alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: October 11, 2016 

DEPARTMeNlllfEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

ZOih OCT I I p 2: 2b WASHINGTON, DC 

DOCKET OPERATIONS 

In The Matter Of: 

Offshore Flight School,. Inc. 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0691 

Case No. 2014WP910016 

DISMISSAL ORDER 

On October 6, 2016, the Respondent filed a Withdrawal of Request for Hearing, stating 

that the parties had reached a settlement in this matter. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, a party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

consent of the administrative law judge at any time before or during a hearing. Upon such 

withdrawal, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the case with prejudice. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that these proceedings are dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

David Glenn Bettencourt, Respondent's Counsel 

Dillingham Transportation Building, Suite 304 

73 5 Bishop Street 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

TEL: 808-521-3491 

FAX: 808-521-3494 

Charles Raley, Complainant's Counsel 

Enforcement Division/ AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-3357 

F~: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

F~: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0691 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AR T HU R DU AN E J AC KS ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. J. P . G O N Z A L E Z , A ss oci at e W ar den; et a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 56157 D. C. No . 3 : 0 5 - c v - 0 0 5 1 3 - L- NLS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M . J a m e s L or e nz , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r16, 2010 ** B e f o r e : T A S H I M A , B E R Z O N , a n dC L I F T O N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . A rthurD ua ne J a c ks on, aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ryj udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng d e n ia l o f a c c e s s to c o u rts . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e m ay 

# FI LED NO V 23 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 56157

a f f irm o n a n yg r o u n d s s up p o rte db yth e r e c o r d . A te l Fi n. C or p. v . Q uake rC oal C o. , 321 F . 3d 924, 926 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . W e r e vi e w de novo, Mi dw ater

s T raw ler s Coo p. v. D ep’t

of C om m erce , 39 3 F . 3d 99 4, 10 02 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) , a n dw e a f

f i rm. T he onl yi s s ue ope n on r e m a nd w a s w he the rJ a c ks on w a s unabl e t o br i ng a c la im in s ta te c o u rt b e c au s e d e f e n d a n ts a lle g e d lyd e n ie dh im a c c e s s to s o m e o f h is le g a l m a te r ia ls . J a c k s o n h a s n o t r a is e dth is is s u e o n ap p e a l, a n dth u s it is w a iv e d . Se e McKayv . I

ngles on , 5 5 8 F .3 d8 8 8 , 9 8 1 n .5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) . J a c k s o n ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . A F F I R M E D .
Exhibit 15.(a)

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (333-173065) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-179982, 333-173974, 333-173064, 333-165433, 333-157795, 333-152445, 333-149830, 333-142662, 333-141674, 333-132846 and 333-124700) of Nokia Corporation of our report
dated March 7, 2013 relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS OY
|PricewaterhouseCoopers Oy    
|Helsinki, Finland            
|March 7, 2013
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 331

To abolish the franking privilege for the House of Representatives and to

establish a spending allowance for postage for official mail of the House

of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. ROBERTS introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on House Administration and Post Office and Civil Service

A BILL

To abolish the franking privilege for the House of Representatives and to establish a spending allowance for postage

for official mail of the House of Representatives.

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

3 SECTION 1. ABOLITION OF THE FRANKING PRIVILEGE FOR

4 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

5 Notwithstanding title 39, United States Code, title

6 III of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1991,

7 or any other provision of law, the franking privilege is

8 abolished with respect to the House of Representatives.
2

•HR 331 IH

1 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPENDING ALLOWANCE FOR

2 COSTS OF POSTAGE OF THE HOUSE OF REP3 RESENTATIVES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—In lieu of the Official Mail Allow5 ance established by section 311(e) of the Legislative

6 Branch Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 59e(e)), there

7 is established a spending allowance for postage for official

8 mail of the House of Representatives. The spending allow9 ance shall be available to Members, officers, and employ10 ees of the House of Representatives in the same manner

11 and to the same extent as the Official Mail Allowance was

12 available under such section, except that the spending al13 lowance shall be used to purchase stamps and other post14 age rather than to pay for mail sent under the frank.

15 (b) METERED MAIL.—The Postmaster of the House

16 of Representatives shall take such action as may be nec17 essary to provide for use of postage meters to record the

18 cost and volume of mail paid for from the spending allow19 ance for postage.

20 (c) TRANSFERS.—All amounts that, but for the en21 actment of this Act, would have been available to pay for

22 franked mail of the House of Representatives shall be

23 transferred to the spending allowance for postage.

Æ
F 12.31.2013 Exhibit 10-O-4






Exhibit 10-O-4




Annual Incentive Compensation Plan Metrics for 2014




On February 12, 2014, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved the specific performance goals and business criteria to be used for purposes of determining any future cash awards for 2014 for participants, including executive officers, under the Company's shareholder-approved Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (filed as Exhibit 10.2 to the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008).  The Corporate performance criteria and weightings to be used for 2014 under the plan include attaining specified levels of:


		
	•
	Automotive Revenue (20%)




		
	•
	Automotive Operating Margin* (30%)




		
	•
	Ford Credit Profit Before Tax (10%)




		
	•
	Automotive Operating-Related Cash Flow* (20%)




		
	•
	Quality (20%)




Based on business performance results for 2014 against the targeted levels established for each metric, the Compensation Committee will determine the percentage of the target award that is earned, which could range between 0% and 200% depending on actual performance achieved relative to the target levels.  


* Excludes special items
| 1.     | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Europa Acquisition I, Inc. |

| By:                | /s/ Gregory Schwartz                          |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|     | Gregory SchwartzChief Executive Officer  |
## THE STATE OF TEXAS
MANDATE

TO THE 170TH DISTRIC T COURT OF MCLENNAN COUNTY, GREETINGS:
Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 10th
day of September, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC, and Michael C. Evans, Appellants

v.

Jonathan Sistrunk, Appellee No. 06

- 15

- 00048

- CV

Trial Court No. 2015

- 321

- 4

As stated in the Court’s opinion of thi s date, we find that the motion of the appellants to
dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the costs of this appeal by borne by the party incurring them.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND Y OU to observe the order of our said Court in this
behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.
WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with
the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 25th day of November , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following is a list of the subsidiaries of the Company:


                                                                     Place of
      Subsidiary                                                  Incorporation
      ----------                                                  -------------
1)    Candela Iberica, S.A.                                       Spain

2)    Candela France S.A.R.L.                                     France

3)    Candela K.K.                                                Japan

4)    Candela Laser (Deutschland) GmbH                            Germany

5)    Candela Skin Care Centers, Inc.                             Massachusetts



                                      38
# C_2015324EN.01000301.xml

| 2.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/3

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi

(2015/C 324/04)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 and in Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web-sites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2015/1755, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council before 1 July 2016, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s next review, pursuant to Article 6 of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 and Article 13(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 of the list of designated persons.

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 257, 2.10.2015, p. 37.

1

(2)  OJ L 257, 2.10.2015, p. 1.

2

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

 

APEX 1, INC.

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 Quarterly Report of APEX 1, INC. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew J. Zagorski, Principal  Executive  Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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 required by Section 906 has been provided to Andrew J. Zagorski and will be retained by APEX 1, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

 Dated: May 16, 2011

 

By: /s/ Andrew J. Zagorski

Andrew J. Zagorski 

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

----

EXHIBIT 32.2

 

 

APEX 1, INC.

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 Quarterly Report of APEX 1, INC. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Darian B. Andersen, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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 required by Section 906 has been provided to Darian B. Andersen and will be retained by APEX 1, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

Dated: May 16, 2011

By: /s/ Darian B. Andersen

Darian B. Andersen 

Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
From: Bahner, Mark A.

To: "Dean Lesch (dlesch@enviroair.net)"

Subject: EviroAir Sweat Furnaces (formerly CORECO)

Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:55:00 PM

Mr. Dean Lesch

EnviroAir, Inc. (CORECO)

262-594-5891

Dear Mr. Lesch:

Thank you for speaking with me on the phone today. I’d like to confirm what you told me regarding

your company’s sale of sweat furnaces. You said that your company has not sold any sweat furnaces

since 1997 or 1998, and you’re not sure how many furnaces that were sold prior to that time are still in

operation.

Do I have this information correct?

Thank you,

Mark Bahner

Research Environmental Engineer

Mark A. Bahner

RTI, International

P.O. Box 12194, 3040 Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194

Phone: (919) 541-6016 

Fax: (919) 541-7155 

Email: bahner@rti.org 

Internet: http://www.rti.org
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

 20 December 2004

(2004/C 315/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Salvador J. LOGRANDE.

No. 59574.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 1977.

Maurice T. Hattier, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

FRANCISCO KELLY-PALMER, AKA

Enrique Ayon-Cortez,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-50554

D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00283-IEG-1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 8, 2009

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Kelly-Palmer (“Kelly-Palmer”) appeals his conviction under 8

U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

whether there has been a violation of a Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to

present a defense and Fifth Amendment right to due process. United States v.

FILED

JAN 04 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-2-

Bahamonde, 445 F.3d 1225, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006). We state the facts only as

necessary to explain our decision and we affirm. 

First, the district court did not violate Kelly-Palmer’s constitutional rights 

by precluding Kelly-Palmer from testifying about what his grandfather told him

about his place of birth. We review a district court’s decision not to admit

evidence under a hearsay exception for abuse of discretion . United States v. Yida,

498 F.3d 945, 949 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court did not abuse its discretion

when it found that such testimony by Kelly-Palmer was inadmissible hearsay

which did not fall under any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. United States v.

Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405, 1410 (9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, the exclusion of this

hearsay testimony did not violate Kelly-Palmer’s due process rights, because the

testimony did not bear “persuasive assurances of trustworthiness.” Chia v.

Cambra, 360 F.3d 997, 1003 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Chambers v. Mississippi,

410 U.S. 284 (1973). 

Second, the district court did not violate Kelly-Palmer’s constitutional rights

when it excluded Kelly-Palmer’s expert witness testimony. We review a district

court’s decision to admit expert testimony for abuse of discretion. United States v.

Bahena-Cardenas, 411 F.3d 1067, 1078 (9th Cir. 2005). Expert evidence must be

both relevant and reliable. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579,
-3-

597 (1993). The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert

testimony unreliable. 

Ultimately, the district court’s two evidentiary rulings did not violate KellyPalmer’s constitutional rights because they did not prevent Kelly-Palmer from

presenting his affirmative defense that he is a U.S. citizen. United States v.

Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 317 (1998); United States v. Kincaid-Chauncey, 556 F.3d

923, 935 (9th Cir. 2009). We therefore affirm. 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-1 of our
reports dated February 25, 2000, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Simple Technology, Inc., which
appear in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the references to us
under the heading "Experts" and "Selected Consolidated Financial Data" in such
Registrant Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Costa Mesa, CA
September 26, 2000
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.2

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Natural MicroSystems Corporation: Form S-3 (No. 333-44128) and
Form S-3 (No. 333-43196), of our report dated May 21, 1999, with respect to
the financial statements of InnoMediaLogic (IML) Inc. included in the current
report of Natural MicroSystems Corporation on Form 8-K/A dated on August 22,
2000, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in
the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-44128) of Natural MicroSystems
Corporation and related Prospectus Supplement to Prospectus dated August 25,
2000 for the registration of 2,000,000 shares of its common stock and in the
Prospectus Supplement to Prospectus dated August 25, 2000 for the
registration of $175,000,000 of Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2005.



/s/ Rochon Legault
Chartered Accountants
Pierrefonds, Canada
May 21, 1999
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Lockheed Martin Ralph Sykes 8/20/2013 Concur. 

Lockheed Martin Geof Bateman 8/2112013 Concur. 

Other/ Additional Information:
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Europa Acquisition V, Inc. for the quarter ending December 31, 2010, I, Peter Reichard, CEO and CFOof Europa Acquisition V, Inc. hereby certify 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 my knowledge and belief, that:
  1. Such quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending December 31, 2010, 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 such quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Europa Acquisition V, Inc.
   Date:  February 10, 2011
By:
/s/ Peter ReichardPeter ReichardPresident and Director