alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-12-502-E

October 11, 2012

 Exemption No. 10643

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0854

Mr. D. Turley

Northrop Grumman

One Hornet Way

El Segundo, CA 90245

Dear Mr. Turley:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated August 13, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Titan Aerospace for an exemption from §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption will allow Northrop 

Grumman to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that does not carry and display the 

aircraft’s airworthiness certification, registration documents, and flight manual required under 

part 91.

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

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Northrop Grumman.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 8607 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that it is unnecessary to carry and display the airworthiness, certification, and 

registration documents in UASs for the operation described by the petitioner. The original 
2

intent of the subject regulations was to display the airworthiness and registration documents 

so they would be easily available to the FAA inspectors and passengers.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No 8607;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 8607 also 

apply to the situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Northrop Grumman an exemption from 

14 CFR §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b) to the extent necessary to allow Northrop 

Grumman to operate a UAS that does not carry and display the aircraft’s airworthiness

certification, registration documents, and flight manual required under part 91, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. The documents required under §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the pilot in 

command of the UAS anytime the aircraft is operating.

2. Those documents required under §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be made available 

within 10 days to any FAA, U.S. Department of Defense, or law enforcement 

official.

3. This exemption is not valid for operations outside the United States.

This exemption terminates on September 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Deputy Director, Flight Standards

 Service
#### Leonard SELKOWITZ, Appellant, v. Arlene Maxine SELKOWITZ, Appellee.

No. 72-1345.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 5, 1973.

Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appellant.

Daniel Neal Heller, and Brian R. Hersh, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES A. CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 592; Weston v. Weston, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 315. Cf. Belcher v. Belcher, Fla. 1972, 271 So.2d 7.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 700027

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### JOHN E. D. FRITZ Seaman (E

- 3 ), U

. S

. Navy Appellant

_________________________ Appeal from the Un ited States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: CAPT Ann K. Minami, JAGC, USN. Convening Authority: C ommand er, Navy Region Northwest, Silverdale, WA

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Commander Justin L. Hawks, JAGC, USN

. For Appellant : CAPT Bree A. Ermentrout, JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 3 1 M ay 2017

_________________________ Before C AMPBELL , F ULTON , and P ETTIT , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consider ation of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
364 Day Credit Agreement



AMENDMENT NO. 2


	THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2, (this "Amendment"), dated as of 
May 29, 1997, among GENERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION (the 
"Company") and the undersigned commercial banking 
institutions (herein collectively "Banks").

	WITNESSETH:

	WHEREAS, the Company and the Banks are parties to a 
certain 364 Day Credit Agreement, dated as of June 1, 1995 
as amended as of  May 31, 1996 (the "364 Day Credit 
Agreement"); and

	WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend further certain  
terms of the 364 Day Credit Agreement; 

	NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements 
herein contained, the parties hereto hereby agree as 
follows:

1.	Except as otherwise defined herein, the 
capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings 
respectively ascribed to them in the 364 Day Credit 
Agreement.

2.	Each Bank's Commitment shall be the amount set 
forth opposite its signature hereto, as such amount may be 
reduced or increased from time to time pursuant to Sections 
1.1.6, 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 or Section 13.5 of the 364 Day Credit 
Agreement.

3.	The "Revolver Expiration Date" is hereby amended 
to mean the earlier of May 28, 1998 or the date of 
termination in whole of the Commitments.  All references to 
the "364 Day Credit Agreement" shall be deemed to refer  to 
the 364 Day Credit Agreement as hereby amended.

4.  The table in Section 3.1.8, Applicable Margin, is 
hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

Public Debt Rating        Eurodollar 
                          Margin            CD Margin

Level 1:
AA-/Aa3 or higher          .185%               .310%

Level 2:
A-/A3 or higher, but
less than Level 1          .200%               .325%

Level 3:
BBB-/Baa3 or higher,
but less than Level 2      .350%               .475%

Level 4:
Less than BBB-/Baa3        .500%               .625%




	5.	The table in Section 3.2, Facility Fee, is hereby 
deleted and replaced with the following:


Public Debt Rating           Facility Fee Percentage

Level 1:
AA-/Aa3 or higher                   .040 %

Level 2:
A-/A3 or higher, but
less than Level 1                   .060 %

Level 3:
BBB-/Baa3 or higher,
but less than Level 2               .100%

Level 4:
Less than BBB-/Baa3                 .150 %


6.  Except as set forth in this Amendment, all terms and 
conditions of the 364 Day Agreement shall remain unchanged.

	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and each Bank have 
caused this Amendment to be executed, as of the day and year 
first above written, by one of its officers thereunto duly 
authorized.


				GENERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION

				By:   Terry J. Mortimer
				____________________________
				Vice President and Treasurer
				One High Ridge Park
				Stamford, CT  06904
				Attention: Treasurer
				Telecopier No.: (203) 329-4365
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dennis J. Martin, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of General Binding Corporation;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e) for the registrant and we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

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

c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's first fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;

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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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: May 7, 2004

/s/ Dennis J. Martin
	Dennis J. Martin
# C_2015304EN.01000101.xml

| 15.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/1

---

NOTE TO READERS

(2015/C 304/01)

Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which gives the Court of Auditors responsibility for auditing all of the Union’s revenue and expenditure, and the provisions of Article 319 of the said Treaty on the granting of the discharge, the Court of Auditors has had its revenue and expenditure accounts audited by an external auditor every year since the close of the financial year 1987.

The reports which the external auditor of the Court of Auditors drew up in respect of the Court’s accounts for the financial years 1987 to 1991 were sent only to the Chairman of the European Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee.

Pursuant to a decision taken by the Members of the Court of Auditors at the Court meeting of 8 July 1993, the external auditor’s reports have since been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, starting with the report on the financial year 1992.

Official Journal of the European Union,

For the Court of Auditors

Eduardo RUIZ GARCÍA

Secretary-General of the European Court of Auditors

---
PINNACLE 

AIRLINE S COR P 

February 22, 2011 

'.".RTlvlEIMT OF 

.'3°0RTATI0N 

r~) U: 0*1 

Pinnacle Airlines Corp. 

1689 Nonconnah Blvd. 

Suite 100 

Memphis, TN 38132 

901-348-4100 

PNCL.com 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Chief, EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: EAS at Sault Ste. Marie, Michi 

Docket OST-2009-0303 

^ichig^m 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

To (he extent necessary. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. ("Pinnacle") and Mesaba Airlines, Inc. ("Mesaba") jointly 

request that either carrier be deemed eligible to receive the EAS compensation established by Order 2010-

5-18. pinnacle and Mesaba are now both wholly owned subsidiaries of (he holding corporation. Pinnacle 

Airlines, Corp. Both carriers currently operate and will continue to operate as "Delta Connection" 

carriers. 

Flights operated by Mesaba would use Saab 340 aircraft, and flights operated by Pinnacle would use 50 

seat CRJ200 Regional Jet Aircraft. Mesaba and Pinnacle seek to provide EAS service on an interim 

basis pursuant to the rates established by Order 2010-5-18, and without prejudice to their ability to seek 

new EAS rates for CRJ200 service once the longer term fleet plans of the respective carriers are 

established. 

The community of Sault Ste. Marie has authorized Mesaba and Pinnacle to state on its behalf that the 

community supports this request. 

Sincerely, 

D. Philip Reed 

Vice President 

Network Scheduling and Operations Analytics 

Pinnacle Airiines Corp. 

cc: lyfaximillian Shemesh, General Counsel, Mesaba Airlines 

Anthony Bosbous, Mayor Sault St. Marie City 

Kathy Noel, Airport Director, Sault St. Marie
#### DINERS CLUB, Appellant, v. James M. COLEMAN and Lillian D. Coleman, Appellees.

No. 73-326.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 26, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-00848, No. 333-76851,No. 333-79337, No. 333-82257, No. 333-38860, No. 333-66068,No. 333-105620, No. 333-120708, No. 333-133003, No. 333-141237,No. 333-149763 and No. 333-158002) of PC Mall, Inc. (formerlyIdeaMall, Inc. and Creative Computers, Inc.) of our report dated March 16,2010 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears inthis Form 10-K.

 
| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Los Angeles, California        |   |
| March 16, 2010            |   |

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CORA SUE SANCHEZ, I ndividually and as

R epresentative of the E state of ANTHONY

TONY SANCHEZ, D eceased , JENNIFER

PASOWICZ and JULIE MARIE SANCHEZ,

Appellant s

,

v.

NAVISTAR, INC., SHIELD RESTRAINT

SYSTEMS, INC. f/k/a AMSAFE

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS, INC. and

AMSAFE, INC.,

Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00255

- CV

Appeal from the

112th Judicial District Court

of Upton County, Texas

(TC# 19

- 07

- U4751

- IDM)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the joint motion to dismiss and enter judgment

, and

grants the motion and dismisses the appeal

. We vacate the judgment of the trial court without

consideration of the merits and remand the case to the trial court for dismissal of the cause with

prejudice in accordance with the parties’ agreement

. We further order each part y to bear their own

cost s of appeal , for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
261 La. 1066

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Sherman BRAXTON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 52485.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1972.

Irr 're: Sherman Braxton applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. Applicant has not timely asserted the grounds at the trial upon which he relies here and no bar to asserting these rights in the trial court existed. State ex rel. Barksdale v. Dees, 252 La. 434, 211 So.2d 318 (1968).
EXHIBIT 23.1



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
HomeSeekers.com, Incorporated


We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  previously  filed
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-92119,  333-32586, 333-38560,
333-48990,  333-51640)  of  HomeSeekers.com,  Incorporated  and in  the  related
previously filed Prospectus and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No.
333-44786)  pertaining  to the Amended and  Restated  1996 Stock  Option Plan of
HomeSeekers.com,  Incorporated  of our report dated March 20,  2002,  except for
Notes 3 and 14,  as to which  the  date is April  23,  2002,  appearing  in this
Transition  Report  on  Form  10-K  of  HomeSeekers.com,  Incorporated  for  the
six-months ended December 31, 2001.


                                                /s/ CORBIN & WERTZ
                                                -------------------------
                                                CORBIN & WERTZ

Irvine, California
April 30, 2002
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10Q of Frawley Corporation (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Michael P. Frawley as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|       |  |                                                    
|------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|       |  | /s/ Michael P. Frawley                             
|Name:  |  | Michael P. Frawley                                 
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|Date:  |  | August 5, 2004.                                    



This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
#### Logan E. JAMES v. L. L. WAINWRIGHT.

No. 38979.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Habeas Corpus denied without opinion.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1624

In Re: JOHN WESLEY WINTERS, JR., Debtor.

_________________________ JOHN WESLEY WINTERS, JR., Debtor - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Trustee - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-24-5-BO, BK-97-1615-5-ATS) Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: January 12, 1999 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Wesley Winters, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Gregory Rhyne, OFFICE OF THE BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR, Wilson, North Carolina, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:John Wesley Winters, Jr. appeals from the order of the district court dismissing his appeal from the order of the bankruptcy court dismissing his petition in bankruptcy under Chapter 11. The end and effect of the judgment of the district court appealed from is to affirm the judgment of the bankruptcy courtfiled November 5, 1997. We note that the district court also denied the motion of Winters to rehear or reconsider its order dismissing his appeal from the order of the bankruptcy court. We have reviewed the record and all the submissions of the parties and are of opinion there is no reversible error in the judgment of the district court appealed from.We have also considered Winters’ motion for a stay of proceedings pending disposition of this appeal and are of opinion the same is without merit. 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. The judgment of the district court appealed from is accordingly AFFIRMED .
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-00984-CR

CHARLES HENRY JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 339th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1163962).

TO THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 13th day of January 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or 

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by 

the trial court on October 29, 2013. After submitting the case 

on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by 

the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment 

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms 

the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered January 13, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Brown. 
Opinion delivered by Justice Keyes.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

June 5, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
**EXHIBIT 99.13**

** **

**CONSENT OF KARLIS JANSONS**

** **

March 27, 2013

 

Brigus Gold Corp.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

 

**Re: Brigus Gold Corp.**

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

I hereby consent to (i) the use of my name in connection withthe following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F forthe year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consentrelates: (A) the technical report entitled “Black Fox Project National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report” dated January6, 2011 (the “Report”), (B) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2012 and (C)the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2012, (ii) the inclusion or incorporationby reference of information derived from the Report in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889, 333-162558and 333-167757), as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, orto any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporatedby reference in the above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.