alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration Office ofAdjudication

U.S. Mail and FAX September 16, 2016 I.E. Sullivan, AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 DepartmentofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 800 Independence Ave., S.W., Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591

Re: Inthe Matter ofJosephMaridon, Sr., FDMS No. FAA-2014-0116 DearJudge Sullivan: I spoke to Walter Ayers, the attorney representing Joseph Maridon, Sr., in the above-referenced matter, about four documents that he had filed with the FAA Hearing Docket, but which do not appear on regulations.gov. The FAA Hearing Docket received each ofthese documents and forwarded them to the DOT DocketManagement Stafffor uploading to regulations.gov as follows: 

### I. 

### Motion to Dismiss. Respondent sent the 

### Motion to the FAA Hearing Docket on May 28, 2014. The FAA Hearing Docket received it on June 3, 2014, and sent a scanned copy ofit by email to the DOTDocketManagement Staffon June 3, 2014, and again on June 11, 2014. 2. 

### Respondent's Reply to FAA's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss andRequest to Find Opposition Timely Filed. Respondent sent the 

### Reply to the FAA Hearing Docket on June 30, 2014. The FAA Hearing Docket received it on July 7, 2014, and sent a scanned copy ofit via email to the DOT Docket Management Staffon July 8, 2014. 3. 

### Respondent's Opposition to Complainant's Motionfor Partial Decision (Summary Judgment). Respondent sent the document to the FAA Hearing Docket on October 30, 2014. The FAA Hearing Docketreceived it on October 30,2014, and sent a scanned copy ofit to the DOTDocket Management Staffon October 31, 2014. 

### 4. 

### Respondent's SecondMotion to Dismissfor Violation of Respondent's Rights under the United States Constitution (Errata- With Exhibits). Respondent sent this documentto the FAA Hearing Docket on January 7, 2015. The FAA Hearing Docket received the document on January 7, 2015, and sent a scanned copy ofitto the DOTDocketManagement Staffon January 9, 2015. The FAA Hearing Docket re-sent each of these four documents to the DOT Docket Management Staff today. Each document bears either the Hearing Docket's "received by" date stamp or the received date from the FAA HearingDocket's FAXmachine.In 

### addition, the FAA Hearing Docket received a package containing additional copies of these four documents on August 18, 2016. The FAA Hearing Docket sent a scanned copy of this group of documents to the DOT Docket Management Stafftoday. Ifyou have any questions about these documents or need information about other documents that were filed in the FAA Hearing Docket in this case, you may contactme at 202-267-0415. Sincerely,



# -~#~ Vicki 

### S". Leemon SeniorAttorney, AGC-70 Cc: David F. Shayne, Esq., FAA (by U.S. Mail and email) Walter Ayers, Esq. (by U.S. Mail and email)
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 Quarterly Report of Daxor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Stephen Feldschuh, Vice
President of Operations and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
The
  information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
  of and for the period covered by the Report.  /s/ Stephen
  FeldschuhStephen
  Feldschuh
  Vice President of Operations and
  Chief Financial Officer
  August 14, 2006 14
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                   <ARTICLE>      5
                  <MULTIPLIER>   1000
            <FISCAL-YEAR-END>   DEC-31-1998
              <PERIOD-END>   MAR-31-1998
                 <PERIOD-TYPE>  3-MOS
                           
                           
                               
                       <CAPTION>
                           
                                        EXHIBIT 27 (a)
                           
    Crown Central Petroleum Corporation and Subsidiaries
                  Financial Data Schedule
          (In thousands, except per share amounts)
                                        
                                        Three Months End
                                        ed
                                        March 31, 1998
                                        ----------------
                                        --
    <S>                                <C>
    <CASH>                                $     (2                                   )
    <SECURITIES>                            30,342
    <RECEIVABLES>                           73,956
    <ALLOWANCES>                              (729                                   )
    <INVENTORY>                            138,937
    <CURRENT-ASSETS>                       253,892
    <PP&E>                                 644,727
    <DEPRECIATION>                         345,802
    <TOTAL-ASSETS>                         596,451
    <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  194,276
    <BONDS>                                129,188
    <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
    <PREFERRED>                                  0
    <COMMON>                                49,920
    <OTHER-SE>                             144,254
    <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           596,451
    <SALES>                                325,960
    <TOTAL-REVENUES>                       325,960
    <CGS>                                  314,495
    <TOTAL-COSTS>                          314,495
    <OTHER-EXPENSES>                        33,324
    <LOSS-PROVISION>                            75
    <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       3,530
    <INCOME-PRETAX>                        (22,192                                   )
    <INCOME-TAX>                            (8,449                                   )
    <INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (13,743                                   )
    <DISCONTINUED>                               0
    <EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
    <CHANGES>                                    0
    <NET-INCOME>                           (13,743                                   )
    <EPS-PRIMARY>                            (1.40                                   )
    <EPS-DILUTED>                            (1.40                                   )
                                        
                           
                               
                           
                        
</TABLE>
#### James Douglas LOSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-667.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 21, 1977.

*846Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, W. C. McLain, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, and Howard L. Dimmig, II, Legal Intern, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court, but we remand this case for resen-tencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975). *Smith v. State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). The appellant does not have to be present at resentencing.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
3. The foregoing restated articles of incorporation have been duly approved by theCorporation’s Board of Directors.          4. The foregoing is merely a restatement of articles of incorporation; there is no amendmentbeing made. As such, no approval is required of the Corporation’s shareholders.”     We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that thematters set forth in this certificate are true and correct of our own knowledge.Date: April 30, 1996     /s/ Richard L. Mueller, Jr.   /s/ Stephen M. Wurzburg     Richard L. Mueller, Jr.   Stephen M. WurzburgPresident   Secretary
 

 
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENTOFARTICLES OF INCORPORATIONOFECLIPSE SURGICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.     Richard L. Mueller, Jr. and Stephen M. Wurzburg certify that:          A. They are the President and Secretary, respectively, of Eclipse Surgical Technologies, Inc.,a California corporation (the “Corporation”).          B. Section 1 of Article THIRD of the articles of incorporation of the Corporation is amendedto read as follows:“THIRD          1. The Corporation is authorized to issue two classes of shares of no par value capitalstock, which classes shall be designated as “common stock” and “preferred stock.” The totalnumber of shares of capital stock which the Corporation shall have authority to issue shallbe fifty-five million (55,000,000) shares, of which fifty million (50,000,000) shares shallbe designated as common stock and five million (5,000,000) shares shall be designated as preferred stock. Upon thefiling of this Certificate of Amendment, each outstanding share of the Corporation’s commonstock shall be split up and converted into three shares of the Corporation’s common stock.”          C. The foregoing amendment of articles of incorporation has been duly approved by theCorporation’s Board of Directors.          D. The foregoing amendment of articles of incorporation has been duly approved by the requiredvote of shareholders in accordance with Section 902 of the Corporations Code. The total number ofoutstanding shares of the Corporation is 3,894,132 shares of common stock. The number of sharesvoting in favor of the amendment equaled or exceeded the vote required. The percentage required wasmore than 50% of the outstanding shares of common stock.     We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that thematters set forth in this certificate are true and correct of our own knowledge.Date: April 30, 1996       /s/ Richard L. Mueller, Jr.   /s/ Stephen M. Wurzburg         Richard L. Mueller, Jr.   Stephen M. Wurzburg  President   Secretary  
 

 
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
#### Bennie GRAHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-739.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 8, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Robert S. Hewitt, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit 32(d)**

 

**The Dayton Powerand Light Company**

** **

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned officerof The Dayton Power and Light Company (the “Issuer”) hereby certifies pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Issuer’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2009, which this certificateaccompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Issuers as of the dates and for theperiods expressed therein.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adoptingthe signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thisstatement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hasbeen provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuers and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Signed:

 

 
| /s/ Frederick J. Boyle                                        |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Frederick J. Boyle                                            |   |
| Senior Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |

 

Date: October 28,2009

 

Theforegoing certificate is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350and is not being filed as part of the Issuer’s Annual Report or as a separatedisclosure document.

 

----
#### J. C. SMITH, Appellant, v. Hayes S. WOOD et al., Appellees.

No. 72-741.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 17, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### 1195 CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Melvin J. HABER and Elisbeth Whitman, Appellees.

No. 70-896.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 25, 1971.

Robert M. Riddle, Miami, for appellant.

David M. Gonshak, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, who was the plaintiff below, filed this appeal from a declaratory judgment. Previously the defendant Lis-beth Whitman had sold certain improved real estate and received a purchase money mortgage. She had assigned the mortgage to the defendant Melvin J. Haber. The property was resold, and subsequently was acquired, subject to the mortgage, by the plaintiff-appellant 1195 Corporation. The disputes sought to be resolved by declaratory judgment related to the amount due on the mortgage, and the rate of interest. The assignee of the mortgage contended the amount of the mortgage indebtedness was $14,838.39 as originally recited in the mortgage. The landowner contended the indebtedness had been reduced to $12,906.-73, because of certain circumstances set forth in the complaint. As to interest, the dispute was whether the interest was 6.39 percent per annum, as contended by the mortgagee or 6 percent per annum as contended by the owner.

The cause was tried before the court. In the judgment entered, the trial court found: “The plaintiff has failed to prove the allegations of the complaint and defendant, Melvin J. Haber, has proved the mortgage balance as he alleged.” As to the interest rate, the court found: “That heretofore this court has determined, by stipulation of counsel, that the interest rate on subject mortgage is six (6) per cent per annum.” Based thereon, the judgment of the court was as follows:

> “1. That the Defendant, Melvin J. Haber’s mortgage was $14,838.39 originally and was $14,786.64 on the 11th day of November, 1965 when assigned to him by Defendant, Lisbeth Whitman, and after the March 1, 1970 payment, which was made, the principal mortgage balance was $13,243.04.

> “2. That the interest rate on said note is six (6) per cent per annum.”

*534On consideration of the pleadings and documents in the record we find no reason sufficient in law to reverse the declaratory judgment entered by the trial court. No transcript of testimony is included in the record. We are impelled to conclude the appellant has not carried its burden of demonstrating error in the trial court’s determination of the issues involved.

Affirmed.
EX-10.5




 EXHIBIT 10.5 

Execution Version 

AMENDMENT TO LETTER AGREEMENT 

November 1, 2021 
 Reference
is hereby made to that certain Letter Agreement (the “Letter Agreement”), dated as of July 1, 2018, by and between Dell Technologies Inc. (“Dell”) and VMware, Inc. ( “VMware”). This Amendment
to Letter Agreement (the “Amendment”) is being entered into in connection with the consummation of the transactions contemplated by that certain Separation and Distribution Agreement, dated as of April 14, 2021, by and between
Dell and VMware. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Letter Agreement. 
  

	 	1.	 The penultimate paragraph of the Letter Agreement (for the avoidance of doubt, relating to termination) is
deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 


 This letter agreement shall terminate on the
earlier of (i) the 10 year anniversary of the date hereof and (ii) the date that the MSD Stockholders and the SLP Stockholders (each as defined in the Stockholders Agreement) no longer hold shares of Class A common stock of the
Company. No provision of this Agreement may be amended, modified or waived except by a written instrument signed by Diamond and the Company; provided that any amendment, modification or waiver of this Agreement shall require the prior written
approval of a special committee of the Board of Directors comprised solely of independent and disinterested directors. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “Stockholders Agreement” means that certain Stockholders Agreement of the
Company dated as of [•], by and between the Company, the MSD Stockholders and the SLP Stockholders. 
 This Amendment shall be governed
by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware applicable to contracts made and to be performed entirely in such state. Each of the parties hereto hereby irrevocably and unconditionally consents to submit to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for any action arising out of or relating to this letter agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby. 

This Amendment may be signed in one or more counterparts (including by fax or .pdf), which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the
same instrument. 
 The parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, as
of the date first written above. 
 This Amendment shall be effective immediately upon the execution and delivery of this Amendment by the
parties hereto. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 











 
			
	DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert Potts

		 	Name: Robert Potts
		 	Title: Senior Vice President and Assistant Secretary
	
	VMWARE, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Craig Norris

		 	Name: Craig Norris
		 	Title: Vice President and Assistant Secretary


 [Signature Page to Amendment to Letter Agreement]
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33845]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission
[Public Law 94-409; 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b]


Record of Vote of Meeting Closure

    I, Michael J. Gaines, Chairman of the United States Parole 
Commission, was present at a meeting of said Commission which started 
at approximately 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, December 16, 1997 at 5550 
Friendship Boulevard, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815. The purpose of the 
meeting was to decide three appeals from the National Commissioners' 
decisions pursuant to 28 CFR Section 2.27. Three Commissioners were 
present, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was 
submitted.
    Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the 
meeting and certifications of General Counsel that this meeting may be 
closed by vote of the Commissioners present were submitted to the 
Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion 
duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted 
that the meeting be closed: Michael J. Gaines, Edward F. Reilly, Jr., 
and John R. Simpson.
    In witness whereof, I make this official record of the vote taken 
to close this meeting and authorize this record to be made available to 
the public.

    Dated: December 19, 1997.
Michael J. Gaines,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-33845 Filed 12-23-97; 10:18 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### J. Bruce VINING, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION and A. D. Saker, Respondents.

No. 70-866.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 5, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
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 A.D.A.M., Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Kevin S. Noland, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Mark B. Adams, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, each do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, 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/    KEVIN S.
NOLAND                                               
|Kevin S. Noland President and Chief Executive Officer  March 17, 2008



|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MARK B.
ADAMS                                                         
|Mark B. Adams Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary  March 17, 2008





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to A.D.A.M., Inc. and will be retained by A.D.A.M., Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of A.D.A.M., Inc., whether made before or after the
date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
<PAGE>

                 EXHIBIT 15 -- INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT
 
 
 
 The Board of Directors
 Cubic Corporation
 
 
We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated condensed balance sheet of Cubic
Corporation as of December 31, 1997, and the related consolidated condensed
statements of income and cash flows for the three-month periods ended December
31, 1997 and 1996.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.
 
We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, which will be performed
for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.
 
Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that
should be made to the accompanying consolidated condensed financial statements
referred to above for them to be in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.
 
We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of September
30, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of income, retained earnings,
and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in our report
dated December 4, 1997, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those
consolidated financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth in
the accompanying consolidated condensed balance sheet at September 30, 1997, is
fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the consolidated balance
sheet from which it has been derived.
 
 
                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
 
February 6, 1998
San Diego, California

                                      10