alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 4 - 0120 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 056 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### CF - 2013 - 06 **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s , list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the co mments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
261 La. 1040

#### STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF the SOUTH v. Mrs. Margaret Dahlquist FRANKS, Co-Administrator, et al.

No. 52455.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 1972.

In re: Carolyn Boyles Dahlquist (now Perkins) applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 260 So.2d 365.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from (a) the
statements of operations and balance sheets and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such (b) financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,267
<SECURITIES>                                    14,716
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,350
<ALLOWANCES>                                       603
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   198
<PP&E>                                           3,999
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,324
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,688
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,001
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,889
<OTHER-SE>                                    (21,615)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,688
<SALES>                                         18,393
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,393
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,131
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  58
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                       129
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,411
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,411
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18


</TABLE>
#### Dorothy Christina FLETCHER, Petitioner, v. Henry Lamar FLETCHER, Respondent.

No. 39831.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 10, 1970.

Certiorari dismissed. 235 So.2d 520.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
MILLENNIUM INDIA ACQUISITION COMPANY
ANNOUNCES RESULTS FOR ITS PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT  SMC GLOBAL  FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2010
            About SMC Global
    About Millennium India Acquisition
Company Inc.
  www.milcapital.com
  _______________________
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2314

CHARLES W. EZELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAN RIVER, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-02-17-4)

Submitted: March 24, 2003 Decided: April 17, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles W. Ezell, Appellant Pro Se. James Phillip Naughton, Sara

Lynne Berg, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles W. Ezell appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of Dan River, Inc. (“Dan River”), his

former employer, in this action alleging retaliation in violation

of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Ezell v. Dan River, Inc.,

No. CA-02-17-4 (W.D. Va. Nov. 1, 2002). We deny Dan River’s motions

to exclude an affidavit attached to Ezell’s informal brief and to

exclude Ezell’s reply brief and deny, as moot, Ezell’s motion

seeking an extension of time to file a response to the motion to

exclude the affidavit. 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          60,844
<SECURITIES>                                   332,131
<RECEIVABLES>                                  186,146
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,771,748
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,030,057
<PP&E>                                       2,075,667
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,437,855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,993,226
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,638,605
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,437,855
<SALES>                                        909,747
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               998,627
<CGS>                                          733,110
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  806,873
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,950
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,814
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                191,754
<INCOME-TAX>                                    72,369
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   119,385
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Union Real Estate
Equity and Mortgage Investments (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 14, 2003                      /s/ Neil H. Koenig
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Neil H. Koenig
                                             Interim Chief Executive Officer and
                                             Interim Chief Financial Officer
#### Peter Compton, *et*al., Plaintiffs in Error, *vs.*James R. Arnold, Defendant in Error.

1. Practice, *civil*— Trials—Bonds, *loss of*— Parol *testimony.*— When a bond is given in a cause and is afterwards lost, its contents may be proved in that cause by parol testimony.

*Error to Washington Circuit Court.*

*G. I. Van Alen,*for Plaintiffs in Error.

I. The action of the court was clearly erroneous; the statute provides the manner in which lost papers and records may be supplied. (W. S., 1137.)

II. There was no bond on file and the introduction of evidence on the 13 th, to sustain the judgment entry of the 6th of February, was contrary to law, and without any law to sustain it.

*Detchemendy Sp Arnold,*for Defendant in Error.

I. 'The judgment was properly rendered against the sureties. (W. S., 1026, §§ 11,12; Strain vs. Murphy, 49 Mo. 337.)

II. The «sureties were both before the court resisting the bond being supplied, and it was not necessary that a writ should issue before the court could acquire jurisdiction of them.

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only error complained of, is the action of the court in entering up judgment against the sureties on plaintiff’s bond. It seems that the plaintiff commenced an action before a justice of the peace to recover possession of a horse, and the case was finally appealed to the Circuit Court, where judgment was rendered for the defendant. In the latter court it was shown, that the bond given by the plaintiff was lost, and testimony was admitted by the court as to the character oí the bond, and who were the sureties.

Upon this evidence the court gave judgment against the sureties. The sureties appeared, and objected to the admission of any evidence concerning the bond, and insisted that the same could not be proved or supplied in that way; but the court decided otherwise.

*148The sureties were before the court. They appeared and contested the very facts on which judgment was pronounced. If the bond was lost or destroyed, there was no valid reason against hearing secondary evidence of its contents. The evidence seems to have been sufficient to satisfy the court, and with its decision on the" facts we will not interfere. The statute in relation to supplying lost records, which has been been relied on, does not apply to this case.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

The other judges concur-
I am writing to request an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the

extent required for Ryan Dickerson to be able to use an FAA Approved Child Restraint System even though ( **he** exceeds the weight limits for the CRS. In addition, if my petition is granted, I request that any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Ryan Dickerson is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) t o the extent necessary to allow Ryan Dickerson to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA- approved child restraint system during use of that child restraint system aboard an aircraft. I believe the pertinent section from 14 CFR part 121 from which we seek relief is Section 121.311 Seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses. My son is 14 year’s old, weighs 115 pounds, and is 75 inches tall. My **son** ’s physical condition is cerebral palsy. As a result of his physical condition, he needs the support and security provided by an FAA Approved Child Restraint, but because of his weight is incapable of compliance with the regulation. I understand that the regulation is written to create a high level of safety for each individual passenger by ensuring that th ey are securely restrained in their seats during all phases of flight. The regulation also ensures that an individual does not cause harm to other passengers on the airplane by being thrown into them during turbulent or emergency conditions. I propose that Ryan be allowed to occupy an FAA Approved Child Restraint (CARES, manufactured by AmSafe, Inc.), even though he exceeds the manufacturer’s weight limits. This ensures a high level of safety for Ryan and a high level of safety for the other passengers an d crew on the airplane. In fact, in Ryan’s case, safety is greatly enhanced by the extra support and security that the FAA Approved Restraint System will provide during the entire flight. Enhancing safety for Ryan is in the public interest. In addition, t he public interest is also served by the fact that the use of this FAA Approved Child Restraint System allows him to use commercial air transportation. I also believe that, with certain limitations established by the FAA in a grant to this petition, there can be an equivalent level of safety to that provided bythe affected regulation. The CARES restraint has been certified by the

manufacturer for use by children 22 - 44 pounds. However, the components of the CARES restraint are the same as those used in re straints for adults on aircraft and would maintain their integrity if used by someone who weighed several hundred pounds. We travel at least 6 times a year via air, and this device would help Ryan stay in his seat more comfortably.

Thank you for your cons ideration.

Suzanne Dickerson 5612 Darmondale San Antonio, TX 78261 210 - 651 - 3558 sdickerson@satx.rr.com
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 8359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires 
that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal 
Register.

DATES: Thursday, March 3, 2011, 6 p.m.-8 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, 
Piketon, Ohio 45661.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Bradburne, Deputy Designated 
Federal Officer, Department of Energy, Portsmouth/Paducah Project 
Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897-3822; e-
mail: Joel.Bradburne@lex.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

     Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda.
     Approval of January Minutes.
     Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments.
     Federal Coordinator's Comments.
     Liaisons' Comments.
     Plant Tour Safety Procedures.
     Administrative Issues:
    [cir] Subcommittee Updates.
    [cir] Discussion on Top 3 Issues, Accomplishments, and Major Board 
Activity.
    [cir] Discussion on Nevada Site-Specific Advisory Board 
Recommendation: Using Rail Transport for Moving Waste.
     Public Comments.
     Final Comments.
     Adjourn.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The EM 
SSAB, Portsmouth, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory 
committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons 
with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special 
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Joel Bradburne in 
advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. The Deputy 
Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a 
fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business.

    Issued at Washington, DC on February 8, 2011.
LaTanya Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-3237 Filed 2-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                   18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of Forlink
Software Corporation, Inc., that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of the
company on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the company's financial condition and results of operations.

March 30, 2004

/s/ Yi He
-----------------------------------
Yi He, Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

      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 Simon Worldwide, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned officers 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, to
the best of the officers' knowledge:

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

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

                                             /s/ George G. Golleher
                                             ---------------------------
                                             George G. Golleher
                                             Executive Committee Member
                                             April 1, 2005

                                             /s/ J. Anthony Kouba
                                             ---------------------------
                                             J. Anthony Kouba
                                             Executive Committee Member
                                             April 1, 2005

                                             /s/ Greg Mays
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Greg Mays
                                             Principal Financial Officer
                                             April 1, 2005
Exhibit 99.1








November 12, 2012Analyst Contact:Andrew Ziola918-588-7163Media Contact:Brad Borror918-588-7582





ONEOK Partners to Participate in


RBC Capital Markets MLP Conference





TULSA, Okla. - Nov. 12, 2012 -- ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) will participate in the RBC Capital Markets Master Limited Partnership Conference on Thursday, Nov. 15,


2012, and Friday, Nov. 16, 2012, in Dallas, Texas.





Terry K. Spencer, ONEOK Partners president, will present on Thursday, Nov. 15, at 3:15 p.m. Central Standard Time (4:15 p.m. Eastern Standard Time).





The conference will be webcast and will be accessible on the ONEOK Partners website, www.oneokpartners.com .  A replay of the webcast will be archived for 30 days.  The company will also post the presentation materials on its website, www.oneokpartners.com , on Nov. 15,


2012, at 7 a.m. Central Standard Time (8 a.m. Eastern Standard Time).





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





ONEOK Partners, L.P. (pronounced ONE-OAK) (NYSE: OKS) is one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, and is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation's premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers. Its general partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE), a diversified energy company, which owns 43.4 percent of the overall partnership interest.  ONEOK is one of the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, and its energy services operation focuses primarily on marketing natural gas and related services throughout the U.S.





For more information, visit the Web site at www.oneokpartners.com .





For the latest news about ONEOK Partners, follow us on Twitter @ONEOKPartners .





###