alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB10-CN.27 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
(301) 763-3030 (phone)
(301) 763-3762 (fax)
(301) 457-1037 (TDD)PIO@census.gov
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010 Media Advisory — Leaders of National Government Organizations Call on Members to Take On the 2010 Census "Take 10" Challenge Take 10 Minutes to Answer 10 Questions ― and Boost Your Area's Participation Rate The U.S. Census Bureau is asking all of America to “Take 10” to take 10 minutes to answer 10 questions and mail back their 2010 Census forms when they arrive in mailboxes March 15-17.
    
  Download the “Take 10” toolkit with templates and suggestions for implementing the “Take 10” challenge locally, and check out your community's 2000 mail-back participation rate at http://2010.census.gov/2010census/take10map/. Daily 2010 rate updates will be posted beginning March 22.
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May 13, 2011 | By:    | /s/Benjamin L. Denny                  |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | Benjamin L. Denny                     |   |
|                          |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

| Date:  May 13, 2011 | By:    | /s/G. Randall Allison   |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | G. Randall Allison                |   |
|                          |   | Chief Financial Officer           |   |
05/27/201 1 10';58 FAX 2024935142 FAA + QMS @l001/002 

& 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION., 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

n 

"ARTMENTOF 

•••oPORWiOM 

: B OPERATIONS 

:=!Ai ? 1 A li: 55 

In the Matter of Empire Flight Academy 

FDMS No. FAA-2e 11-0290 

AGENCY'S PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its proposed 

procedural schedule as follows: 

File discovery requests: By July 1, 2011 

File stipulations, witness lists (including summary of proposed testimony), and copies 

of exhibits to be offered at hearing: By September 1, 2011. 

Proposed hearing location: New York, NY 

The parties have been unable to reach a setdement to date, but the Agency is open to 

haying fiuther discussions. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

ry*M. German 

Date: May 4, 2011 i jrTA r%i».-^ 

BEARING DOCKET 
05/27/201 1 10:58 FAX 2024935142 FAA + QMS 0002/002 

CERTinCATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Agency's Proposed Procedural Schedule has been 

sent this date by first class mail and facsimile to the following: 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

Aviation Law Experts , LLC 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Telefax: (301)294-2525 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Hearings, M-20, RoomE12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Telefax: (202)366-7536 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Agency's Proposed Procedural Schedule has been 

sent this date by first class mail to the following:: 

Federal Aviation Admirastration (Original and one copy) 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building ^ Suite 

Date: 

MAY - 4 2011 

^ ^ ^ 

isa Hooks 

Paralegal Specialist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Ofifice of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3384 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3384

 To repeal certain provisions of law relating to trading with Indians.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 27, 1993

    Mr. Kyl (for himself and Ms. English of Arizona) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal certain provisions of law relating to trading with Indians.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

    Section 437 of title 18, United States Code, is repealed.

                                 <all>
```
#### The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI SPRINGS, Appellant, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellee.

No. 73-977.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 30, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
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 Annual Report of Dionics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge, that:



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



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





|Dated:   March 30, 2010 | By:   /s/ Bernard Kravitz            
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                        | Bernard Kravitz,                     
|                        | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                        | (Principal Executive Officer)        
|                        |                                      
|                        |                                      
|Dated:   March 30, 2010 | By:   /s/ Bernard Kravitz            
|                        | Bernard Kravitz,                     
|                        | Principal Financial Officer          











1
# C_2013238EN.01000201.xml

| 17.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 August 2013

2013/C 238/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3297 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,48 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4581 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,8533 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,6455 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2427 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8435 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,815 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 298,96 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7024 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2062 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,442 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,57 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4525 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3732 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3113 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6479 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6911 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 487,46 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,2225 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,1285 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,541 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 833,39 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3581 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,205 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,8225 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,593 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0883 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,0135 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,537 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3297

JPY

Japanese yen

130,48

DKK

Danish krone

7,4581

GBP

Pound sterling

0,8533

SEK

Swedish krona

8,6455

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2427

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8435

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,815

HUF

Hungarian forint

298,96

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7024

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2062

RON

Romanian leu

4,442

TRY

Turkish lira

2,57

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4525

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3732

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3113

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6479

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6911

KRW

South Korean won

1 487,46

ZAR

South African rand

13,2225

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,1285

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,541

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 833,39

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3581

PHP

Philippine peso

58,205

RUB

Russian rouble

43,8225

THB

Thai baht

41,593

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0883

MXN

Mexican peso

17,0135

INR

Indian rupee

81,537

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2014319EN.01000401.xml

| 17.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/4

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 31 March 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39610(2) Power Cables

Rapporteur: Denmark

2014/C 319/04

| (1) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the determination of the value of sales. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the determination of the value of sales.

| (2) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the periods to be taken into account for imposing the fines. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the periods to be taken into account for imposing the fines.

| (3) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.

| (4) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment on the mitigating and aggravating circumstances applicable in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment on the mitigating and aggravating circumstances applicable in this case.

| (5) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice.

| (6) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the inability to pay request |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the inability to pay request

| (7) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| (8) | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
## u.s. Department of

Transportation Office ofthe Secretary OfTransportation May 20, 2014 

## .,.RT''r-'IT

# or I""".. :'..':1\ r 

## ":,

... ~jS?ORTATION ~~:I~;:T OPERATIONS W~HAY 20 P 4: 41 1200 New Jersey Ave

..S.E. Washington. DC 20S90

Mr. Jeffrey H. Erickson President, People Express Airlines, Inc. 902 Bland Boulevard Newport News, VA 23602 Re: Docket DOT-OST-2012-0042 Application ofPeople Express Airlines, Inc., For aCertificate ofPublic Convenience andNecessity' Dear Mr. Erickson: On March 19,2012, People Express Airlines, Inc. ("PEX"), filed an application inDocket DOTOST-2012-0042 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to conduct interstate scheduled air transportation. In response to two requests for additional information from the Department, PEX supplemented its application with additional information on April 27, 20'12, and June 20, 2012. Some, but not all, ofthe information requested was provided. Wehave also received several trade name registration requests for use of the "People Express" name from other aircarriers. Because PEX has not updated the docket with required fitness information and itappears that it is providing its trade name to already certificated air carriers, it is unclear to us whether.PEX intends to conduct interstate scheduled air transportation as an actual certificated air carrier. Moreover, it is not the Department's policy to keep incomplete applications open indefinitely. Therefore, werequire that PEX update the subject docket within 14days ofthe date'ofthis letter, with the required information that would allow us to make a fitness determination of the air 'carrier. Otherwise weintend to dismiss PEX's application without further notice. Thank you for your cooperation inthis matter. Ifyou have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact Katy O'Toole of my staff at (202) 366-9998 or via email at Catherine.O 'Toole@dot.gov. Sincerely,

Laur J. emo Chief, AirCarrier Fitness'Division Office ofAviation Analysiscc: Docket DOT-OST-2012-0042

Nicholas Scarpinato, Jr. Manager, Washington FSDO Federal Aviation Administration 2
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**In connection with the Annual Report of FelCor Lodging Trust Incorporated (the “Registrant”) onForm 10-K for the three months and year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in thecapacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.        February 29, 2008 /s/ Richard A. Smith   Richard A. Smith   Chief Executive Officer
#### Bernard Ralph BLACK, Appellant, v. Eleanor Louise BLACK, Appellee.

No. 70-784.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 11, 1971.

*776Hylan H. Kout, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Hendricks & Hendricks, Miami, for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant and appellee, both mature individuals, entered into a marriage of short duration which ended in a final judgment of divorce. The appellee was a woman of substantial assets; the appellant was a man of very meager means. In her amended pleading, the appellee alleged that she had suffered certain financial losses because of activities of the appellant, and prayed for relief as follows:

> ***** *

> “B. That the court will ascertain and determine the extent and amount of plaintiff’s financial loss occasioned by the conduct of the defendant and will order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff as lump sum alimony said amounts as determined by the court.”

> ******

At the time of the entry of the final judgment, the appellee was granted a divorce and awarded lump sum alimony in the amount of $4,160.00. She was also awarded attorney’s fees. The appellant has appealed and urges error in the award of lump sum alimony in light of the appellee’s testimony that she did not desire alimony and the difference in the respective financial positions of the parties, relying on the following authorities: Kahn v. Kahn, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 367; Heller v. Heller, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 35; Pendelton v. Pendelton, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 499; Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 514. And, further, that the trial court erred in the award of attorney’s fees.

We find mefit in the appellant’s first contention, and reverse the award of lump sum alimony. It was error for the trial judge to award the appellee lump sum alimony in an effort to reimburse her for any sums allegedly advanced during the coverture. Spears v. Spears, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 564. It has also been held that where the wife has substantial assets in a marriage of short duration, it is not incumbent on the trial judge that she be awarded alimony. Chaires v. Chaires, 1864, 10 Fla. 308; McCarter v. McCarter, 131 Fla. 561, 179 So. 760; Kahn v. Kahn, supra; Gordon v. Gordon, supra. This should be particularly true where she indicates that she doesn't desire alimony.

As to the attorney’s fees, it is within the discretion of the trial judge to make an award of attorney’s fees to a wife upon the granting to her of a divorce, notwithstanding a disallowance of alimony. Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 592; Silberman v. Katcher, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 726.

*777Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment of divorce here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed, except that same be modified by eliminating the lump sum alimony.

Affirmed as modified.
#### LUTHER WALKER TRUCKING CO., INC., Appellant, v. Louis FERNANDEZ, Appellee.

No. 73-72.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 21, 1973.

*668John C. Dew and George F. Meehan, Harris, Barrett & Dew, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

MANN, Chief Judge.

The trial court correctly determined that Walker Trucking had not perfected a statutory Mechanic’s Lien. However, the action should have continued as one for money damages under the contract. *See*Port Carlos Trailer Park v. Warren Brothers Co., 240 So.2d 165 (2nd DCA Fla.1970). *See also*Fla.Const. Art. V, § 2(a), F.S.A.

Reversed and remanded with directions to enter a partial final summary judgment.

BOARDMAN, J., and COWART, JOE A., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000723 04-MAR-2016 08:16 AM
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0185

SAT Date: 1/4/2013

Print Date: 2/4/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 2 1 Linear

2 3 1 Branched

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: IRR/CORR-S,E,L,MM; AQUATOX

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0180-5

FATE: Estimations for 

Liquid with MP < 25 C (E)

log Kow = 5.97 (E); 

S = Dispersible/0.3 mg/L at 25 C (E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)
log Koc = 5.04 (E)

log Fish BCF = 2.2 (E)

log Fish BAF = 2.7 (E) 

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Linear wk; Highly branched ≥ mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: Linear P1B2; Highly branched P2B3

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is poor from the skin, moderate from the GI 

tract, and good from the lung (analog). Concern for severe irritation and possible corrosion from 

the amines.

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 1.1

daphnid 48-h LC50 0.18

green algal 96-h EC50 0.069

fish _ chronic value 0.01

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.02

algal _ chronic 

value

0.034

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for Aliphatic Amines, Amides; 

SAR class = Amides; log Kow = 4.7; S = 0.0045 g/L at 20 C, dispersible; pH7; liquid 

with unknown mp (P); effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and measured 

concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1

SARs Aliphatic Amines, Amides

SAR Class Amides

Ecotox Category Aliphatic Amines

Ecotox Factors Comments: 
 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-11200

Summary Calendar

 

KENNY WITHERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director; D. D. SANDERS, 

Defendants-Appellees.

_____________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:96-CV-223

_____________________________________

July 7, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth Withers, a Texas prisoner (# 687233), appeals the dismissal of his civil rights

complaint asfrivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Withers argues that the defendants

and other Texas correct ional officials denied him the alleged right to represent himself in several

prison disciplinary proceedings. We have reviewed the record and Gill’s brief, and we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Gill’s complaint asfrivolous. See Withers

v. Scott, No. 4:96-CV-233 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 1996); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Eason v.

Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994); Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299,

308-09 (1986). Withers also seeks the assistance of the class representative in the class action Ruiz

v. Estelle, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982), or to intervene in such action. However, the

Ruiz litigation has been settled and is completed. See Ruiz v. Collins, No. 92-2373, slip op. at 6 n.3

(5th Cir. Dec. 23, 1992) (unpublished).

Withers’ motion to file a “traverse” brief, hisrequest to submit “supporting documentation,”

and his motion for the court to stay consideration by the defendants of further disciplinary charges

are DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.