alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
July 6, 2015

Mr. James Tiblier 

2801 Denton Tap

#623

Lewisville, TX 75067

Dear Mr. Tiblier

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request 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 entered your April 1, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0889), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent 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 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.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us 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.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Denied and Opinion Filed March 10, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 13
- 01750
- CV
IN RE FREDERICK D. T ODD, II, M.D., AND F REDERICK D. TODD, II , M.D., P.A. D/B/A ARLINGTON NEUR OLOGICAL & SPINE ASS OCIATES , Relator Original Proceeding from the 116th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 08
- 16167
- F



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Fillmore, and Brown Opinion by Justice Moseley Before the Court is relators’ petition for writ of mandamus in which they contend that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in granting a new trial. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount th em herein. Based on the record before us, we conclude relators have not shown they are entitled to the relief requested. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

- 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relators ’ petition for writ of mandamus.

131750F.P05 /Jim Moseley/ JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE
#### NATIONAL INDEMNITY CO. v. DONALD.

No. 39438.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 229 So.2d 900.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 24, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-2081 Lower Tribunal No. F14-18345

________________ 

### Joseph Scott, Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Tanya Brinkley, Judge. Joseph Scott, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12-4

                  DTE ENERGY COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Year Ended December 31
                                             ------------------------------------
                                                1996        1995         1994
                                             ----------  -----------  -----------
                                                (Thousands, except for ratio)
<S>                                          <C>         <C>          <C>

Net income ................................   $325,311   $  433,651   $  419,909
                                             ---------   ----------   ----------

Taxes based on income:
 Current income taxes .....................    219,143      220,730      169,381
 Deferred taxes - net .....................     16,949       78,817      110,243
 Investment tax credit adjustments - net ..    (15,054)     (16,294)     (12,826)
 Municipal and state ......................      3,348        2,627        2,566
                                             ---------   ----------   ----------
   Total taxes based on income ............    224,386      285,880      269,364
                                             ---------   ----------   ----------

Fixed charges:
 Interest on long-term debt ...............    275,166      275,599      273,763
 Amortization of debt discount, premium
   and expense ............................     11,883       11,312       10,832
 Other interest ...........................      4,218        9,666       11,170
 Interest factor of rents .................     34,000       29,000       28,000
                                             ---------   ----------   ----------
   Total fixed charges ....................    325,267      325,577      323,765
                                             ---------   ----------   ----------

Earnings before taxes based on income
 and fixed charges ........................   $874,964   $1,045,108   $1,013,038
                                             =========   ==========   ==========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ........       2.69         3.21         3.13
</TABLE>
<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 BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER
SHARE OF COMMON STOCK 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             163
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      719
<ALLOWANCES>                                        21
<INVENTORY>                                        344
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1310
<PP&E>                                           12745
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   12316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1604
<BONDS>                                           3938
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1950
<OTHER-SE>                                        1959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     12316
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4728
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    18
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    543
<INCOME-TAX>                                        60
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                483
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       483
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.33


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BALJIT KUMAR; JYOTI SHARMA,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-72289

Agency Nos. A089-697-731

A089-697-732

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Baljit Kumar and Jyoti Sharma, natives and citizens of India, petition for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for

asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

FILED

DEC 02 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453

F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if

petitioners established past persecution by Punjab police, their presumption of a

well-founded fear of future persecution was rebutted by evidence that they could

safely and reasonably relocate elsewhere in India. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B); Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003)

(presumption of a well-founded fear can be rebutted by showing that under all the

circumstances the applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate); see also

Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting

that agency has expertise to construe country reports). We reject petitioners’

contentions that the BIA improperly placed the burden on petitioners to establish

well-founded fear, and that the IJ’s analysis of the reasonableness of relocation was

based on speculation. Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily

cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye,

453 F.3d at 1190.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 12-72289
#### STATE of Louisiana Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. Mack H. VINCENT et al.

No. 54165.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1973.

In re: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu, 284 So.2d 90.

Writ denied. Under the facts found, no error of law.
#### KNIGHT MANOR # ONE, INC., Appellant, v. J. A. FREEMAN, Appellee.

No. 71-816.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 19, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1971.

Abe Schonfeld, Miami, and Robert C. Hertz, for appellant.

Bruce Rogow, and Robert F. Williams, Miami, for appellee.

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

SWANN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff, Knight Manor # One, Inc., takes this interlocutory appeal from an order which quashed service of process upon defendant, J. A. Freeman.

Plaintiff sought possession of certain premises based upon the alleged non-payment of rental money due under an oral agreement between the parties. Service of process upon the defendant was attempted under § 83.22, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which provides :

> “If the defendant cannot be found in the county in which the action is pending and either he has no usual place of *376abode in the county or there is no person of his family above fifteen (15) years of age at his usual place of abode in the county, the sheriff shall serve the summons by attaching it to some part of the premises involved in the proceedings.”

The deputy sheriff [process server] testified he went to the premises involved in the proceedings at 9:00 A.M., on June 22, 1971 to personally serve the defendant. He knocked upon the door and left after he received no response. He returned at 12:30 P.M. the same day. When he received no response the second time, he posted a copy of the complaint and summons on the door of the premises. He testified that he saw no one in the vicinity from whom he could inquire as to the whereabouts of the defendant. We note June 22, 1971 was a Tuesday.

We agree with the trial judge that these actions are insufficient to establish that the “defendant cannot be found in the county” in which the action was pending. See Broward Drainage District v. Certain Lands, 160 Fla. 120, 33 So.2d 716 (1948).

The order appealed is

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FANGJUN WU, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 13-72383 

Agency No. A099-062-698 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

Fangjun Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 

(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 16 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-72383 

Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition 

for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Wu failed to 

demonstrate the harm he experienced in China rose to the level of persecution. See 

He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner must show “substantial 

evidence of further persecution” apart from spouse’s forced abortion). Substantial 

evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Wu did not establish a well-founded 

fear of future persecution in China. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not “present compelling, objective evidence 

demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus, his asylum claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### AMERICAN SPORTSMEN’S INNS, INC., a Florida corporation, and Key West American Sportsmen’s Inn, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, Appellants, v. TOPPINO’S KEY INN, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-21.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 20, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Carlton BENNETT, Jr., Appellee.

No. 70-251.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 7, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 15, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellant.

Kenneth E. Easley, Clearwater, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed on authority of State v. Neely, Fla.App., 237 So.2d 811, filed in this Court July 8, 1970.

HOBSON, C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Annual Report of The Singing Machine, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the SEC
on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Barocas, Chief 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:

            (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.

         A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.


                                                   /s/   JEFFREY BAROCAS
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                         Jeffrey Barocas
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                                   (Principal Financial Officer)

Date: July 14, 2004
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131430 & (72) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PETER VERVERIS and THERESA VERVERIS, Justices 

as Next Friend of PHILIP VERVERIS, a Minor,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

and Cross-Appellees, 

v SC: 131430 

 COA: 251868 

Oakland CC: 2002-037354-NI 

HARTFIELD LANES,

Defendant-Appellee 

and Cross-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 2, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

d1122 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 30, 2006 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 21


                             CUTCO INDUSTRIES, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                               (At June 30, 1998)



                                                      % of Voting
     Subsidiary                 State                 Securities
  (and name under               Where                 Owned As of
which it does business)       Organized            September 17, 1998
-----------------------       ---------            ------------------

Four Star Restaurant            Delaware                   100%
Management Corporation

Four Star Pizza                 Pennsylvania               100%
Franchising Corp.



The names of 91 consolidated wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company which
either hold leases on premises subleased to licensees (46 subsidiaries, all
operating in the United States) or operate Company-owned hair care salons (44
subsidiaries, all operating in the United States), have been omitted. Other
unnamed subsidiaries (including inactive subsidiaries) considered in the
aggregate do not constitute a significant subsidiary.

87209

                                    - E-13 -
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 4, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132389 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132389 

 COA: 269701

 Wayne CC: 69-152676 

ARCHIE LEE O’QUINN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 26, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1218 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 4, 2007 

 Clerk
252 La. 826

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Stanley H. JACKSON.

No. 49510.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 27, 1968.

In re: Stanley H. Jackson applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

The application is not considered. In reality applicant is seeking a rehearing on the refusal of his application in No. 49507, which was denied on September 24, 1968, contrary to Section 5 or Rule IX of the rules of this Court, 8 LSA-R.S.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

COLLEEN FRANCES NIHILL

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
FROM INACTIVE STATUS :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 63 DB 201 9 (No. 43 RST 2019)

Attorney Registration No. 88475

( Philadelphia )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4 th day of June

, 201 9 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated May 23 , 2019

, is approved and it is ORDERED that

Colleen Frances Nihill

, who has been on Inactive Status

, has never been suspended or

disbarred, and has demonstrated that s he has the moral qualifications, competency and

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is,

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of th e Bar of this Commonwealth. The

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall

be paid by the Petitioner.
#### Robert Joe NOTTAGE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42704.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 18, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 264 So.2d 479.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 S.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ended March 27, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Larry H. Keener, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Kelly Tacke, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                       
|--- |  | --------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/    LARRY H. KEENER                
|    |  | Larry H. Keener                       
|    |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  
|    |  | June 9, 2009                          
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/    KELLY TACKE                    
|    |  | Kelly Tacke                           
|    |  | Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
|    |  | June 9, 2009
#### Minnie ROBINSON, Administratrix of the Estate of Corrine Simmons, Deceased, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-625.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 18, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Robert Joseph GREENWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-846.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 21, 1972.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Andrew I. Friedrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

*370PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Kelly v. State, Fla.App.1971, 254 So.2d 22.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.