alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Gormas. Michael (OST) From: Sent: To: 

### Subject: Attachments: Thomas Drake <tdrake@watertownsd.us> Friday, February 28, 2014 2:40 PM Gormas, Michael (OSD; WtnSD Airport Manager. SteveThorson RE:REMIMDER-FW: Requesting Comments from the Cities of Ironwood, Thief River Falls and Watertown on EASproposals Thomas W Drake.vel Follow up Completed 

### Follow UpFlag: FlagStatus: 

# to t;
.... t 

### ~-.::\1_'.; VI .-

# 'c:).~ Michael, )0.. L.)'::..:i.,i .J.-'" -',.-.~ '. Lastweek Mayor Thorson and Airport Manager Syhre met with GLA. They reviewed the options aDdcoiiG~.geil that Option #2 would bethe best for our community to be able to fly to both MSPand DEN. GLAnot~ thit':thev1ViII not be flying the 30 seat EMB-120 Brasilia and that they are still dealing with pilot shortages but did see]1ght

# at-the e~d of the tunnel. We had hoped to have other airline options asour enplanements have dropped significantly with GLAand they are still dealing with the pilot shortage and other reliability issues. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and hope that GLAimproves their reliability and that inturn would increase our enplanements. Sincerely, Tom Drake, City Engineer.
Thomas W. Drake City of Watertown City Engineer (60S) 882-6202 Ext. 28Work tdrake@watertownsd,us 23 Second Street NE P,O, Box 910 Watertown, SO57201-00910

From: michael.gormas@dot.gov [mailto:michael,gormas@dot.gov] 

### sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 11:11 AM 

### To: Thomas Drake; WtnSD Airport Manager; Steve Thorson 

### Subject: REMIMDER-FW: Requesting COmments from the Cities of Ironwood, Thief River Fallsand Watertown on EAS proposals Hello, The DOThas not received any comments from the community regarding the proposals for Essential Air Service (EAS)at Watertown, SD. Comments were due yesterday, 2/27/14, We request that you please send any comments you have. Regards, Michael D.Gormas United States Department ofTransportation Office of Aviation Analysis 1200 New JerseyAve SE Washington, DC20S90
1
EXHIBIT32

Officer Certification under 18 USC 1350

We,the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer ofAXS-One Inc. (the ‘‘issuer’’), do herebycertify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in thisQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theissuer.

|                              |  |  |                                                                           |
|------------------------------|--|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |  |  | AXS-ONEINC.                                                               |
| Date: November20,  2006 |  |  | /s/ William P.Lyons                                                       |
|                         |  |  | William P. LyonsChief ExecutiveOfficer andChairman of theBoard            |
|                         |  |  | /s/Joseph Dwyer                                                           |
|                         |  |  | Joseph DwyerExecutiveVice President, Chief Financial Officer,andTreasurer |
|                              |

----
#### SOUTHEASTERN ELECTRICAL ENTERPRISE INCORPORATED and Home Owners Insurance Company, Appellants, v. L. B. SAMFORD, INC., Appellee.

Nos. 70-595, 70-596.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 14, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals dismissed.
Lauralyn("Laura") J. Remo

DOT Office of Aviation Analysis Air Carrier Fitness Division, X-56

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C.20590

United States of America

Re:Island Air Express as US Mail Carrier

Dear Ms Remo,

 My name is Van Ververs and I am the Terminal Manager for Northland Services here on 

Prince of Wales Island. We are a marine transportation company providing weekly barge service 

to the island. I have worked in this industry for over15 years. Prior to my involvement in marine 

transportation I worked as a freight manager for a Ketchikan based air service. I believe my past 

and current work experience provides me with unique insight into the transport of goods in 

Southeast Alaska. I have watched the development of Island Air Express and I can appreciate 

their growth and subsequent success through hard work and a solid plan. I am also a resident of 

the island, and I don't believe that it is much of a reach to say that Island Air Express has 

changed the paradigm, in a positive way, for air travel to and from Prince of Wales Island. In 

conclusion, I can see no reason what so ever why Island Air Express should not be found fit to 

carry the US mail.

 

Thank you for your time,

 

Van Ververs

Craig, Alaska
**Exhibit 99.10**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ENACTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 200**2

 

Barrick Gold Corporation (the “Company”) isfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, itsannual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31,2008 (the “Report”).

 

I, Jamie C. Sokalsky, Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 
| a)     |   | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section  13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                  |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| b)     |   | the information contained in the Report  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results of operations of the Company. |

 
| Date: March 30, 2009                                    |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                         |   |
|                                                         |   |
| /s/ JAMIE C. SOKALSKY                                        |   |
| Name: Jamie C. Sokalsky                                      |   |
| Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |   |

 

----
#### Joyce LINKLETTER v. STATE of Louisiana et al.

No. 53434.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1973.

In re: Joyce Linkletter applying for writ of certiorari and habeas corpus.

Application denied. Applicant is not entitled to the relief for which he prayed.
#### RELIABLE FINANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Jack W. ERVIN et al., Appellees.

No. 72-38.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 30, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
# 
Notice of New Interest Rate for Medicare Overpayments and Underpayments -3rd Quarter Notification for FY 2024

Medicare Regulation 42 CFR Section 405.378 provides for the charging and payment of interest on overpayments and underpayments to Medicare providers. The Secretary of Treasury certifies an interest rate quarterly. Treasury utilizes the most comprehensive data available on consumer interest rates to determine the certified rate. Interest is assessed on delinquent debts in order to protect the Medicare Trust Funds. The attached Recurring Update Notification applies to Chapter 3, Section 10.

guidance/sites/default/files/hhs-guidance-documents/R12583FM.pdf>Download the Guidance Document

Final

**Issued by:**  Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 

**Issue Date:** April 11, 2024

***DISCLAIMER:** The contents of this database lack the force and effect of law, except as          authorized by law (including Medicare Advantage Rate Announcements and Advance Notices) or as specifically          incorporated into a contract.  The Department may not cite, use, or rely on any guidance that is not posted          on the guidance repository, except to establish historical facts.*

----

**Topic(s)**            - Health Care

----

Unique ID: HHS-0938-2024-F-0507

----

Date Published: 4/16/2024

----
#### Ruth Cleveland COVINGTON, Appellant, v. Victor M. COVINGTON, Appellee.

No. M-391.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 1, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 22, 1971.

Walter G. Arnold, and Rutledge R. Liles, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Glickstein, Crenshaw, Glickstein, Fay & Allen, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., and WIG-GINTON, JJ., concur.

SPECTOR, C. J., dissents.

SPECTOR, Chief Judge

(dissents) :

I respectfully dissent from the af-firmance of the judgment appealed. In my view, the amount of alimony awarded to appellant is not consistent with the standard of living provided by appellee during the marriage when measured by the nature and extent of the latter’s capital assets. Howard v. Howard, 118 So.2d 90 (Fla. App.1960).

I would reverse the judgment herein.
260 La. 705

#### Oscar Lionel SMITH v. LOUISIANA BANK & TRUST COMPANY et al.

No. 52138.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 11, 1972.

In re: Louisiana State Bond & Building Commission applying for Certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 255 So.2d 816.

Application not considered. Applicant has failed to timely apply for a rehearing in the Court of Appeal and hence, this court is without jurisdiction to consider — See Section II of Art. 7 of the Constitution.
1 

### Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA) Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 1:15 PM To: 'bturpin@holder.com' Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA) Subject: Request for Additional Informatio n - Holder Construction Company



### Dear Mr. Turpin,
This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0505). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.
* Describe the aircraft make(s), m odel(s), and type(s)(i.e. - fixed-wing,r otorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should incl ude the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by 6/1/2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9521.
Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman Program Analyst | Rulemaking FAA Office of Aviation Safety Airmen and Airspace Rules Division 202

‐ 267

‐ 9521
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          22,181
<SECURITIES>                                     4,522
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,116
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,106
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,921
<PP&E>                                          12,182
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,284
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,780
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,085
<OTHER-SE>                                    (40,715)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,483
<SALES>                                          9,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,677
<CGS>                                            1,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,132
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,105
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  84
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        74
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,214)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,214)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.12)
        

</TABLE>
#### Willie Roy TALTON, a/k/a Willie Roy Tilton, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1094.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 20, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
SCALE SHEET

SIZE FSCM NO. DWG NO. REV

REVISIONS

ZONE REV DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED

 BURL'S 

 AIRCRAFT, LLC

P.O. BOX 671487

CHUGIAK, ALASKA

 99567-1487

PART NO.:

PART NAME:

B (907)688-3715 PH.

(907)688-5031 FAX APPLICATION

NEXT ASSY USED ON

DRAWN BY:

CH'KD BY:

APPR'VD BY:

 HEAT TREATMENT

 MATERIAL GOV'T SPEC.

 STEEL MIL-H-6875

 ALUM. MIL-H-6088

 MAG. CAST MIL-H-6875

 NO.

PART NO. SIZE DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION REQ'D TOLERANCES UNLESS

 OTHERWISE NOTED

 DIMENSION TOLERANCE

TO 1 DEC. PLACES ± .03

TO 2 DEC. PLACES ± .010

TO 3 DEC. PLACES ± .005

ANGLES ± 2°

2-1272 SPLICE

DRAWING, 2-1272 DOUBLER

REINFORCEMENT

2-1272 SPLICE

NONE 09-06-2011 1 OF 1

2-1272 .063 X 5.00 2024-T3 ALCLAD AMS-QQ-A-250/5

B. ROGERS

.063

CHORD OF WING

CUT IN RING 

 MUST LAY 

SPANWISE

SPLICE .063 2024-T3 ALCLAD AMS-QQ-A-250/5

2-1272 SPLICE REINFORCEMENT

ADD HOLES

TO EXISTING

PATTERN IN 

RING

NOTES

 FABRICATE 2-1272 SPLICE SECTION ON SITE 

USING .063 2024-T3 ALUM SHEET. 

 USE THE 2-1272 RING AS A PATTERN TO LOCATE 

THE RIVET PATTERN AND AS A GUIDE TO LOCATE 

THE ADDITIONAL HOLES REQUIRED TO PROPERLY 

REINFORCE THE CUT 2-1272 RING. 

 CUT IN RING MUST BE LAID OUT AS SHOWN TO 

ALIGN WITH THE SPAN OF THE WING; NOT THE 

CHORD OF THE RIB.

 PILOT DRILL THE RING TO THE WING BEFORE 

CUTTING. ADD THE HOLES TO THE RING BUT NOT 

TO THE WING SKIN.

 MATCH DRILL THE NEW REINFORCEMENT TO THE 

RING AS SHOWN.

 ONCE THE RING IS IN PLACE INSIDE THE WING

 CLECO IN PLACE AND RE-DRILL THE HOLES TO

 INSTALL MS20470AD4-4.5 RIVETS IN THE 

DOUBLER AND MS20470AD4-6 RIVETS IN THE 

SPLICED SECTION.
#### CITY OF LEESBURG, Florida, Appellant, v. Sidney L. KILGORE, Appellee.

No. 71-122.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 7, 1972.

Geoffrey B. Dobson, Gen. Counsel, and Barbara Ann McPherson, Asst. Atty., State of Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Winifred J. Sharp, of Johnson, Mot-singer, Trismen & Sharp, Orlando, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Cannon v. Putnam County, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 577.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
#### Helen Eiland McGOWAN v. Heriod Elmore BOHANNON.

No. 38776.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 222 So.2d 60.
#### Paul N. GAGNON v. Jack TURNER, Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, Dade County.

No. 38484.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Copeland, Appellant.

[721 NYS2d 896]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]) and two counts of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]) in satisfaction of a 13-count indictment charging him in connection with the rape, attempted rape and robbery of four young women. Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not include post-release supervision as part of his sentence. In any event, defendant is not subject to the post-release supervision imposed in Penal Law § 70.45 (1) because the violent felonies of which he is convicted were committed prior to September 1, 1998 *(see,*Donnino, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 70.45, 2001 Pocket Part, at 120).

Defendant failed to request an adjournment when it was discovered at sentencing that he was not notified seven days prior thereto that representatives of two of the victims intended *986to make a statement at sentencing *(see,*CPL 380.50 [2] [b]). Thus, defendant waived his present contention that the court erred in permitting the representatives to speak. Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.
251 La. 745

#### Francis Monroe MARCUS v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY.

No. 49046.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: Francis Monroe Marcus applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 204 So.2d 676.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the judgment of the court of appeal.
AVIATION 

ADVISORS, LLC 

johnsabel@aviationadvisors.com 

January 23, 2015 

RECEIV 

JAN 2 8 2015 

HEARING DOOC 

CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attn.: Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

To Whom It May Concern: 

RE: Docket No. 2013EA030023 

Laurel Avionics Co., Inc. 

Enclosed please find a completed Option Selection Form requesting a formal hearing in the 

above-referenced matter pertaining to my client, Laurel Avionics Co., Inc. A copy of this request 

has also been sent to FAA attorney Mr. Zachary M. Berman. Please direct all communications 

regarding this mater to my attentron at the address below. 

Very Truly Yours, 

)lv.- '\(·.·· YilQ 

John V. Sabel, Esq. 

Enclosure: Option Selection Form 

Cc: Mr. Zachary M. Berman 

'!·I 
Option Selection Form RECEIVE 

Regional Counsel for the Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

JAN 2 8 2015 

HEARING DOC 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Laurel Avionics Company, Inc.- 2013EA030023 

Subject Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

Response Attachment 

In reply to your Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty Laurel Avionics Company, Inc. elects to proceed as indicated by its check mark beside the numbered paragraph 

below: 

1. L) Laurel Avionics Company, Inc. hereby submits the amount of the proposed civil penalty with the understanding that an Order Assessing Civil Penalty will be 

issued in that amount. 

2. L/Laurel Avionics Company, Inc. hereby requests a formal hearing in accordance with Section 13.16 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

By sending this form to the Federal Aviation Administration, Eastern Region, Laurel Avionics Company, Inc. also hereby 

certifies that a copy of this form has been filed with the Hearing Docket Clerk (Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 

800 Independence A venue, S.W., Room ~A, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk). ·~14-

** Please note that Laurel Avionics Company Inc. will not be entitled to a hearing if it files this form with the .Federal Aviation Administration. Eastern Re2:ion. 

VvlTHOUT having filed this fonn or a written request for a hearing with the HEARING DOCKET CLERK. 

A110R~EY/REPRESENTATIVE 

Name: Jvh" V :S,,,c<~Q,\ Firm: P,.."V·<"'---'t-,r:;.,-._ A "t'<,t ~s.:_:(·:s. L ~--C 

Address: ·~Si."2. 1'1"\.•f\""t·"'" ):y-·. ,. {'{\::)_::,;.,_~:"-.)AS\'..._,(), Rl\- IS\0'( 

Phone No. ·7 ~-4·- <--1.$ 7- ? .. :::;, 1 · 

5
#### Stewart CARRIER et ux., et al. v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 53971.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 1973.

In re: Huey Duncan, Beverly W. Duncan, and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipahoa. 281 So.2d 805.

Application denied. On the facts found by the court of appeal, there is no error in its opinion.
#### Shellie Mae LEWIS, Petitioner, v. HOT SHOPPES and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 1715.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

May 31, 1968.

*21E. O. Denison, Fort Pierce, for petitioner.

Davis W. Duke, Jr., of McCune, Hiaasen, Cram & Ferris, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent Hot Shoppes.

Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and James R. Parks, Miami, for respondent Florida Industrial Commission.

OWEN, Judge.

Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to the Florida Industrial Commission to review an order denying petitioner unemployment compensation benefits under Chapter 443, F.S.1967, F.S.A.

When petitioner’s employment had been terminated, she had applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The claims examiner found petitioner to be disqualified from such benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause attributable to her employer. Petitioner then followed the administrative procedure for an appeal and was given notice of a hearing before an appeals referee, the notice reciting that the issues would be (1) whether claimant has been able to work and available for work, and (2) whether claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause attributable to her employer.

At the hearing before the appeals referee the evidence on these two issues was entirely favorable to the claimant. However, the employer introduced evidence showing that petitioner had been discharged for misconduct connected with her work. The appeals referee thereafter entered his decision finding that claimant did not leave her employment of her own accord but was discharged by the employer for misconduct connected with her work, and was therefore disqualified for benefits. The Board of Review affirmed; hence the petition to this court.

The administrative hearing given petitioner in this case fails to meet the essential requirements of law inasmuch as claimant did not have notice that misconduct connected with her work would be an issue to be considered at the hearing. Due process of law requires either proper notice of the issues to be heard or a basis in the record to show an informed and intelligent waiver of the same. Neither was present in this case.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted; the order reviewed is quashed; and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

CROSS and REED, JJ., concur.