alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
April 1, 2015 

Mr. Kevin Cooper 

705 Powers Ferry Road Suite 415 

Marietta, GA 30067 

Dear Mr. Cooper: 

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 March 10, 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

0588), 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
# C_2023015EN.01001701.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — SC Avicarvil Farms SRL v Ministerul Agriculturii şi Dezvoltării Rurale, Agenţia pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie în Agricultură, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie în Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Vâlcea

(Case C-443/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy (CAP) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Article 40 - National rural development programme 2007-2013 - Animal welfare payments - Calculation errors - Reductions in payments by the national authorities - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of legal certainty)

(2023/C 15/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Piteşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Avicarvil Farms SRL

Defendants: Ministerul Agriculturii şi Dezvoltării Rurale, Agenţia pentru Finanţarea Investiţiilor Rurale, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie în Agricultură, Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie în Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Vâlcea

Operative part of the judgment

Article 40(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2009 of 19 January 2009, and Article 58(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, read in conjunction with Article 310(5) TFEU, and the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty

must be interpreted as

not precluding the national authorities involved in the implementation of a non-repayable financial support measure from adopting, on account of a calculation error found by the European Court of Auditors, acts ordering a reduction in the amount of financial aid granted under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) Rural Development Programme for Romania for the 2007 to 2013 programming period, as approved by the European Commission, without waiting for the Commission to adopt a decision excluding the amounts resulting from that calculation error from EU financing.

---

(1)  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Robert MATTHEWS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53315.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 22, 1973.

In re: Robert Matthews applying for writ of certiorari and habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The defendant has been sentenced to hard labor, a correct legal sentence. The place of commitment may be corrected by the trial judge as a purely ministerial act.
# C_2021128EN.01001302.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 January 2021 — Uniqa Versicherungen AG v VU

(Case C-18/21)

(2021/C 128/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uniqa Versicherungen AG

Defendant: VU

Question referred

Are Articles 20 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) to be interpreted as meaning that those provisions preclude an interruption of the 30-day period for lodging a statement of opposition to a European order for payment, as provided for in Article 16(2) of that regulation, by Paragraph 1(1) of the Austrian Bundesgesetz betreffend Begleitmaßnahmen zu COVID-19 in der Justiz (Federal Law on accompanying measures for COVID-19 in the administration of justice), pursuant to which all procedural periods in proceedings in civil cases for which the event triggering the period occurs after 21 March 2020 or which have not yet expired by that date are to be interrupted until the end of 30 April 2020 and are to begin to run anew from 1 May 2020?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS****Chief Accounting Officer**

I, Lori A. Jones, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSBof Analytical Surveys, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and the registrant’s have:

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

b)  [reserved]

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and proceduresas of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on suchevaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this annual report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
| Date: December 22, 2006       |
|-------------------------------|
|                          |
| /s/ Lori A.  Jones            |   |
| Lori A. Jones                 |
| Principal  Accounting Officer |

 

----
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1115

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to ensure that minimum

wage requirements do not apply to inmates with respect to work done

for the incarcerating entity, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 16 (legislative day, JUNE 15), 1993

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BRYAN, and Mr. DORGAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor

and Human Resources

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to ensure

that minimum wage requirements do not apply to inmates with respect to work done for the incarcerating

entity, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

4 OF 1938 TO INMATES.

5 (a) DEFINITION.—Section 3(e) of the Fair Labor

6 Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(e)) is amended—

7 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and (4)’’ and

8 inserting ‘‘(4), and (5)’’; and
2

S 1115 IS

1 (2) by adding at the end thereof the following

2 new paragraph:

3 ‘‘(5) The term ‘employee’ does not include any

4 inmate of a penal or correctional institution of the

5 Federal Government, District of Columbia, or a

6 State or political subdivision of a State.’’.

7 (b) EXEMPTIONS.—Section 13(a) of such Act (29

8 U.S.C. 213(a)) is amended—

9 (1) by striking the period at the end of para10 graph (15) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

11 (2) by adding at the end thereof the following

12 new paragraph:

13 ‘‘(16) any inmate of a penal or correctional in14 stitution of the Federal Government, the District of

15 Columbia, or a State of political subdivision of a

16 State.’’.

17 (c) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by this

18 section shall apply as if enacted on the date of enactment

19 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

DESIGNATION OF C HAIR OF THE

APPELLATE COURT PROCEDURAL

RULES COMMITTEE :

:

:

:

: NO. 303

APPELLATE COURT RULES

DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14 th day of April, 2023, Peter J. Gardner, Esquire, is hereby

designated as Chair of the Appellate Court Procedural Rules Committee

, commencing

July 1, 2023.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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
    Dated: March 24, 2009
    By:
    /s/ RODNEY E. OLSONRodney E. OlsonChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE>


                        Affiliated Community Bancorp, Inc.          Exhibit 11.0
               Computation of Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Share
                  (Dollars in thousands, except share amounts)
                     (Restated for May 30, 1997 stock split)
<CAPTION>


                                                             Three Months Ended
                                                             ------------------
                                                                 March 31,
                                                                 ---------
                                                            1998           1997
                                                            ----           ----
<S>                                                      <C>             <C>
Basic:

Weighted average shares                                  6,519,906      6,445,811



ESOP shares not released or committed to be released       (83,364)      (113,020)

Basic weighted average shares                            6,436,542      6,332,791
                                                         =========      =========

Net income                                             $     3,212    $     2,937
                                                       ===========    ===========

Earnings per share                                     $      0.50    $      0.46
                                                       ===========    ===========

Diluted:

Weighted average shares                                  6,519,906      6,445,811

ESOP shares not released or committed to be released       (83,364)      (113,020)
                                                           -------       --------
                                                         6,436,542      6,332,791

Common stock equivalents:
       Stock Options                                       355,236        238,182
                                                           -------        -------

Diluted weighted average shares                          6,791,778      6,570,973
                                                         =========      =========

Net income                                             $     3,212    $     2,937
                                                       ===========    ===========

Earnings per share                                     $      0.47    $      0.45
                                                       ===========    ===========
</TABLE>
#### Istvan J. ERSEK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-6.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 4, 1970.

*482Istvan J. Ersek, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks review of a summary denial of his petition, seeking relief pursuant to Rule 1.850 Cr.P.R., 33 F.S.A. He was indicted for first degree murder in November, 1960. He was adjudicated insolvent at that time; two court-appointed counsel were made available to him. He pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. He was examined by court-appointed physicians; determined to be sane. Subsequently, in January, 1961, he elected to withdraw his pleas and plead guilty, which was permitted after exhaustive examination by the trial court. He was then sentenced to life imprisonment. In August, 1969, he filed a petition under the aforesaid criminal rule, collaterally attacking his conviction, contending that his plea had been coerced or was not voluntary. Upon hearing on the petition, the trial judge examined the record and summarily denied same. We affirm.

No excuse was given for the delay in the filing of the petition collaterally attacking the appellant’s conviction. It seems clear that this is another case of a defendant being unwilling to run the risk of a capital conviction and, after a long lapse of time, attempting to get a new trial when obviously the State’s witnesses and evidence are Unavailable or, at best, would be difficult to obtain. A clear reading of this record shows that the appellant was fully informed of his rights by most able counsel, fully questioned by a conscientious trial judge as to the voluntariness of his plea; and this record demonstrates no reason to interfere with the trial judge’s order here under review. Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 85; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 245; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 784; Brumley v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 447; Garcia v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 300; Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 446; Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16; Bishop v. Sharkey, Dist.Ct. Dist. of R.I.1969, 306 F. Supp. 246; Hall v. State, Ct.Cr.App.Ala.1969, 228 So.2d 863; Selph v. Veron, 254 La. 1095, 229 So.2d 111.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the order denying petition for relief is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-59,201-03

EX PARTE RICHARD VASQUEZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

AND MOTION TO STAY THE EXECUTION IN CAUSE NO. 98-CR-0730-E IN

THE 148 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

TH

NUECES COUNTY

Per curiam. KELLER, P.J., and MEYERS, J., would deny the stay.

O R D E R

This is a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the

provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071 § 5 and a motion for a stay

of execution.

In June 1999, a jury found applicant guilty of the offense of capital murder. The jury

answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article

37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set applicant’s punishment at death. This Court

affirmed applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Vasquez v. State, No. AP-
Vasquez - 2

73,461 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 3, 2001)(not designated for publication). This Court denied

relief on applicant’s initial post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus, and it

dismissed a subsequent writ application in the same order. Ex parte Vasquez, Nos. WR59,201-01 and WR-59,201-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 26, 2005)(not designated for

publication).

On April 15, 2015, applicant filed in the trial court this his second subsequent

application for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court now orders applicant’s execution stayed

pending further order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 20 DAY OF APRIL, 2015.

TH

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 Quarterly  Report of Golden  Enterprises,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the first  quarter  ended August 28, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Patty Townsend, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

Dated:   October 8, 2009



/s/ Patty Townsend
------------------
Patty Townsend
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Golden Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Golden Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon
request.

                                       23
| Date:October      21, 2008             | By:    | /s/ RICHARD E. GAETZ            |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                               |   | Richard      E. Gaetz           |   |
|                                                                                               |   | President      and              |   |
|                                                                                               |   | Chief      Executive Officer    |   |
|                                                                                               |   |                            |   |
|                                                                                               |   |                            |   |
|                                                                                               |   |                            |   |
|                                                                                               | By:    | /s/ SEAN P. WASHCHUK            |   |
|                                                                                               |   | Sean      P. Washchuk           |   |
|                                                                                               |   | Vice      President Finance and |   |
|                                                                                               |   | Chief      Financial Officer    |   |
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2



                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       of
                            Periodic Financial Report
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
                                  Section 1350



I, Gilles Therrien, Vice-President, Finance and Administration, and Chief
Financial Officer of Sand Technology Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report
on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year ended July 31, 2003 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sand
Technology Inc.


Date:  January 28, 2004.



                              /s/     Gilles Therrien
                                      Vice-President, Finance and Administration
                                      and Chief Financial Officer



This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for any other
purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Annual Report or as a separate
disclosure document.