alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED : AUGUS T 9 , 201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C I NTH EMATTE RO F COLGA NAIR , INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP09EA001 8 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S NO . FAA-2009-058 2

NOTIC EO FPREHEARIN GCONFERENC E Base do nth e join t

reques t o f th e partie s wh o indicate dthe y wil l b e unavailabl e o n Augus t 24 , 2010 , th e Prehearin g Telephon e Conferenc e i s re-schedule dfo r Septembe r

13 , 2010 , at 3 p.m. . Eastern Time . Al l partie s shoul db e prepare dt o discus s al l issue s an dfact s at issue . Al l document s that hav e bee nexchange dan dthat hav e no t alread y bee nprovide dt o th e Judg e shoul db e furnishe d t o hi mb y Augus t

30 , 2010 . Pursuan t t o Sectio n 55 6 o f

th e Administrativ e Procedur e Act , 5 U.S.C . § 556(c)(8) , eac h party shal l b e represente db y someon e wh o ha s authority t o negotiat e concernin g resolutio n o f al l issue s i ncontroversy . S O ORDERED . Conni e A Chie f Administr^ivel^a w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No . CP09EA001 8 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Mar k A . Dombroff

, Respondent' s Counse l DOMBROFFGILMOR EJAQUE S & FRENCH , P.C . 167 6 Internationa l Driv e - Penthous e McLean , V A 2210 2 TEL : 703-336-870 0 FAX : 703-336-875 0 ChristianL . Lewerenz , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counsel , EAL- 7 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio nPlaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 TEL : 718-553-327 3 FAX : 718-995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Ronnie A . Yoder , Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 120 0 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL:-202-3^6-214 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6


### 5 

# i

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo r servic e i nperso no r

b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federal Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2WI0OO , Washington , D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . • i

-2 -
#### In the Matter of the Extradition of Tommy PASCHAL.

No. O-264.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 1971.

Joseph A. St. Ana, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of the final order denying his motion contesting the legality of his arrest and extradition to the State of Georgia.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs filed herein and our consideration thereof requires a conclusion that no error was committed in the trial court. Accordingly, the order appealed herein is

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and SPECTOR and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23(a)




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statement  (no.
33-87110, 33-98482, 333-06757 and 333-85936) on Form S-8 of The Beard Company of
our report  dated April 8, 2008,  relating  to the  balance  sheets of The Beard
Company  and  subsidiaries  as of December  31,  2002 and 2001,  and the related
statements of operations,  shareholders'  equity (deficiency) and cash flows for
the years ended  December 31, 2002,  2001 and 2000,  which report appears in the
December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of The Beard Company.


                                               COLE & REED, P.C.
                                               Cole & Reed, P.C.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
April 8, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          63,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,190,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   697,000
<INVENTORY>                                     61,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,000
<PP&E>                                       4,709,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,160,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,266,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,186,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,414,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,334,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,266,000
<SALES>                                      2,164,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,164,000
<CGS>                                        1,353,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,353,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               798,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             198,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (185,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (185,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (185,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.18
  SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED TRUST AGREEMENT OF
NATIONAL CITY CREDIT CARD MASTER NOTE TRUST
 October 26, 2010
 Agreement Agreement Date PNC Owner
Trustee
 Recitals:
 National City Trust Agreement
 Merger Date
    Defined Terms
 Assumption of Obligations
 Effective Date
 a.
    
    counterparts of this Agreement have been duly executed by each of
the parties to this Agreement, and




---



##### 



b.
    
    each of the conditions precedent described in Section 2.18 of the Trust
Agreement has been satisfied.
 Effect of Agreement; Ratification
 a.
    
    On and after the Agreement Date, this Agreement shall be a part of the Trust
Agreement and each reference in the Trust Agreement to this Agreement or hereof,
hereunder or words of like import, and each reference in any other Transaction
Document to the Trust Agreement shall mean and be a reference to the Trust Agreement as
supplemented hereby.b.
    
    Except as expressly amended hereby, the Trust Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed by the parties hereto.
 Governing Law
 Counterparts
 Trustee Disclaimer
 Instruction to the Owner Trustee




---



##### 



PNC BANK, N.A.,
as Transferor and BeneficiaryBy:
    /s/ Andrew WidnerName:
    Andrew WidnerTitle:
    V. P. & CFO Credit Card PNCWILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY,
as Owner TrusteeBy:Name:Title:




---



##### 



PNC BANK, N.A.,
as Transferor and BeneficiaryBy:Name:Title:WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY,
as Owner TrusteeBy:

/s/
Adam
B. ScozzafavaName:
    Adam
B. ScozzafavaTitle:
    Financial Services Officer
#### Andy SARGENT and Clyde Sargent, her husband, Appellants, v. WARD FOODS, INC., and Herbert Carl Roberson, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-1024.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 29, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; Dominick J. Salfi, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
New Heights Aerial Media

David L. Farley

2400 Amara Dr

Toledo, OH 43617

(419)754-7236

dfarley@newheightsaerialmedia.com

Date: October 20, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave.,

SE Washington, DC 20590

Addendum Request to Exemption No. 11358

To Whom It May Concern:

New Heights Aerial Media requests that the Tarot 650 UAS be added to Exemption No. 11358

and COA No. FAA-2014-1110-333E.

The Tarot 650 gross weight is approximately 5.5lbs. with battery and payload. The payload will 

be a camera gimble and an HD Camera. 

The Tarot 650 has a preset GeoFence that will not allow the aircraft to fly out of. The Presets are 

200ft AGL altitude and a distance horizontally of 400ft.

In the event of signal loss from the ground controller, the aircraft will return to its takeoff point if 

the aircraft has a good GPS Lock. If there is no GPS lock, the aircraft will land at its present 

position.

The Tarot 650 utilizes the same Pixhawk flight controller as our previously approved Iris+. The 

check list and flight manual from the Iris+ with be used for the Tarot 650 operations.

The Tarot 650 will be operated within the parameters set forth by Exemption No: 11358 and 

COA No. FAA-2014-1110-333E unless an additional COA is issued for the Tarot 650

Thank You for your Consideration

David Farley

New Heights Aerial Media 

1jz-8iec-8x0j
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ricardo ESCOBAR v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 54020.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 26, 1973.

In re: Ricardo Escobar applying for writ of mandamus and habeas corpus.

Granted. See Order.

On considering the petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered cause,

Ordered that the Honorable Edward de la Houssaye, III, Judge of the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Mary, act on the application of the relator and make a determination of the merits thereof, advising this Court of the action taken.
#### Thomas Keller WHITE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-659.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 14, 1971.

Thomas Keller White, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose to in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. DANIEL BURCH AND WRESTLE, INC.

No. 60620.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 11, 1977.

In re: State of Louisiana through the District Attorney, Harry F. Connick applying for writ of certiorari.

Writ denied. The ruling of the trial court is correct.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

SOLARBLUE, LLC, SOLARBLUE
CANADA, INC. AND LEE MAHER

,

Appe llant s

,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 4374

BENNETT JONES, LLP AND
ERNEST W. BELYEA, ESQ.

,

Appellee s

. ________________________________/

Opinion filed January 19, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Or ange County

, Alice Blackwell , Judge.

Jennifer K. Birmingham, The Birmingham
Law Firm, P.A., Winter Park , for Appellant s

.

Michael M. Brownlee, of Fisher
Rushmer, P

. A

. , Orlando, for Appellee s

.

PER CURIAM.

A FFIRMED

. See Bristol

- Myers Squibb Co. v. Super ior C ourt of Cal., San Francisco

Cty. , 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1779

– 81 (2017) ( explaining that in determining whether personal

jurisdiction is present, primary concern is burden on defendant of litigating in forum

because to do otherwise would offend due process ).

ORFINGER, EVANDER and WALLIS , JJ., concur.
April 17, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

STANLEY CREEKS, Appellant

NO. 14-10-01026-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The 

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 767

To provide for a 2-year delay in the effective date of certain regulations

applicable to municipal solid waste landfills under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1993

Mr. ENGLISH of Oklahoma introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To provide for a 2-year delay in the effective date of certain

regulations applicable to municipal solid waste landfills

under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Solid Waste Disposal

5 Relief Act of 1993’’.
2

•HR 767 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN EXISTING FACILITIES

2 FROM MEETING REVISED CRITERIA FOR

3 LANDFILLS.

4 (a) EXEMPTION.—During the 2-year period com5 mencing October 9, 1993, all municipal solid waste land6 fills existing as of October 8, 1993, which meet the re7 quirements of the criteria applicable as of January 1,

8 1993, to such landfills under section 4004(a) of the Solid

9 Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6944(a)) (as required by

10 section 4010(c) of such Act) shall be exempt from any re11 vised criteria established for such landfills.

12 (b) PRIOR CRITERIA APPLICABLE DURING EXEMP13 TION PERIOD.—Landfills exempt from revised criteria as

14 provided in subsection (a) shall, during the 2-year exemp15 tion period, be subject to the criteria applicable to such

16 landfills as of January 1, 1993.

17 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE OF REVISED CRITERIA.—After

18 the expiration of the 2-year exemption period on October

19 9, 1995, all municipal solid waste landfills shall be subject

20 to the revised criteria established for such landfills under

21 section 4004(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42

22 U.S.C. 6944(a)) or any subsequent revised criteria.

Æ
January 28, 2000


United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20549

Gentlemen:

We have read the statements made by Multi-Media Tutorial Services, Inc. pursuant
to Item 8 of the Annual Reports on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal years ended
February 28, 1999 and 1998 to be filed with the Commission on January 31, 2000.
We agree with the statements concerning our Firm in such Reports on Form 10-KSB.

Very truly yours,



/s/ Holtz Rubenstein & Co., LLP

HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN & CO., LLP
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.34





                     THESE WARRANTS HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED
                        UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
                            AND ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE
                            EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREIN

                                MICROHELIX, INC.

                                PURCHASE WARRANTS

                                   Issued to:

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

                             Exercisable to Purchase

                                __________ Units

                                       of

                                MICROHELIX, INC.


<PAGE>   2


        This is to certify that, for value received and subject to the terms and
conditions set forth below, the Warrantholder (hereinafter defined) is entitled
to purchase, and the Company promises and agrees to sell and issue to the
Warrantholder, at any time during the Term(hereinafter defined), the number of
Units (hereinafter defined) of the Company at the Exercise Price provided below.

        This Warrant Certificate is issued subject to the following terms and
conditions:

        1. DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN TERMS. Except as may be otherwise clearly
required by the context, the following terms have the following meanings:

"ACT" means the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

"CASHLESS EXERCISE" means an exercise of the Warrants in which, in lieu of
payment of the Exercise Price, the Holder elects to receive a lesser number of
Securities such that the value of the Securities that such Holder would
otherwise have been entitled to receive but has agreed not to receive, as
determined by the average high closing bid price for such Securities on the 20
trading days immediately preceding the date of exercise, is equal to the
Exercise Price with respect to such exercise. A Holder may only elect a Cashless
Exercise if the Securities issuable by the Company on such exercise are publicly
traded securities.

"COMMISSION" means the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"COMMON STOCK" means the common stock of the Company.

"COMPANY" means microHelix, Inc., an Oregon corporation.

"EXCHANGE ACT" means the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

"EXERCISE PRICE" means the price at which the Warrantholder may purchase one
Unit upon exercise of a Warrant and shall be equal to 90% of the initial public
offering price of the Units in the Public Offering, subject to adjustment as
provided herein.

"PUBLIC OFFERING" means a registered public offering of equity securities of the
Company following which the Company will be obligated to file reports under
Section 12 of the Exchange Act.

"RULES AND REGULATIONS" means the rules and regulations of the Commission
adopted under the Act.

"SECURITIES" means the securities obtained or obtainable upon exercise of the
Warrants or securities obtained or obtainable upon exercise, exchange, or
conversion of such securities.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 17, 2019

No. 04-19-00238-CV

PREMIEANT INCORPORATED DBA PREMIEANT,

Appellants

v.

Constance SNOWDEN as next Friend and Legal Guardian of Annette Snowden, an 

incapacitated Person,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI14231

The Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal. On May 7, 2019, we ordered appellant to provide written 

proof that it had paid or made satisfactory arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the 

reporter’s record. On May 15, 2019, appellant notified the court that the court reporter’s fee has 

been paid. Therefore, we ORDER the court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s 

record in this appeal, Mary Scopas, to file the reporter’s record on or before May 28, 2019. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1, 35.3(c).

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of May, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
----

| 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 Registrant. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | Date: July 30, 2012       |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                      |   |
|   |   | /s/ Richard C. Stockinger |   |
|   |   | Richard C. Stockinger     |   |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer   |   |
262 La. 306

#### MOLBERT BROTHERS POULTRY & EGG COMPANY, Inc., et al. v. Edgar W. MONTGOMERY.

No. 52580.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 20, 1972.

In re: Molbert Brothers Poultry & Egg Company, Inc. and Jasper Feed Company, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 261 So.2d 311.

Not considered. Not timely filed. See Art. 7, Sect. 11, La.Const.
Exhibit 31(b)

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (15 U.S.C. § 7241)

I, Carol M. Herndon, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Delhaize America, Inc.;

2) Based on my knowledge,
this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5) The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2006



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Carol M. Herndon    
|Carol M. Herndon        
|Chief Accounting Officer



30