alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 25, 2015 

Mr. Jonathon Ferguson 

Layton Construction Company 

9090 South Sandy Parkway 

Sandy, UT 84070 

Dear Mr. Ferguson: 

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 June 15, exemption request on behalf of Layton Construction Company into 

the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2258), 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 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. 

 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
* 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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Josephine Staton Tucker, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. ZACHARY BECK, Defendant - Appellant. No. 11-30251 D.C. No. 3:10-cr-05553-RJB-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 8, 2012 ** Seattle, Washington Before: W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and TUCKER, District Judge. *** 

# FILED
DEC 07 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALSPage 2 of 2 Defendant Zachary Beck appeals his conviction and his sentence after a bench trial on the basis that his waiver of his jury-trial right was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent. Beck also appeal s his conviction for conspiracy to violate civil rights on the ground that the government failed to prove an agreement to violate the victim’s civil rights. We affirm. Beck’s jury-trial waiver was knowing, vol untary, and intelligent. The district court conducted an “in-depth” colloquy with Beck that adequately addressed the four elements of his jury-trial right, including his right to personally participate in jury selection. United States v. Christensen , 18 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 1994); see United States v. Cochran , 770 F.2d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1985). Sufficient evidence supported the district court’s conclusion that Beck conspired to violate the victim’s civil rights, including strong circumstantial evidence that Beck and his associates “act ed with a common goal” in attacking the victim. United States v. Corona-Verbera , 509 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2007). AFFIRMED.
#### Charles F. RAY v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 54196.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1973.

In re: City of New Orleans applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans, 284 So.2d 83.

Application denied. There is no error of law in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
#### William M. GAMMON, Appellant, v. Johnnie GAMMON, Appellee.

No. J-211.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

March 12, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Cite as State v. Sharp , 2021-Ohio-273.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,

- vs -

STACY JULIAN SHARP, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2020-08-089

D E C I S I O N 2/1/2021

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER C OUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2009-04-0679

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, John Hei nkel, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45 011, for appellee Michele Temmel, 6 S. Second Street, #305, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant

Per Curiam. {¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal fil ed by appellant, Stacy Julian Sharp, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.Butler CA2020-08-089 {¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any err ors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record i ndependently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and wit hout infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to w ithdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellan t. {¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no res ponse having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal i s dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

PIPER, P.J., HENDRICKSON and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
June 25, 2015

Mr. Jonathon Ferguson Layton Construction Company 9090 South Sandy Parkway Sandy, UT 84070

Dear Mr. Ferguson:

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 June 15, exemption request on behalf of Layton Construction Company into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2258), 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 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.

 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
# C_2013150EN.01000201.xml

| 29.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 150/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 150/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 May 2013

2013/C 150/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2938 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,98 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4527 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85530 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,5874 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2533 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,5530 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,889 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 285,85 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7012 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1805 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3258 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3912 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3355 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3383 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0445 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5927 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6360 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 457,39 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,5693 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9200 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5593 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 679,69 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9350 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,176 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,5950 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,840 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6568 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,1560 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,4080 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2938

JPY

Japanese yen

131,98

DKK

Danish krone

7,4527

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85530

SEK

Swedish krona

8,5874

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2533

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,5530

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,889

HUF

Hungarian forint

285,85

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7012

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1805

RON

Romanian leu

4,3258

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3912

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3355

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3383

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0445

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5927

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6360

KRW

South Korean won

1 457,39

ZAR

South African rand

12,5693

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9200

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5593

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 679,69

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9350

PHP

Philippine peso

54,176

RUB

Russian rouble

40,5950

THB

Thai baht

38,840

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6568

MXN

Mexican peso

16,1560

INR

Indian rupee

72,4080

---

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

1

Source

---
#### PEACE VALLEY DRYWALL, INC., Appellant, v. BALDWIN CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-68.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 20, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-55547, 33-55657, 333-42019 and 333-77505) of Coram Healthcare
Corporation of our report dated March 3, 2003, except for Notes 3 and 19, which
are as of April 7, 2003 and June 12, 2003, respectively, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Coram Healthcare Corporation
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2) for the year ended
December 31, 2002.



We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 3 to the
Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 33-59661 and 33-60959) and Amendment No. 1
to the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-12955) and related prospectuses
of Coram Healthcare Corporation for the registration of 3,526,325, 2,686,656 and
184,444 shares, respectively, of its common stock, of our report dated March 3,
2003, except for Notes 3 and 19, which are as of April 7, 2003 and June 12,
2003, respectively, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Coram Healthcare Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K/A Amendment No. 2) for the year ended December 31, 2002.


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                           ---------------------
                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Denver, Colorado
June 12, 2003
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.225.1

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

                                                                February 9, 2005

Dean M. Goodman
525 S. Flagler Drive, #21A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Dear Dean:

     Reference is made to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement
effective as of January 1, 2004 (the "Agreement") by and between Paxson
Communications Management Company, Inc. ("Paxson") and Dean M. Goodman
("Employee"). Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the
respective meanings assigned thereto in the Agreement.

     Section 3.02(a)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety as follows:

          "Commencing on the date which is six (6) months and one (1) day after
     the termination date and continuing in effect for a period equal to the
     number of Severance Months specified in Schedule I hereto, Employee will
     receive the Employee's Base Salary as in effect on the date of
     termination;"

     All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain the same. If the
foregoing correctly sets forth your understanding of our intentions with respect
to the matters set forth above, please indicate by executing a copy of this
amendment as provided below and returning the same to us.

                                        Paxson Communications Management
                                        Company, Inc.


                                        By /s/ Lowell W. Paxson
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name: Lowell W. Paxson
                                           Title: Chairman and Chief Executive
                                                  Officer


Accepted and Agreed as of this
10th day of February, 2005:


/s/ Dean M. Goodman
-------------------------------------
    Dean M. Goodman
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases Hurricanes & Tropical Storms Miscellaneous
 Newsroom
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB12-TPS.33 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030 Emergency Preparedness
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2012 New Version of OnTheMap for Emergency Management Web Application New features in the Census Bureau's OnTheMap application improve access to workforce and demographic statistics for emergency preparedness, response and recovery activities. The application automatically incorporates real-time data updates from the National Weather Service's National Hurricane Center, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Internet address is: <http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/em.html>. New features include: New emergency event data: Addition of FEMA disaster declaration areas and National Weather Service snowfall probability forecasts
More complete hurricane archives: Capture and archiving of all daily National Hurricane Center storm updates
Expanded report content: Addition of 2010 Census demographic and housing characteristics, and 2010 jobs and worker statistics
New analyses and visualizations: New reports with charting and thematic map overlays showing population and worker origin and destination distributions
New interoperability: New tool for exporting event areas to use in OnTheMap or other GIS applications
Updated interface and help documentation: Improved user interface speed and navigability, improved event searching, newly updated help documentation
  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
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of FXCM INC. (the Company) on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dror (Drew) Niv, Chief Executive 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; and (2)

          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Dror (Drew)Niv Dror (Drew) Niv Chief Executive Officer Date: November 9, 2012
 *

          The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3685 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3685

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to authorize prosecutions as 
          adults of certain armed offenders who are juveniles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 22, 1993

  Mr. Pombo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to authorize prosecutions as 
          adults of certain armed offenders who are juveniles.

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

SECTION 1. PROSECUTION AS ADULTS OF VIOLENT JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

    Section 5032 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or any other 
law, a juvenile who was 13 years old or older on the date of the 
commission of an offense under section 113 (a), (b), or (c), 1111, 
1113, 2111 or 2113 (if the juvenile was in possession of a firearm 
during the offense), or 2241 (a) or (c) (if the juvenile was in 
possession of a firearm during the offense) of this title shall be 
prosecuted as an adult in Federal court. No juvenile prosecuted as an 
adult under this paragraph shall be incarcerated in an adult prison. If 
a juvenile prosecuted under this paragraph is convicted, the juvenile 
shall be entitled to file a petition for resentencing pursuant to 
applicable sentencing guidelines when he or she reaches the age of 16. 
The United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate guidelines or 
amend existing guidelines, if necessary, to carry out the purposes of 
this paragraph. For resentencing determinations pursuant to subsection 
(b), the Commission may promulgate guidelines, if necessary, to permit 
sentencing adjustments which may include adjustments which provide for 
supervised releases, for defendants who have clearly demonstrated an 
exceptional degree of responsibility for the offense and a willingness 
and ability to refrain from future criminal conduct.''.

                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Rael Diamond, certify that:

 

1.          I have reviewed this reporton Form 10-Q of The Howard Hughes Corporation;

 

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

 

3.          Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.          The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)       Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its combined subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)       Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)       Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

5.          The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)       All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and

 

b)       Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: November 23, 2010 | /s/ Rael Diamond                |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                         | Rael Diamond                    |
|                         | Interim Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
LILBURN NUNNELEE, II

,

Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM BOYETTE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of LINDA CASH BOYETTE,

deceased

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 1 4

- 2298

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 20, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Gary L. Bergosh , Judge.

Lilburn Nunnelee, II, pro se

, Appellant

.

No Appearance for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, CLARK, and ROWE , JJ., CONCUR.