alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 22, 2015

Robert Todd Dean

1001 Northway Drive, Suite 202

Anchorage, AK 99508

Dear Mr. Dean:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition 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 received your June 22, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Denali Media Holdings filed 

in Docket No. FAA-2015-3370, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your 

petition 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, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 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.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

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. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2852 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2852

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
      coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel MARY B.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 3, 1993

 Mr. Bunning introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
      coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel MARY B.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel 
MARY B (Kentucky State registration number KY-0098-HX).

                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ECCO 2018 TX1 AS ASSIGNEE OF

ADVANTAGE ASSETS II, INC.,

Appellant,

V.

ROBERT G. ALVIDREZ,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00188

- CV

Appeal from the

109th District Court

of Andrews County, Texas

(TC# 21,538 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
<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

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Phoenix
Footwear Group, Inc., (the "Company"), does hereby certify with respect to
Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the year
ended January 1, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"10-K Report"), that:

     (1) the 10-K/A Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2) the information contained in the 10-K/A Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

     The undersigned have executed this Certification effective as of May 24,
2005.

                                                 /s/ RICHARD E. WHITE
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                     Richard E. White
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

                                                   /s/ KENNETH WOLF
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                       Kenneth Wolf
                                           Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer

A signed original of this Certification has been provided to Phoenix Footwear
Group, Inc. and will be retained by Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1 

To reform America’s broken immigration system. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 22 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2013 

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. BROWN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. 

COONS, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mrs. 

BOXER, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. HEINRICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reform America’s broken immigration system. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Immigration Reform 

5 that Works for America’s Future Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE SENATE. 

7 It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should— 

8 (1) create a roadmap for immigrants who are 

9 here without legal status to earn citizenship, proVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:17 Jan 23, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1.IS S1

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•S 1 IS

1 vided they pay taxes, complete a background check, 

2 learn English, and show a commitment to America; 

3 (2) allow students who came to America as chil4 dren to earn citizenship by attending college or join5 ing the Armed Forces; 

6 (3) protect the sustainability of the American 

7 agricultural industry, including the dairy industry, 

8 with a stable and legal agricultural workforce; 

9 (4) encourage those who seek to invest in the 

10 United States and create American jobs; 

11 (5) permit and encourage individuals who earn 

12 an advanced degree from one of our world-class uni13 versities to remain in the United States, rather than 

14 using that education to work for our international 

15 competitors; 

16 (6) fulfill and strengthen our Nation’s commit17 ments regarding security along our borders and at 

18 our ports of entry; 

19 (7) strengthen our Nation’s historic humani20 tarian tradition of welcoming asylum seekers and 

21 refugees and improve existing policies that support 

22 immigrant victims of crime and domestic violence; 

23 (8) create an effective electronic verification 

24 system and strengthen enforcement to prevent em25 ployers from hiring people here illegally; 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•S 1 IS

1 (9) implement a rational legal immigration sys2 tem that promotes job creation by converting the 

3 current flow of illegal immigrants into the United 

4 States into a more manageable, controlled, and legal 

5 process for admitting immigrants while, at the same 

6 time, safeguarding the jobs, rights, and wages of 

7 American workers; and 

8 (10) adopt practical and fair immigration re9 forms to help ensure that all families are able to be 

10 together. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with
NUMBER 13-13-00581-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

MARY FOWLER, Appellant,

v.

GUS MONTIS, ARGIRO INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., Appellee.

 

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.

 

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

On February 10, 2014, we abated to the county court the issue regarding the 

sufficiency of appellant’s personal surety bond, which named this Court as the payment 

creditor. The county court conducted a hearing to determine whether the writ of 

possession was stayed, whether appellant timely and sufficiently filed a supersedeas 
2

bond, and the county court’s jurisdiction to modify the supersedeas bond. Pursuant to 

this Court’s abatement order, the county court provided findings of fact and conclusions 

of law. Upon reviewing the abatement hearing record and the county court’s findings of 

fact and conclusions of law, we reinstate this appeal. We agree with the county court’s 

conclusion of law that appellant’s personal surety bond was insufficient because it was 

payable to this Court rather than appellees, the judgment creditor. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

24.1(b)(1)(B) (“A bond must be payable to the judgment creditor.”). Thus, the county 

court’s judgment may be enforced, “including issuance of a writ of possession evicting 

the tenant from the premises.” Marshall v. Housing Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 

S.W.3d 782, 786 (Tex. 2006); see TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (West, Westlaw 

through 2013 3d C.S.) (“A judgment of the county court in an eviction suit may not under 

any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of signing the 

judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court.”). 

There is no stay on the writ of possession. 

Appellant’s failure to file a proper supersedeas bond precludes a stay of the writ of 

possession, but it does not divest appellant of her right to appeal. Marshall, 198 S.W.3d 

at 786–87. 

In this case, the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record have been filed. 

Appellant has neither filed her brief nor filed a motion for extension of time to file her brief. 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to either file her brief within twenty-one days from the 

date of this order or file an appropriate motion for extension of time to file the brief that is 

in compliance with the appellate rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5, 38.6. The failure to 
3

timely file the brief or to comply with this directive or other Court order may result in the 

dismissal of this appeal. See id. R. 38.8, 42.3. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

22nd day of July, 2014.
#### William EVERSOLE and Mary Eversole d/b/a Eversole Construction Company, Appellants, v. UPTOWN WELDING AND EQUIPMENT RENTAL, INC., Appellee.

No. Q-418.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 30, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1973.

W. A. Swann, Jr., Pensacola, for appellants.

*396Anthony E. Florentino, Pensacola, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. Rule 1.540, Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A.; Winter Park Arms, Inc. v. Akerman (Fla.App.1967) 199 So.2d 107.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6448

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CR-98-358-A)

Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora appeals the district court’s orders

denying his motions for a copy of a government witness’ presentence

report, for reconsideration, and for recusal of the district court

judge. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.

Lora, No. CR-98-358-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2002; Feb. 4, 2003). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HECTOR E. CANTILLO,

Appellant,

v.

LORENA CANTILLO,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00143

- CV

Appeal from the

146th District Court

of Bell County, Texas

(TC# 302,185

- B )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the c ourt below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant and his sureties, if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P . 43.5, on the judgment and all

costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE , 2021.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J. , Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                           8,249
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,272
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    256,647
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               288,513
<PP&E>                                         118,054
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 484,917
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          344,525
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,441
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   484,917
<SALES>                                        675,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               682,056
<CGS>                                          476,656
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  476,656
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               208,625
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,779
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,004)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,004)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,004)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.91)


</TABLE>
# C_2012195EN.01000201.xml

| 3.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6559 — Eurochem Trading GMBH/K+S Nitrogen)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 195/03

On 25 June 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6559. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6559. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
CERTIFICATIONS
      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; andd)
    
    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
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls 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:  May 13, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Michael L. AsmussenMichael L. AsmussenDirector, President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-85580 of Consolidated Natural Gas Company (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dominion Resources,Inc.) on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 26, 2004 (which reports expressed an unqualified opinion and included an explanatory paragraph as to changes in accounting principles for: asset retirement obligations, derivative contracts not heldfor trading purposes, the consolidation of variable interest entities, and guarantees in 2003; goodwill and intangible assets in 2002; and derivative contracts and hedging activities in 2001), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofConsolidated Natural Gas Company for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHELLP

 

Richmond, Virginia 

March 1, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       6,607,187
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,066,836
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,674,023
<PP&E>                                      36,113,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,787,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,870,707
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,916,316
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,787,023
<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-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2013063EN.01000101.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/1

---

2013/C 63/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 55, 23.2.2013

OJ C 55, 23.2.2013

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 46, 16.2.2013

OJ C 38, 9.2.2013

OJ C 32, 2.2.2013

OJ C 26, 26.1.2013

OJ C 9, 12.1.2013

OJ C 399, 22.12.2012

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---