alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 3, 2015 

Mr. Bret McComb, PE 

President, CEO 

Precision Design & Drafting, Inc. 

11768 Atwood Rd 

Aurburn, CA 95603 

Dear Mr. McComb, PE.: 

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

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your January 24, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Precisoin Design & 

Drafting, Inc. into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0280), 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 reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 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) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 315

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that previously authorized construction to improve medical facilities administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should not be delayed by the national health

care reform debate.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 18, 1993

Mrs. VUCANOVICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

previously authorized construction to improve medical facilities administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs

should not be delayed by the national health care reform

debate.

Whereas 27,000,000 veterans under the jurisdiction of the

Department of Veterans Affairs reside in the United

States and need quality health care;

Whereas medical facilities administered by the Department of

Veterans Affairs in the United States are limited and include only 171 medical centers, 128 nursing home care

units, and 276 outpatient clinics;
2

•HRES 315 IH

Whereas many of the facilities are currently maintained in

substandard condition;

Whereas doors to some patients’ rooms are not large enough

to permit evacuation of patients in their beds in the event

of fire or other emergency, some facilities lack sprinkler

systems or air conditioning, and some facilities contain

asbestos hazards;

Whereas the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has decided not to

begin construction on several projects that are intended

to improve medical facilities under the Secretary’s jurisdiction;

Whereas the projects have already been authorized by the

Congress;

Whereas the Secretary plans to continue this delay until the

Secretary determines the effects of the President’s health

care reform proposal on the Department of Veterans

Affairs; and

Whereas the debate on national health care reform is expected to be a lengthy and tedious process: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that construction on projects to build, ren3 ovate, or otherwise improve medical facilities that are ad4 ministered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should not

5 be delayed by the current national health care reform de6 bate if the projects have already been authorized by the

7 Congress.

Æ
House Calendar No. 46

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 186

[Report No. 103–112]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2264)

fiscal year 1994.7 of the concurrent resolution on the budget forto provide for reconciliation pursuant to section

MAY 27 (legislative day, MAY 26), 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 46

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 186

[Report No. 103–112]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2264) to provide for reconciliation

pursuant to section 7 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for

fiscal year 1994.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 27 (legislative day, MAY 26), 1993

Mr. DERRICK, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2264) to provide

for reconciliation pursuant to section 7 of the concurrent

resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1994.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 2264) to provide for reconciliation

6 pursuant to section 7 of the concurrent resolution on the

7 budget for fiscal year 1994. The first reading of the bill
2

HRES 186 RH

1 shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consid2 eration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be con3 fined to the bill and the amendments made in order by

4 this resolution and shall not exceed two hours equally di5 vided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minor6 ity member of the Committee on the Budget. After general

7 debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under

8 the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. The

9 modifications to the bill printed in part 1 of the report

10 of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution

11 shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the

12 Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the

13 bill, as modified, are waived. No amendment to the bill,

14 as modified, shall be in order except the amendment in

15 the nature of a substitute printed in part 2 of the report.

16 The amendment in the nature of a substitute may be of17 fered only by Representative Kasich of Ohio or his des18 ignee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for

19 one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent

20 and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.

21 All points of order against the amendment in the nature

22 of a substitute are waived. At the conclusion of consider23 ation of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise

24 and report the bill, as modified, to the House with such

25 amendment as may have been adopted. The previous ques-
3

HRES 186 RH

1 tion shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amend2 ment thereto to final passage without intervening motion

3 except one motion to recommit, which may not include

4 instructions.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATIONS I, Gregory P. Josefowicz, certify that:  1)
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Borders Group,
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 officers 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 conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    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 officers 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; andb.
    
    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: March 25, 2004 /s/ GREGORY P. JOSEFOWICZ

Gregory P. Josefowicz
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Borders Group, Inc. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has been
provided to Borders Group, Inc. and will be retained by Borders Group, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### ABE *v.*STATE

[No. 151,

September Term, 1962.]

*440
      *Decided January 23, 1963.*

Submitted on the brief to Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney and Marbury, JJ.

Submitted by *Harold B. Naughton*for appellant.

Submitted by *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Joseph S. Kaufman, Deputy Attorney General,*and *James S. Getty, State’s Attorney for Allegany County,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

This appeal is from a judgment of the court, without a jury, entered upon a verdict of guilty in a trial for manslaughter by automobile, under Code (1957), Art. 27, sec. 388. The sole contention is that there was no evidence produced to show that the accused was operating his automobile in such a manner as to amount to “a wanton or reckless disregard for human life”, the test laid down in the cases construing the statutory phrase “in a grossly negligent manner”. See *Duren v. State,*203 Md. 584, 588, *Clay v. State,*211 Md. 577, 584, *Lilly v. State,*212 Md. 436, 442 and *Johnson v. State,*213 Md. 527, 531. Cf. *Pierce v. State,*227 Md. 221, 226.

It is true that the cases cited indicate that, ordinarily, speed alone may not be a sufficiently negligent act to support an inference of criminal intent. But in the instant case there was testimony tending to show not only that the car operated by the accused was traveling at excessive speed but that the accused had been drinking to an extent likely to affect his driving judgment (six drinks, according to an admission made to an officer), and that he was proceeding prior to the accident in *441the center lane of a three-lane highway, in violation of Code (1957), Art. 661⁄2, secs. 221 & 223, when there was no occasion for him to do so. Indeed, the driver of the other car testified that the defendant was in the slow lane on his (wrong) side of the road. The point of impact, in the head-on collision that ensued, was established as within 3 feet from the edge of that lane. His car did not come to rest until it had traveled 250 feet from the point of impact. Under all the circumstances, we cannot say that the finding of the trial court was clearly erroneous under Maryland Rules 772 and 886 a.

*Judgment affirmed, with costs.*
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATIONS


PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE §1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned hereby certifies that to her knowledge the Amendment No.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2016 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, 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 financial condition and results of the operations of the Company, as of the dates and the periods expressed in the Report.





/s/ Eileen P. DrakeEileen P. DrakePresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


Date: August 16, 2016





The undersigned hereby certifies that to her knowledge the Amendment No.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2016 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, 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 financial condition and results of the operations of the Company, as of the dates and the periods expressed in the Report.





/s/ Kathleen E. ReddKathleen E. ReddVice President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary(Principal Financial Officer and PrincipalAccounting Officer)


Date: August 16, 2016
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.A

                                      FIRST
                                    AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                        VIAD CORP SUPPLEMENTAL TRIM PLAN


Whereas, the Company maintains the Viad Corp Supplemental TRIM Plan (the
"Plan");

Whereas, the Plan may be amended by the Company pursuant to Section 10 of the
Plan;

Whereas the Company wishes to amend the Plan;

NOW, therefore, the Viad Corp Supplemental TRIM Plan is amended, effective as of
the execution date below, as follows:

         The second sentence of Paragraph 4, Requests for Deferral, is amended
as follows:

         Each such request shall specify the percentage or dollar amount of base
         salary if any, but in no event shall the amount to be deferred in a
         Plan year be greater than the lesser of (i) $35,000, or the amount
         specified by the Internal Revenue Service under Code Section 415,
         Defined Contribution Annual Maximum, less the total amount of all
         contributions of whatever nature, to the Participant's TRIM account
         during the same time period, or (ii) 12% of the participant's base
         salary in the Plan year.

Except as amended above, the terms of the Plan as in effect prior to this
amendment shall continue unchanged.

In Witness Whereof, the Company has Caused this Amendment to be signed on its
behalf by its duly authorized officer this 8th day of May, 2001.


Viad Corp


By    /s/ Scott E. Sayre
   ---------------------------------------------------

Its:


      Vice President-General Counsel and Secretary
   ---------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          18,062
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  373,343
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,319
<INVENTORY>                                     25,321
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               464,847
<PP&E>                                       5,011,722
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,030,031
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,563,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          452,187
<BONDS>                                        866,851
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            8,250
<PREFERRED>                                      7,600
<COMMON>                                       650,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     158,346
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,563,473
<SALES>                                      1,241,995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,241,995
<CGS>                                          445,753
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  923,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                282,587
<INCOME-TAX>                                    93,098
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            189,489
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   189,489
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Ervin M. SMITH, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-877.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 17. 1967.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 1967.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and John B. Orr, Jr., Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CHARLES CARROLL, Chief Judge

(dissenting).

I dissent in that I would reverse for evi-dentiary hearing on the first of the two grounds contended for before us.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 12

                    GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARY
        Statement of the Consolidated Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(Dollars in Millions)                                   Six Months Ended
                                                         June 30, 1999
                                                        ----------------
<S>                                                     <C>
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations                         $ 115.9
  Add - Income taxes                                           67.8
      - Fixed charges                                          30.7
                                                            -------
Adjusted earnings                                           $ 214.4
                                                            =======
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                          $  29.2
  Portion of rent expense representing interest                 1.5
                                                            -------
Adjusted fixed charges                                      $  30.7
                                                            =======

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                             6.98
</TABLE>
#### McMurtry *v.*Ramsey, *admr.*

Illegal consideration. The fact that the *consideration*for the note sued on was a horse, bought by the maker for the *Confederate service,*with the knowledge of the payee, constitutes a *good defense*to a suit thereon by the administrator of the payee.

Kelly *t.*Tatum. *Affirmed.*

*350*Error to Bradley Circuit Court.*

Hon. William M. Harrison, Circuit Judge.

Carroll and Gallagher & Newton, for plaintiff.

Garland, White & Nash, for defendant.

Bowen, J.

This is an action upon a promissory note executed by plaintiff in error, and J. B. Kestuson (not sued herein) to Thhmas M. McCollough, in his lifetime. Ramsey, administrator of McCullough, brought suit upon the note, in the circuit court of Bradley county. The defendant, McMurtry, plead, setting up that the note sued oh was given for a horse, to be used in the service of the Confederate States, and that McCollough knew the purpose for which he was purchased. Plaintiff demurred to this plea, and the court sustained the demurrer, and rendered judgment for the amount of the note, damages, costs, &c. The defense set up by McMurtry was a good one, and plaintiff’s demurrer should have been overruled. See the case of *Kelly v.*Tatum, decided at the last term of this court-

judgment reversed.

Judge Harrison, being disqualified, did not sit in this case.

Hon. John Whytock, Special Supreme Judge.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 18
- 00021
- CR
MAIANNA HOLLAND , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017
- 2124
- C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Maianna Holland appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered against her on or about January 16, 2018

. Because the trial court ’s certification of h er right of appeal, which Holland and h er counsel signed, indicates that th e underlying case was a plea

- bargain case and that Holland has no right of appeal , this appeal must be
dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d) (“The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.”); Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)

.Holland v. State Page 2

Notwithstan ding that we are dismissing this appeal, Holland may file a motion for rehearing with this Court within 15 days after this opinion and judgment are rendered
if s he believes this opinion and judgment are erroneously based on inaccurate
information or docume nts. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.1. Moreover, if Holland desires to have the opinion and judgment of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that petition must be filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days
after either the day this Court’s judgment is rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2(a).
For the reasons stat ed, this appeal is dismissed.

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 24, 2018 Do not p ublish [C R25 ]