alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3 

Disposition Comments 

Docket No: FAA-2011-0445 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NE-14-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: SP3192EN-E

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM 

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

 

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

 Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

 Make the following changes to the AD: 
Page 2 of 3 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here 
Page 3 of 3 

Signature Section 

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: SP3192EN-E

 

ASE Printed Name: Alan Strom 8/24/11 Date 

 

Branch Manager Date
EXHIBIT 32.1


<PAGE>

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


I, Michael J. Smith, President and Chief Financial Officer of TriMaine Holdings,
Inc.  (the "Corporation"), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  that:

   (1)   the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the
         quarterly  period  ended  June 30, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully
         complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or  78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  August  12,  2003


                                   /s/  Michael  J.  Smith
                                   ---------------------------------
                                   Michael  J.  Smith
                                   President  and
                                   Chief  Financial  Officer


           ----------------------------------------------------------

A  signed  original  of  this  written  statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to TriMaine Holdings, Inc. and will
be  retained  by  TriMaine  Holdings,  Inc.  and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 May 23, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting *

by designation.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-15830

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 01-00137-CV-1-DHB

MINNIE L. SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

OLIN CORPORATION, 

d/b/a Olin Chemicals 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

_________________________

(May 23, 2007)

Before PRYOR, KRAVITCH and ALARCON, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM:
2

After careful consideration of the record and the written and oral arguments

of the parties, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted in favor

of Olin Corporation. We affirm based on the well-reasoned opinion of the district

court.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          96,816
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,309
<ALLOWANCES>                                       877
<INVENTORY>                                      8,581
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               127,749
<PP&E>                                         307,491
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 460,625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          342,781
<BONDS>                                        230,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                     (14,404)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   460,625
<SALES>                                        156,214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               160,769
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  129,147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,588
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,588
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,588
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1


 


DEBT AGREEMENT


 


This agreement is by and between:


 


WarpSpeed Taxi Inc.


 


and


 


Global Corporate Structural Services Inc.


 


WHEREAS:


 


		A.	WarpSpeed Taxi Inc. (“WarpSpeed”) owes $135,430.95 (the “Debt”) to Global Corporate
Structural Services Inc. (“GCSS”) as of the date of this Agreement in connection with the provision of marketing, beta testing,
cloning, and maintenance services in connection with the WarpSpeed Taxi computer application (the “Application”);



 


		B.	The parties wish to enter into an agreement regarding the settlement of the Debt and the continued maintenance
of the application;



 


NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual
covenants and other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:


 


		1.	In full and final satisfaction of the Debt and any other claims that GCSS has against WarpSpeed, the parties
hereby agree that WarpSpeed shall transfer its 100% interest in the Application to GCSS with the exception that WarpSpeed shall retain
a license (the “License”) for the sole and exclusive use of the Application in the United States.



 


		2.	Upon execution of the Agreement, WarpSpeed shall forthwith provide GCSS with a bill of sale whereby it
transfers its 100% interest, subject to the License, in the Application, including, without limitation, the software, trademarks, and
patents related to the Application to GCSS against GCSS and its principal, Salim Rana, delivering a general release of all claims to WarpSpeed.



 


The parties agree to and shall each do and perform
all further acts and execute all necessary documents as may be reasonably necessary to give effect this Debt Agreement.


 


DATED: September 15, 2022


 


	/s/ Daniel Okelo
	 	/s/ Salim Rana

	WarpSpeed Taxi Inc	 	Global Corporate Structural Services Inc.
of ' ls . Dios . |
STATE Ad aTine%...of,.§ Rana Wen DEPARTMENT: OF COMMERCE—-BUREAUOF THE.CENSUS SUPERVISOR'S DISTRICT NO.-.ssererserosrm) SHEET NO.) a)

COUNTY esse ee See FOURTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1920—POPULATION ENUMERATION DISTRICT NO. /

TOWNSHIP OR OTHER DIVISION OF COUNTY.

’
*

a a de rea ree i ieee » (NAME “OF INCORPORATED: PLACE Seas AN Ace 3. WARD OF CITY cit =

RAMEE OE INS TUTTO paar gee ea re orca 3 ENUMERATED BY ME ON THE C to 2 A ? AEA ¢__. ENUMERATOR.

PLACE OF ABODE. NAME iy CITIZENSHIP. EDUCATION. NATIVITY AND MOTHER TONGUE.

of each person whose place of abode on =
January 1, 1920, was in this family.

Eater suraame thea the given name and middle
; ifany.

of vie
aclade perso P| 1, 1920. Omit
( < “Tnlidren neste gt by hem : 1920,
3 3

lo

|

any time siace |

Pisco of birth of each 08 and of each person enumerated. If born in the United Bta' ve the atate or terri . Wott
o ch pe parents pe br rey rae ee fe Ar i} : or tory, oreign birth, give the place of birth

i
i

wid eo or ai:

--—- --

avess
ole, ”

ee Trade, profession, or part!
PERSON. FATHER. ry Riad of work doee, oo
spinner, salesman, labor-

wed,

Place of birth. | Mother tongue, Pisce of birth.

tion totheCnit-)
ed States.

Year of immicrs- |
qeerecanceray-
tlom.
Attended school
Sept. 1, 1919, |

If naturalized,

allen,

= | Naturalized or

—

_

Reece Re 4 A.

“Qew- Gor

- ewe scene cesses

~~“
a
=
aS

NO
1O
Ts

Ss
te SAO

i
}
i

SIs.
S/9

=
=

Ca}
HST

RZRRRS EX
ISS

OF

y
x
t
£
Q
u
KS
v)
i)

:

aSS

—

Se
ies

BS See

Ses ==

N

RRA

2

A

.

=
eI

:

RS

eS

aBES=
aoe

Dens
a

Fa

Se

cS

. gy 4” 4 :
Ontradd Pawns,
MU; ~Lu.| Wilf chrr

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

nc

W

51
52
53
ba |
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
6é
67
6s
69
> 7oy
: Tit.
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
BO
B1
82
83
84
85
86
87
88

‘eae Euro

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

«
a

het

4 Meee! 4
{Ye ong
i ae

CoG

he FA

DADO]

&
**Exhibit23.1**

[LETTERHEAD]

 

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-126695) of ParticleDrilling Technologies, Inc. of our reports dated December 14, 2006 relating tothe consolidated financial statements of Particle Drilling Technologies, Inc.,Particle Drilling Technologies, Inc.’s management assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Particle DrillingTechnologies Inc., which appear on Form 10-K.

 
| /s/ UHY LLP |   |   |   |
|-------------|--------|--------|--------|

 

Houston,Texas

December14, 2006

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert S. Cubbin, Chief Executive 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.

By: /s/ Robert S. Cubbin
    -----------------------------

Robert S. Cubbin
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2003
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS L.P., Plaintiff

- Cross

- Appellant

v.

U.S. VENTURE, INC., U.S. OIL CO., INC., Defendants

- Appellants

______________________
2023

- 1739

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:15

- cv

- 08178

, Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

______________________
O R D E R The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). (2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

December 5, 2023 Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 5, 202 3 Case: 23-1739 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 12/05/2023
#### WASHINGTON FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. Louis G. FLOYD, Jr.

No. 2957.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.

April 8, 1968.

Gamble & Gamble, Harry P. Gamble, III, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellants.

George J. Kambur and Lemle & Kel-leher, H. Martin Hunley, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appelle.e.

*127Before REGAN, SAMUEL and HALL, JJ-

HALL, Judge.

The appeal in this case was consolidated for hearing with the appeal in our No. 2956 entitled “Louis G. Floyd, Jr. vs. Anderson Carter, Jr. and New Amsterdam Casualty Company.” 209 So.2d 124. For the reasons stated in our opinion in that case this day handed down the judgment appealed from in this matter entitled “Washington Fire & Marine Insurance Company, et al vs. Louis G. Floyd, Jr.,” being No. 435-184 of the docket of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans (our No. 2957), is affirmed; costs of this appeal to be borne by plaintiffs-appellants.

Affirmed.
VI 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1605 

For the relief of Michael G. Faber. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2013 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

For the relief of Michael G. Faber. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT TO SEALASKA CORPORATION. 

4 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

5 (1) AFFECTED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘‘af6 fected individual’’ means Michael G. Faber, who— 

7 (A) is a former resident of the State of 

8 Alaska; and 

9 (B) was previously enrolled in Sealaska 

10 Corporation under roll number 13–752–39665– 

11 01. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1605 IS

1 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

2 the Secretary of the Interior. 

3 (b) REVOCATION OF MEMBERSHIP IN METLAKATLA

4 INDIAN COMMUNITY.—Effective on the date on which the 

5 affected individual submits written notice to the 

6 Metlakatla Indian Community revoking the membership of 

7 the affected individual in the Metlakatla Indian Commu8 nity, the membership of the affected individual in the 

9 Metlakatla Indian Community shall be considered to be 

10 revoked. 

11 (c) REINSTATEMENT.—Notwithstanding any other 

12 provision of law, pursuant to section 5 of the Alaska Na13 tive Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1604), the Sec14 retary shall, immediately after the affected individual sub15 mits the notice under subsection (b)— 

16 (1) reinstate the affected individual to the 

17 shareholder roll of Sealaska Corporation; and 

18 (2) ensure the provision to the affected indi19 vidual of the number of shares originally allocated to 

20 the affected individual by Sealaska Corporation. 

21 (d) EFFECT OF SECTION.—Nothing in this section 

22 provides to the affected individual any retroactive benefit 

23 relating to membership in— 

24 (1) Sealaska Corporation; or 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1605 IS

1 (2) the Metlakatla Indian Community. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      26,021,154
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,100,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      37,700,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,821,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,445,128
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  60,376,026
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,821,154
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Larry Otto BRACY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-181.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 16, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Osceola County; Murray W. Overstreet, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### James Patrick COFFEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-742.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 15, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mobile Services Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report), I, Douglas
Waugaman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                                   
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|

|Date: December 17, 2007 |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                       
|                       
|                        |  | /s/ Douglas Waugaman                 
|                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

---
Order entered January 25, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00030-CV

GOLDEN SUMMIT INVESTORS GROUP, LTD, Appellant

V.

APEX CLEARING CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-00151

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 10, 2013 motion for temporary orders and request 

for expedited consideration and appellees’ January 15, 2013 response. In the motion, appellant 

seeks to stay all district court proceedings against Golden Summit pending the outcome of this 

interlocutory appeal. After considering the motion and response, appellant’s motion is 

DENIED. This interlocutory appeal will be set in due course.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
Order issued November fl~, , 2012 

## 00503S

In The

No. 05-12-01174-CV IZZY ASHKENAZY, Appellant

V. LSREF2 CLOVER REO2, LLC, Appellee



### ORDER Before the Court is appellant’s November 19, 2012 motion to combine briefs and oral argument. We DENY appellant’s motion to the extent he requests that he and the two appellants in appellate cause number 05-12-01172-CV file one combined brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion to the extent that he requests that he and the two appellants in appellate cause number 05-12-01172-CV present a single oral argument. The amount of time for 

### oral argument will be determined by the submissions panel.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. David Paul HARDING, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Wallace SAMPLE, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for St. Lucie County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 43565.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 25, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 275 So.2d 618.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### Willie Andrew WELLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 6769.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

March 29, 1967.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and William H. Namack, III, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a final order denying appellant’s motion for relief filed pursuant to Criminal Rule No. 1, F.S.A. Ch. 924 Appendix.

The appellant was indicted for murder in the First Degree on March 13, 1956. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty without a recommendation for mercy and appellant was sentenced to death. The appellant appealed this conviction to the Supreme Court, which reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. See Wells v. State, Fla., 98 So.2d 795 (1957).

Subsequently appellant entered a plea of guilty as charged and, upon a recommendation of mercy by the state attorney, was adjudged guilty and was sentenced for the remainder of his natural life.

This is appellant’s third motion for post conviction relief. The only point argued by appellant’s counsel goes to the issue of whether the record affirmatively shows that appellant’s privately retained counsel was personally present in the courtroom when appellant entered his plea of guilty and was sentenced.

In appellant’s first motion for post conviction relief filed June 10, 1963 and denied *21July 2, 1963 this same issue was raised. Further, in appellant’s second motion filed April 8, 1964 this issue was again raised and relief was subsequently denied.

Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 provides in part that: “The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.” There is also considerable case law to this effect. See Rankin v. State (Fla.App.1964) 168 So.2d 324; Carpenter v. State (Fla.App.1965) 176 So.2d 610; Hall v. State (Fla.App.1966) 183 So.2d 277; Hunt v. State (Fla.App.1966) 183 So.2d 858, and Thompson v. State (Fla.App.1966) 187 So.2d 363.

The order appealed from is accordingly .affirmed.

SHANNON, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and HOBSON, JJ., concur.