nantell v. Lim-Wick Construction Company, Fla.App. 1969, 228 So.2d 634.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MAG-ER, JJ., concur.