alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 23, 2015

Mr. Joseph Osipenko

The Shadowlight Group

34 Zimmerman Rd

Leola, PA 17540

Dear Mr. Osipenko:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your December 23, 2014 exemption request on behalf of the Shadowlight Group

into the public docket (No. FAA-2014-1103), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9521.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1321
ELLIOTT ROY BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY; SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE; WILNET ASHLEY BROWN, Defendants - Appellees, and JACK B. STEVENS, Judge, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-1484-A) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 3, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elliott Roy Brown, Appellant Pro Se. James Christian Stuchell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Elliot R. Brown appeals from the district court’s denial his motions to reconsider the district court’s December 13, 2001 order dismissing his state law claims for declaratory relief, accounting, and restitution. We affirmed the district court’s December 13, 2001 order on appeal. SeeBrown v. Circuit Court of Fairfax County , No. 02-1468, 2002 WL 1760769 (4th Cir. July 31, 2002) (unpublished) (per curiam). Because we have already affirmed the district court’s disposition of his case, Brown’s further attacks on that order are barred by principles of res judicata. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 41171 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

DAYNA ALEXA VELASQUEZ

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:14

- CR

- 266

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Dayna Alexa Velasquez

raises an argument that s he concedes is foreclosed by United States v.

Betancourt , 586 F.3d 303, 308

- 09 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that knowledge

of drug type and quantity is not an element of a 21 U.S.C. § 841 offense

. The

unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of

t he district court is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED

June 1 6 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-41171 Document: 00513079574 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
#### James W. Hosea, use of George W. Hosea *vs.*Lemuel PURNELL and JANE PURNELL.

On an inquisition of lands the inquisitors must hear testimony as to value, If they have no personal knowledge. .

Judgment entered on a transcript from the docket of a justice of the peace. Execution issued and levied on land, (after a return of nulla bona;) inquiry held and “not sufficient.”

On affidavit filed, rule to show cause why the inquisition should *365not be set aside and the judgment opened, on the grounds:—1. Want of notice of the inquisition. 2. That the inquisitors knew nothing about the land, had never seen it, and heard no evidence in respect to it. 3. That the judgment below was on a void note, being a joint note by husband and wife under seal, with warrant to confess judgment jointly.

*The Court*

said the inquisitors must either have personal knowledge of the land, or hear testimony in respect to its value.

Rule absolute, so far as to set aside the inquisition.
# Mar 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-23-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-23-2000
<CASH>                                              42
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       69
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,078
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,198
<PP&E>                                             954
<DEPRECIATION>                                     395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,915
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,028
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         803
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,915
<SALES>                                          2,999
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,999
<CGS>                                            2,148
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,148
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    148
<INCOME-TAX>                                        58
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 90
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        90
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.13


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Amended Annual Report of Apollo Gold Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
David Russell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated:  July 25, 2004

                                 /s/ R. DAVID RUSSELL
                                 -----------------------
                                 R. DAVID RUSSELL
                                 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
#### Mariangela L. Allegretti, Appellant, *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Appellee.

Argued July 30, 1974,

before Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three.

*Bradley*Taylor, for appellant.

*Sydney*Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*577August 9, 1974:

Opinion by

Judge Wilkinson,

This is an appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying benefits to appellant. Both the Bureau of Employment Security and the referee had rendered similar decisions. We must reverse.

Not only the uncontradicted facts, but also the findings of fact and reasoning of the referee clearly place the appellant within the class eligible to draw unemployment compensation.

Appellant had been employed by her last employer for almost seven years. She was approximately seven months pregnant and was advised by her physician to leave her work. She obtained a one year leave of absence from her employer. The child was born on July 2, 1973. More than 30 days thereafter she applied to be reemployed. The referee properly found that this application to become reemployed cancelled her leave of absence status and that she was physically able to resume her employment. She was not reemployed because the employer had a policy requiring a period of two months to expire after the birth of a child before the mother could be reemployed. Appellant applied for unemployment compensation on August 5, 1973.

The above facts fully qualify the appellant under those provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Law which relate specifically to unemployment due to pregnancy and return to employment after a leave of absence, i.e., Section 401(d) (2) and Section 401(f), Act of December 5, 1936, 2nd. Ex. Sess., P. L. (1937) 2897, *as amended,*43 P.S. §§801 (d) (2) and 801(f).

Accordingly, we enter the following

Order

Now, August 9, 1974, the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above *578matter is reversed and appellant-claimant is declared eligible for benefits in accordance with her application or applications.
H. Res. 414

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

May 3, 1994.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 3254) to authorize appropriations for the National Science Foundation, and for other purposes. The first

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate

shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology. After general debate the bill shall be considered

for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in

order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature

of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science,

Space, and Technology now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather than by section. Each title of the commit-
2

HRES 414 EH

tee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with

clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise

and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate

vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment

in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion

to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      665
<ALLOWANCES>                                        45
<INVENTORY>                                         51
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   976
<PP&E>                                           9,886
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              983
<BONDS>                                          1,745
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           978
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,010
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,799
<SALES>                                          1,578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,578
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  69
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    615
<INCOME-TAX>                                       242
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                373
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       373
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
THE FORM 10-KSB FOR THE ANNUAL PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         368,649
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  528,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                   148,179
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               985,780
<PP&E>                                       1,529,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                 548,082
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,505,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,788,054
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,416
<OTHER-SE>                                     685,691
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,505,161
<SALES>                                      4,241,277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,241,277
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,129,073
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             173,267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,997,151)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,997,151)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,997,151)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)


</TABLE>
From: Laura K. McAfee [mailto:LMcAfee@bdlaw.com] 

Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:38 PM

To: French, Chuck

Cc: John Konrady; SMcCutchan@fpiwv.com; Fruh, Steve; Chin, Conrad; Boyd, Rochelle; Boswell, Colin; 

Johnson, Steffan; Dewees, Jason; tshillier@gmail.com; r.powell@optimaacq.com

Subject: RE: Upcoming stack tests at Felman

Chuck --

I apologize for the delay in getting this to you. A proposed test plan for the stack tests is attached for 

your review. 

Scheduling: Felman has been working toward a testing schedule of March 13-20, in an effort to ensure 

that the report will be available as close to April 22 as possible (it's my understanding that some of the 

analysis will take longer than normal because of the constituents/test methods involved). However, 

given that it is already March 4, we certainly understand if you need more time to review the test 

protocol before we proceed. So please let me know if you would prefer us to delay the tests for another 

week or two -- a later test date will likely push the final results back past April 22, but we will of course 

do our best to get them as quickly as they are available. I understand from the test contractor that the 

lab has started to prep the sample tubes, which have a fairly short shelf life, so if you would like us to 

start later than the 13th, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know as soon as possible.

On the fugitive monitoring, we should have the final information we need later this week, so I would 

hope to have a draft protocol to you shortly thereafter -- perhaps Friday or Monday.

Thanks, and please feel free to contact me at your convenience to discuss any of this -- I am on my cell 

today (443/538-3142) and back in the office tomorrow (443/538-3142).

Laura

-----Original Message-----

From: French, Chuck [mailto:French.Chuck@epa.gov]

Sent: Mon 3/4/2013 12:43 PM

To: John Konrady; SMcCutchan@fpiwv.com

Cc: Fruh, Steve; Chin, Conrad; Boyd, Rochelle; Boswell, Colin; Johnson, Steffan; Dewees, Jason; Laura K. 

McAfee; tshillier@gmail.com

Subject: Upcoming stack tests at Felman

Hi John and Shawn,
 How are things coming along regarding planning the stack emissions tests? When do you plan to 

conduct the tests? Could you please send us a copy of the site-specific test plan as soon as you can? 

As you may recall, we asked for these in the cover letter and in enclosure #2 of the ICR (see attached). 

Anyway, we realize there may have been some miscommunication regarding this. Nevertheless, we 

would still like to see it so that we can do a quick review before you begin testing, to ensure we are all 

on "the same page" with this.

 Also, what is the status of the draft plan for testing fugitive emissions? Do you think you'll be able to 

send us that soon also?

Thanks.

Chuck

Phone: 919-541-7912
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 18, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00486-CR

JOHN PAUL CARDENAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1289128

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a guilty plea to aggravated assault of a child under 

fourteen years of age. The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt and placed 

appellant on community supervision for a term of eight years. Subsequently, the 

State moved to adjudicate guilt. Appellant entered a plea of true to the allegations 

in the motion. The trial court adjudicated guilt and on April 29, 2013, sentenced 

appellant to confinement for fifteen years in the Institutional Division of the Texas 
2

Department of Criminal Justice, and assessed a $500.00 fine. Appellant filed a pro 

se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

The record reflects appellant waived his right of appeal as part of his 

agreement to plead true to the motion to adjudicate guilt. In exchange, the State 

recommended appellant be sentenced to confinement for fifteen years in the 

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and fined 

$500.00. Negotiated waivers of the right of appeal are valid if the defendant 

waived the right of appeal knowing with certainty the punishment that would be 

assessed. See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). Appellant 

was fully aware of the likely consequences when he waived his right to appeal and 

was sentenced by the trial court in accordance with the State’s recommendation. 

See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 220 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 10.36 


PROMISSORY NOTE (“NOTE”) - 0% SIMPLE
INTEREST


 


 


$810


11/05/2020


 


 


For VALUE RECEIVED, SYBLEU INC. (“Borrower”)
promises to pay to David R. Koos (“Lender”) the principal sum of $810 with no interest to accrue on the balance. The
said principal shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America at the demand of the Lender. This Note may be prepaid
in whole or in part at any time without premium or penalty. The Borrower hereby waives any notice of the transfer of this Note
by the Lender or by any subsequent holder of this Note, agrees to remain bound by the terms of this Note subsequent to any transfer,
and agrees that the terms of this Note may be fully enforced by any subsequent holder of this Note. All terms and conditions of
this Note shall be interpreted under the laws of the state of California and venue shall be the state of California.


 


SYBLEU INC.( Borrower)


 


By:/s/David Koos


CHAIRMAN AND CEO


 


Accepted By:


 


DAVID R KOOS (Lender)


 


By:/s/David Koos


 


DAVID R. KOOS
#### Harvey Bruce ROBERTS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42265.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 17, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.