alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-12-383-E 

June 15, 2012 

 Exemption No. 9775B 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-0994 

Mr. Chuck Horgan 

Director of Maintenance 

Center for Emergency Medicine of Western Pennsylvania, Inc. 

STAT MedEvac 

10 Allegheny County Airport 

West Mifflin, PA 15122 

Dear Mr. Horgan: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9775, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated May 10, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of the Center for Emergency Medicine, d/b/a STAT MedEvac (STAT) for an 

exemption from §§ 91.411(b) and 91.413(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). The Exemption, if granted, would allow STAT to perform air traffic control 

(ATC) transponder tests and inspections and altimeter systems and altimeter reporting 

equipment tests and inspections for its part 135 aircraft maintained under an approved aircraft 

inspection program (AAIP). 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

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

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to STAT. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9775, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions 

and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. All ATC transponder tests and inspections and all altimeter reporting equipment tests 

and inspections must be conducted under STAT’s part 135 AAIP. 

2. All tests and inspections must be recorded in the aircraft’s maintenance log by the 

person performing each inspection and test. This record must identify the person 

performing the inspection, the date of the inspection, and this exemption number. 

3. All records of these tests and inspections also must be kept in STAT’s maintenance 

recording system for its part 135 aircraft. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9775, as amended, to 

October 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9775, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9775. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Deputy Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
PUBLIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

Za TRADE COtnag
(eS receiven Docune SQN

Jul 14 20%
270%26

) SECRETARY
In the Matter of )
)

ECM BioFilms, Inc., ) DOCKET NO. 9358

a corporation, also d/b/a )
Enviroplastics International, )
Respondent. )
)

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TG EXTEND DEADLINE TO
FILE EXPERT WITNESS RELATED MCTIONS IN LIMINE

On July 14, 2014, Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Complaint Counsel and Respondent
ECM BioFilms, Inc. (“Respondent” or “ECM”) filed a Joint Motion seeking to extend the deadline
for filing motions in limine related to expert witnesses (“Joint Motion”). Under the Third Revised
Scheduling Order, the deadline for filing motions in limine is July 14, 2014. The parties state that
the parties have not yet completed all depositions of the experts in this matter. Thus, the parties
request an extension of the deadline for filing motions in Jimine related to experts in order to enable
the parties to complete the expert depositions prior to filing motions in limine relating to experts.
Granting this extension would not affect the date of the hearing.

Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.21(c)(2), “{t]he Administrative Law Judge may, upon a
showing of good cause, grant a motion to extend any deadline or time specified in [the] scheduling
order other than the date of the evidentiary hearing.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.21(c)(2). The parties have
demonstrated good cause. Accordingly, the Joint Motion is GRANTED. However, the parties are
advised that motions in limine relating to experts are strongly disfavored. E.g., In re LabMD, Ine.,
2014 FTC LEXIS 115 (May 5, 2014).

The Third Revised Scheduling Order is hereby revised to extend the deadline for filing
motions in limine relating to experts to July 17, 2014 and to extend the deadline for filing responses
to any such motions to July 22, 2014.

ORDERED: Din Civeadl
D. Michael Chappell
Chief Administrative Law Judge

Date: July 14, 2014
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Delegation of Authority No. 280-2]

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including 22 U.S.C. 2651a, I hereby delegate to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to approve submission of reports to the Congress.

This delegation covers the decision to submit to the Congress both one-time reports and recurring reports. However, this delegation shall not be construed to authorize the Under Secretary to make waivers, certifications, determinations, findings, or other such statutorily required substantive actions that may be called for in connection with the submission of a report. The Under Secretary shall be responsible for referring to the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary any matter on which action would appropriately be taken by such official.

Any authority covered by this delegation may also be exercised by the Deputy Secretary, to the extent authorized by law, or by the Secretary of State. This delegation does not repeal or amend any other delegation currently in effect.

                    This delegation of authority shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: May 17, 2018.

Michael R. Pompeo,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2018-12450 Filed 6-8-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
#### Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

77-585.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 30, 1978.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, AL-MON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
#### AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Walter E. BJORKMAN, individually, and Walter E. Bjorkman, Administrator ad litem for the Estate of Doris L. Bjorkman, Deceased, Appellees.

No. 69-400.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 18, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7657 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7657

 To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 with respect to 
      anadromous fish habitat and passage, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 16, 2020

 Ms. Schrier introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the 
    Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 with respect to 
      anadromous fish habitat and passage, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FOR ANADROMOUS FISH.

    (a) Anadromous Fish Habitat and Passage.--Section 206 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Anadromous fish habitat and passage.--
                    ``(A) Measures.--A project under this section may 
                include measures to improve habitat or passage for 
                anadromous fish, including--
                            ``(i) installing fish bypass structures on 
                        small water diversions;
                            ``(ii) modifying tide gates; and
                            ``(iii) restoring or reconnecting 
                        floodplains and wetlands that are important for 
                        anadromous fish habitat or passage.
                    ``(B) Benefits.--A project that includes measures 
                under this paragraph shall be formulated to maximize 
                benefits for the anadromous fish species benefitted by 
                the project.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) Prioritization.--The Secretary shall give projects that 
include measures described in subsection (a)(3) equal priority for 
implementation as other projects under this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-165151 on Form S-8 of Colonial Properties Trust of our report dated June 21, 2013 , relating to our audit of the financial statements and supplemental schedule of the Colonial Properties Trust Amended and Restated 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 11-K of the Colonial Properties Trust Amended and Restated 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan for the year ended December 31, 2012 .








/s/ Sellers, Richardson, Holman & West, LLP





Birmingham, Alabama





June 21, 2013
<PAGE>

                         DREXLER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

                         AMENDMENT TO STOCK OPTION PLAN


I, the undersigned, hereby certify that:

     1. I am a duly elected and acting Assistant Secretary of Drexler Technology
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company").

     2. Under the EDGAR electronic filing system of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, a copy of the Company's Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") was most
recently filed in its entirety as Exhibit 10.1 to the Company's Report on Form
10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2000.

     3. On January 24, 2001, the Board of Directors of the Company approved an
amendment to the Plan whereby Section 6b(ii) was amended by inserting the words
"full recourse" before the words "promissory note" in the first sentence
thereof, and Section 6f was amended by deleting the word "incentive" and the
phrase "granted to a non-officer optionee" from the first sentence thereof and
by inserting the phrase "termination of optionee's employment due to" following
the words "expiration of one year from the date of" in the second sentence
thereof.

Dated:  January 24, 2001

                             /s/Johanna P. Protsik

                             Johanna P. Protsik
                             Assistant Secretary
EX-10.21



 Exhibit 10.21 

First Amendment to the Development Agreement 

Between 
 STRATEC Biomedical AG
(“STRATEC”) Gewerbestr. 37, 75217 Birkenfeld, Germany 
 and 

Quotient QS IP Ltd. (“QBD”), PO Box 1075, Elizabeth House, 9 Castle Street, St Helier 

JE4 2QP, Jersey, Channel Islands 

(hereinafter referred together as “Parties”) 

WHEREAS on January, 7st 2014 the Parties have signed a Development Agreement (“Development
Agreement”). 
 NOW, THEREFORE STRATEC and QBD hereby agree to amend the Development Agreement of January 7st 2014 in the following way: 
  

	1.	Amendment to Exhibit 1. 

 The Project Proposal (Exhibit 1 B 1-4) will be removed from the Exhibit
list of the Development Agreement. 
  

	2.	The Definition of the Project Proposal will be adapted as follows: 

 “Project Proposal.
As used herein Project Proposal” shall mean the project proposal dated June 11, 2013 previously provided by STRATEC to Quotient.” 
 All
remaining terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement that are not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Parties have executed this Amendment as of the First Amendment Effective Date. 
  

									
	STRATEC Biomedical AG	 		 	Quotient QS IP Ltd
					
		 	/s/ Robert Siegle	 		 		 	/s/ Edward Farell
		 	  
	 		 		 	  

					
	Name:	 	 Dr. Robert Siegle
	 		 	Name:	 	 Edward Farell

					
	Title:	 	 Member, Board of Management
	 		 	Title:	 	 PRESIDENT

					
	Date:	 	 March 3, 2014
	 		 	Date:	 	 3 MARCH 2014
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6184
In Re: STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:00-cv-00393-FWB) Submitted: May 31, 2006 Decided: June 21, 2006 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Stanley Lorenzo Williams petitions for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to act on Williams’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition which was dismissed without prejudice in 2001. We conclude that Williams is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus. In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus relief is not a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that: (1) he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought; (2) the responding party has a clear duty to do the specific act requested; (3) the act requested is an official act or duty; (4) there are no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires; and (5) the issuance of the writ will effect right and justice in the circumstances. In re Braxton , 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Williams’ § 2254 petition was dismissed several years ago. To the extent that Williams seeks relief from the district court’s January 2003 order denying his motion to amend the 2001 petition, he had another available remedy; namely, to appeal from the district*At this point, any appeal filed by Williams would be futile because the thirty-day appeal period has long since expired. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). - 3 - court’s order. * Additionally, Williams could follow the district court’s directive in its January 2003 order and file a new § 2254 petition. The relief sought by Williams is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 21

SYPRIS SOLUTIONS, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

The Companys subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 are as follows:



|(1) | Sypris Electronics, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Sypris Data Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------



|(3) | Sypris Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------



|(4) | Sypris Technologies Marion, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------



|(5) | Sypris Technologies Kenton, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------



|(6) | Sypris Technologies Mexican Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(7) | Sypris Technologies Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexican limited liability company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(8) | Sypris Technologies Toluca, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------
Order entered August 1, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00146-CR

ESSIE D. HOPKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-55764-U

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any 

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal.
 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, 

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2011-0453

Docket Number

2008-SW-16-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained 

in the Supplemental AD Docket

Eurocopter Deutschland No. EC135-71A-024, August 6, 2002

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
Bureau of Consumer Protection 

Division of Privacy and Identity Protection 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

May 9, 2011 

VIA ELECTRONIC AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL 

Renee Jackson 

Nixon Peabody LLP 

100 Summer Street 

Boston, Massachusetts 0211O-2l31 

Re: Social Intelligence Corporation 

Dear Ms. Jackson: 

As you know, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission's Division of Privacy and 

Identity Protection has been investigating Social Intelligence Corporation ("Social 

Intelligence"), an Internet and social media background screening service used by employers in 

pre-employment background screening. The reports sold by Social Intelligence include public 

information gathered from social networking sites. Our investigation aimed to determine the 

company's compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). 

Social Intelligence is a consumer reporting agency because it assembles or evaluates 

consumer report information that is furnished to third parties that use such information as a 

factor in establishing a consumer's eligibility for employment. Consumer reporting agencies 

must comply with several different FCRA provisions, and these compliance obligations apply 

equally in the social networking context. For example, consumer reporting agencies must take 

reasonable steps to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information reported from 

social networking sites. Consumer reporting agencies must also provide employers who use 

their consumer reports with information about their obligations under the FCRA, such as their 

obligation to provide employees or applicants with notice of any adverse action taken on the 

basis of these reports. 
Renee Jackson, Esq. 

May 9, 2011 

Page 2 

We have completed our investigation and determined that no further action is warranted 

at this time. In reaching this determination, we considered information provided by Social 

Intelligence about its policies and procedures for compliance with the FCRA. This action is not 

to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred, just as the pendency 

of an investigation should not be construed as a determination that a violation has occurred. The 

Commission reserves the right to take further action as the public interest may require. 

Sincerely, 

Maneesha Mithal 

Associate Director 

Division of Privacy and Identity Protection 

Bureau of Consumer Protection 

Federal Trade Commission 

2