alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Sinclair, Alan (FAA} From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Subject:



### Dear Mr. Sinclair, David McDonald <dmcdonald@aeronautical-engineers.com> Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:33 AM Sinclair, Alan (FAA) FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0636



### The following was posted on Regulations.gov in response to the FAA's latter dated October 7, 2014: This is in response to the FAA's request for more information dated October

### 7, 2014. With regard to item 

### 1, Preliminary design allows for two supernumerary seats. The request forallowance ofthree supernumeraries was based upon the planned use ofthe cockpit observerseat forsupernumerary use. With regard to item 2, AEI does not request orintend forsupernumeraries to access the cargo compartment during flight. Supernumeraries would assist in loading/unloading and/orsecurity ofcargo. With regard to item 3, the reference to FAR 121.285 should be omitted. 

### Let me know ifany additional information is needed. Best Regards, 

### David M. McDonald Vice President, General Counsel Aeronautical Engineers, Inc. 

## I 7765 NW 54th Street 

## IMiami, FL 33166 Phone:+1.305.594.5802 ext. 110 

## IFax+1.305.594.5804 dmm(q)aeronautical-engineers.com 

## Iwww.aeronautical-engineers.com The contents ofthis email may contain information, technical details, and/or attachments that are covered by U.S. export control law under the Export Administration Regulations and/or the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The contents ofthis email are intended solely and explicitly for the individual(s) specified within the body ofthe email. Ifyou have received this email in error, it must deleted. Any dissemination ofthe information contained within and/or attached to this email without adherence to U.S. export control laws is a violation ofthe Export Administration Regulations and/or International Traffic in Arms Regulations and carries significant civil and criminal penalties.

1
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 1

required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-08-00507-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN RE CLYDE NUBINE

____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela 

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relator, Clyde Nubine, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above

causes on August 12, 2008. Relator requests this Court to issue a writ of mandamus

ordering Anna Marie Silvas, the District Clerk of Bee County, to file and process his

pleadings. 

We conclude this Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. This

court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over district clerks unless it is shown that
2

issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §

22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004); In re Simpson, 997 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. App.–Waco 1999, orig.

proceeding); In re Strickhausen, 994 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig.

proceeding); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, orig.

proceeding); see also In re Hayes, NO. 13-05-454-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5706, *2

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2005, orig. proceeding).

When a district clerk refuses to accept a pleading presented for filing, the party

presenting the document can seek relief by filing an application for writ of mandamus in the

district court, or attempting to file the pleading directly with a district judge, explaining in a

verified motion that the clerk refused to accept the pleading for filing. See In re Bernard,

993 S.W.2d 453, 454-544 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding)

(O’Connor, J., concurring).

Relator has neither alleged nor shown that issuance of the writ is necessary to

enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby

DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.APP.P. 52.8(a). Pending motions, if any,

are likewise DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 27th day of August, 2008.
Order entered April 2, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 01152 - CV THE UNIVERSITY OF TE XAS SOUTHWESTERN MED ICAL CENTER, Appellant V. JOHNNY FELIPE MUNOZ, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 D allas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 10 - 00309 - E 

### O RDER We GRANT court reporter Vikki Ogden’s March 31, 2015 request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record shall be filed by JUNE 5, 2015

. /s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- M IERS JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**  **

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

   

   Inconnection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of China ShouGuan Mining Corporation (the “Company”) for theperiod ended September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  “Report”), I, Ming Cheung, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

   a) The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

  

    b) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in allmaterial aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

   

Dated: November 14, 2012

  

CHINA SHOUGUAN MINING CORPORATION , Registrant

 

/s/ Ming Cheung

 

By: Ming Cheung, Principal Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the Registration Statement onForm S-3 (No. 333-125870) of Consolidated Edison, Inc. relating to the Con Edison Automatic Dividend Reinvestment and Cash Payment Plan; (ii) the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-04463-99) relating to the Con Edison 1996 Stock OptionPlan; (iii) the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-118159) relating to The Consolidated Edison Stock Purchase Plan; (iv) the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-108903) relating to The Consolidated Edison, Inc. Long Term IncentivePlan and Senior Executive Restricted Stock Awards; and (v) the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-136267) relating to debt and equity securities of Consolidated Edison, Inc. of our report dated February 15, 2008 relating to the financialstatements, financial statement schedules and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

New York, New York 

February 22, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3244 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3244

  Relating to the discount factors applicable to medical malpractice 
   companies under section 846 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 7, 1993

 Mr. Reynolds introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  Relating to the discount factors applicable to medical malpractice 
   companies under section 846 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That until taxable 
years beginning on or after January 1, 1994, medical malpractice 
insurance companies may elect to use the discount factors defined by 
the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate pursuant to section 
846(d)(3)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that were in effect 
on December 31, 1991.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Income, Balance Sheet, Statement of Cash Flows,
Statement of Changes in Shareholders' Equity and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000936340
<NAME> DTE Energy Company
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             251
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      624
<ALLOWANCES>                                        20
<INVENTORY>                                        338
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1232
<PP&E>                                           12178
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   12088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1392
<BONDS>                                           4197
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1951
<OTHER-SE>                                        1747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     12088
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4221
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    21
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 319
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    597
<INCOME-TAX>                                       154
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                443
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       443
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.05
        

</TABLE>
#### Evelyn Patricia FREEDMAN, Petitioner, v. Valerie K. FREEDMAN, Respondent.

No. 39899.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 1, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 235 So.2d 544.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1977** 

SANDRA WILLIAMS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte , Senior District Judge. ( 8:11

- cv - 01231

- PJM )

Submitted : January 23, 2014 Decided: February 19, 2014

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Sandra Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Judah Baror, Linda Hitt Thatcher, THATCHER LAW FIRM, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Sandra Williams appeals the district court ’ s order granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Williams’ employment discrimination action . We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. ∗ Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment for the reasons stated by the district court at the hearing held on July 2, 2013

. Williams v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cnty. , No. 8:11

- cv - 01231

- PJM (D. Md. July 3,
2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

∗ In addition to challenging the district court’s rejection of her claims on the merits, Williams also asserts that the district court’s order should be vacated because her counsel was ineffective. However, a litigant in a civil action has no constitutiona l or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel. S anchez v. U

. S

. Postal Serv. , 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986); see Pitts v. Shinseki , 700 F.3d 1279, 1284

- 86 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (collecting cases recognizing rule), cert. denied , 133 S. Ct. 2856 ( 2013).
# C_2012369EN.01000501.xml

| 29.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6699 — MEP/Walach Bros/Walmark)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 369/03

On 21 November 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 32012M6699. 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 32012M6699. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JINPO LIN, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-72263 Age n c y No. A094-938-697 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 5, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, M c KEOW N, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Jinpo Lin, a

native and c itiz e n of C hina , pe titions for re vie wof the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m i gration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m o va l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 

# F IL ED DEC 12 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a g e nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a pply ing the sta

nda rds gove rning a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inations c re ate d by the REAL ID Ac t. Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm i nation ba se d on a

n inc onsiste nc y be twe e n Lin’ s te stim ony an d his written sta

te m e nt re ga rding whe n he be ga

n atte nding a

house c hurc h, a

nd ba se d on a

n inc onsiste nc y be twe e n his te stim ony and his a sy lum a pplic ation re ga

rding his e m

ploy m e nt in C hina . Se e id . at

1048 (a dve rse c re dibility finding re a sona

ble unde r the tota lity

of c irc um s ta nc e s ). Lin’ s e xpla

nations do not c om

pe l a c ontra

ry re sult. S e e Lata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th C ir. 2000). In thea bse nc e of c re dible te s tim ony , Lin’ s a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l c l a im s fa il. Se eFarah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). Furthe r, be c a

use Lin’ s C AT c l a im

is ba se d on the sa

m e te stim ony

found not c re d ible , and he doe s not point to a ny othe r e vide n c e tha

t c om pe l s the finding tha

t it is m ore like ly tha

n not he would be torture d if re turne d to C hina , his C AT c la im a lso fa ils. Se e id. at

1156-57. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 2 2 6 3 2
EPA Registration Jacket 71532

‐ 25
EXHIBIT
31.2




CERTIFICATION






I, Edward
L. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, certify that:




1.
            I
      have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
      31, 2008 of QSGI INC. (the
“Registrant”);




2.
            Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;




3.
            Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
      report;




4.
            The
      Registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant
      and have:




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




(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our 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




(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and




5.
            The
      Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's
      board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      functions):




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.




Date:
      March 30, 2009
            
            /s/ Edward L. CummingsEdward
      L. Cummings
              Chief
      Financial Officer and Treasurer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7140

ANTON THURMAN MCALLISTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WELLPATH HEALTH CARE; ELI LILLY AND COMPANY; DOCTOR 

CUNNINGHAM; DOCTOR BASHOLM; MRS. WILLIAMS; ROCKY JOYNER; 

MAJOR R. E. SLATER; CAPTAIN C. WARREN; FORSYTH COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; FORSYTH COUNTY COUNCIL; HIG CAPITAL 

EQUITY FIRM; DR. ALAN RHOADES; BOBBY KIMBROUGH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01034-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: October 22, 2020 Decided: October 27, 2020

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anton Thurman Mcallister, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anton Thurman Mcallister seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing the majority of the claims raised in 

Mcallister’s civil complaint. The court, however, explicitly allowed several of Mcallister’s 

claims related to the alleged deliberate indifference to medical needsto proceed. This court

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory 

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Mcallister seeks to appeal is neither 

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny 

Mcallister’s motion to amend the case caption and we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED