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

Mr. Jonathan Rupprecht

Counsel for Intelligent Imagery, LLC

Rupprecht Law, P.A.

324 Datura Street, Suite 200

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Dear Mr. Rupprecht:

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-2015-0878), 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.

 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
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 384 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 384

To amend the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to eliminate the discretion of 
  the court in connection with the denial of certain Federal benefits 
               upon conviction of certain drug offenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to eliminate the discretion of 
  the court in connection with the denial of certain Federal benefits 
               upon conviction of certain drug offenses.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 5301 of 
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``at the discretion of the court,'' 
                each place it appears;
                    (B) by striking ``any or'' each place it appears; 
                and
                    (C) by striking ``up to'' each place it appears; 
                and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``and at the 
                discretion of the court--'' and all that follows 
                through clause (iv) of such paragraph, and inserting 
                ``be ineligible for any Federal benefits for one 
                year;'';
                    (B) in paragraph (1)(B)--
                            (i) by striking ``up to''; and
                            (ii) by striking ``as determined by the 
                        court''; and
                    (C) by striking ``The court shall continue'' and 
                all that follows through ``under clause (i).''.

                                 <all>
```
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ John V. Whitman, Jr.                               |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | John V. Whitman, Jr., Chief Executive Officer          |
|   |   | (Principal Executive and Principal Operating Officer)  |
|   |   |                                                   |   |
|   |   |                                                   |   |
|   |   | /s/ William R. VanHook, Jr.                            |   |
|   |   | William R. VanHook, Jr., Chief Financial Officer       |
|   |   | (Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer) |
EXHIBIT 24 -- POWERS OF ATTORNEY

POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, John Belknap,
appoints  Robert E. Swanson and Martin V. Quinn,  and each of them,  as his true
and lawful attorneys-in-fact with full power to act and do all things necessary,
advisable or appropriate,  in their  discretion,  to execute on his behalf as an
Independent  Trustee  of  Ridgewood  Electric  Power  Trust  I and of  Ridgewood
Electric  Power  Trust IV,  the  Annual  Reports on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999 for each of the  above-named  trusts,  and all  amendments  or
documents relating thereto.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney
this 18th day of March, 2000, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

                                                /s/John Belknap
                                                  John Belknap

POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOW ALL  PERSONS  BY THESE  PRESENTS,  that the  undersigned,  Richard
Propper, M.D., appoints Robert E. Swanson and Martin V. Quinn, and each of them,
as his true  and  lawful  attorneys-in-fact  with  full  power to act and do all
things necessary,  advisable or appropriate,  in their discretion, to execute on
his behalf as an Independent  Trustee of Ridgewood Electric Power Trust I and of
Ridgewood  Electric Power Trust IV, the Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1999 for each of the above-named  trusts,  and all amendments
or documents relating thereto.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney
this 18th day of March, 2000, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

                                                 /s/Richard Propper, M.D.
                                                     Richard Propper, M.D.

POWER OF ATTORNEY


     KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS,  that the  undersigned,  Seymour Robin,
appoints  Robert E. Swanson and Martin V. Quinn,  and each of them,  as his true
and lawful attorneys-in-fact with full power to act and do all things necessary,
advisable or appropriate,  in their  discretion,  to execute on his behalf as an
Independent  Trustee  of  Ridgewood  Electric  Power  Trust  I and of  Ridgewood
Electric  Power  Trust IV,  the  Annual  Reports on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999 for each of the  above-named  trusts,  and all  amendments  or
documents relating thereto.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney
this 18th day of March, 2000, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

                                                 /s/Seymour Robin
                                                     Seymour Robin
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3913

To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to terminate the eligibility

of children under 16 years of age for supplemental security income

benefits by reason of disability, and preserve the eligibility of such disabled children for medicaid benefits.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1994

Mr. SMITH of Michigan (for himself, Mr. DUNCAN, and Mr. GEKAS) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on

Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to terminate

the eligibility of children under 16 years of age for supplemental security income benefits by reason of disability,

and preserve the eligibility of such disabled children for

medicaid benefits.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3913 IH

1 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN

2 CHILDREN FOR SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY

3 INCOME BENEFITS BY REASON OF DISABIL4 ITY.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the So6 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A)) is amended

7 by striking ‘‘under the age of 18’’ and inserting ‘‘who has

8 attained 16 years of age but has not attained 18 years

9 of age’’.

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 1614 of

11 such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382c) is amended—

12 (1) in subsection (a)(3)(H), by inserting ‘‘has

13 attained the age of 16 years but’’ before ‘‘has not’’;

14 and

15 (2) in subsection (f)(2)(B), by inserting ‘‘has

16 attained the age of 16 years but’’ before ‘‘has not’’.

17 SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF ELIGIBILITY OF DISABLED

18 CHILDREN FOR MEDICAID BENEFITS.

19 Section 1634 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

20 1383c) is amended by adding at the end the following:

21 ‘‘(e) For purposes of title XIX, a child is deemed to

22 be receiving benefits under this title if—

23 ‘‘(1) the child has not attained 16 years of age;

24 ‘‘(2) the child is suffering from any medically

25 determinable physical or mental impairment of com-
3

•HR 3913 IH

1 parable severity to a physical or mental impairment

2 described in section 1614(a)(3);

3 ‘‘(3) the income of the child (other than income

4 excluded pursuant to section 1612(b)) is less than

5 the amount that would cause the child to be ineli6 gible for payments under this title;

7 ‘‘(4) the resources of the child (other than re8 sources excluded pursuant to section 1613(a)) is less

9 than the amount that would cause the child to be in10 eligible for payments under this title; and

11 ‘‘(5) the child meets all other non-disability-re12 lated requirements for eligibility for benefits under

13 this title.’’.

14 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

15 The amendments made by this Act shall apply to ben16 efits for calendar months that begin after the date of the

17 enactment of this Act.

Æ
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3587

To require the Federal Communications Commission to amend the program

exclusivity and nonduplication rules relating to cable television system

blackouts to permit carriage of network programming from broadcasts

within the same State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 20, 1993

Mr. DOOLITTLE (for himself, Mr. CHAPMAN, and Mr. GUNDERSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy

and Commerce

A BILL

To require the Federal Communications Commission to

amend the program exclusivity and nonduplication rules

relating to cable television system blackouts to permit

carriage of network programming from broadcasts within

the same State.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Syndex Fairness Act

5 of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds that—
2

•HR 3587 IH

1 (1) the Federal Communications Commission

2 regulations requiring cable television companies to

3 delete programming that might be duplicated by a

4 channel outside of the local market have drastically

5 and adversely changed the ability of citizens in cer6 tain States to receive television programming perti7 nent to their State;

8 (2) the effect of this ruling has caused local

9 programming to be blacked out and be replaced by

10 programming from another State; and

11 (3) this unique situation has placed a hardship

12 on numerous viewers who are reliant on cable to

13 supply timely and applicable television services.

14 SEC. 3. REVISION OF REGULATION REQUIRED.

15 The Federal Communications Commission shall re16 vise the regulations relating to nonduplication protection

17 and syndicated exclusivity (47 C.F.R. 76.92 et seq.) to

18 permit the customers of cable televisions systems in towns,

19 cities, or communities with populations of less than 50,000

20 to receive network programs for each network from affili21 ated television stations that are located in the same State

22 as such customers.

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.6

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-1 of
Propel Inc. of our report dated February 29, 2000 relating to the financial
statements of Abiatar S.A., which appears in such Registration Statement. We
also consent to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in such
Registration Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
Montevideo, Uruguay
June 23, 2000
#### Lucille Pepin MATHIS, Appellant, v. Herbert Eugene MATHIS, Appellee.

No. 72-388.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 15, 1972.

R. T. Shankweiler, of Patterson, Maloney & Shankweiler, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.

Allen D. Fuller, of Gerson & Fuller, Miami Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been made to clearly appear. The final judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, CROSS, and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)   In connection with the Report of HotelPlace, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth J. Yonika, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my knowledge:  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: January 26, 2011  By: /s/ Kenneth J. Yonika Kenneth J. Yonika Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 16 December 2004

in Case T-120/01: Carlo De Nicola v European Investment Bank (1)

(Staff of the European Investment Bank - Admissibility - Working conditions - Disciplinary procedure - Suspension - Dismissal without notice)

(2005/C 19/42)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-120/01: Carlo De Nicola, established in Rome (Italy), represented by L. Isola, lawyer, against European Investment Bank (Agents: C. Gómez de la Cruz, F. Mantegazza and C. Camilli, lawyer with an address for service in Luxembourg), – in Case T-120/01, action essentially, first, for annulment of the letter from the Director of Human Resources of the European Investment Bank of 6 March 2001 concerning the conditions for the reinstatement of the applicant following the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99 [2001] ECR-SC I-A-49 and II-185 and annulment of the decision of the President of the Bank of 22 May 2001 to suspend him from his duties and, second, for damages, and, in Case T-300/01, action essentially, first, for annulment of the decision of the President of the Bank of 6 September 2001 to dismiss him without notice and without a severance grant and, second, for damages – the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001 and OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3770 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3770

 To designate the United States courthouse located at 940 Front Street 
  in San Diego, California, and the Federal building attached to the 
     courthouse as the ``Edward J. Schwartz Courthouse and Federal 
                              Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 1994

  Ms. Schenk introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States courthouse located at 940 Front Street 
  in San Diego, California, and the Federal building attached to the 
     courthouse as the ``Edward J. Schwartz Courthouse and Federal 
                              Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 940 Front Street in San 
Diego, California, and the Federal building attached to the courthouse 
shall be known and designated as the ``Edward J. Schwartz Courthouse 
and Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the courthouse and Federal building 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Edward J. Schwartz Courthouse and Federal Building''.

                                 <all>
```
# CA2013335EN.01000101.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 335/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 335/1

---

Corrigendum to notice of open competitions

EPSO/AD/267/13 — German-language (DE) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)

EPSO/AD/268/13 — Latvian-language (LV) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)

EPSO/AD/269/13 — Dutch-language (NL) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)

EPSO/AD/270/13 — Portuguese-language (PT) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 301 A of 17 October 2013
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 301 A of 17 October 2013

(2013/C 335 A/01)

On page 6, Section VIII, point 1:

for:

‘Deadline (including validation): 19 November 2013 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time’,

read:

‘Deadline (including validation): 28 November 2013 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time’.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with Annual Report of Comtech Group, Inc. and its
subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Jeffrey Kang, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company certifies, 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 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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 28, 2006 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Jeffrey Kang       
|                      |  | Name:  |  | Jeffrey Kang           
|                      |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR DUANE JACKSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

J. P. GONZALEZ, Associate Warden; et

al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-56157

D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00513-L-NLS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2010 ** 

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 

Arthur Duane Jackson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

denial of access to courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may

FILED

NOV 23 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
09-56157

affirm on any grounds supported by the record. Atel Fin. Corp. v. Quaker Coal

Co., 321 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). We review de novo,

Midwaters Trawlers Coop. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 393 F.3d 994, 1002 (9th Cir.

2004), and we affirm.

The only issue open on remand was whether Jackson was unable to bring a

claim in state court because defendants allegedly denied him access to some of his

legal materials. Jackson has not raised this issue on appeal, and thus it is waived. 

See McKay v. Ingleson, 558 F.3d 888, 981 n.5 (2009). 

Jackson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                Exhibit 99.2

                          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 Applied Digital Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Evan C. McKeown, 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 result of operations
of the Company.




/s/ Evan C. McKeown
-------------------
Evan C. McKeown
Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2003
#### Harold Jackson LOWRY, Jr., Petitioner, v. Lila Ann DUNN, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 40682.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 22, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 242 So.2d 511.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.