alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AAM-10-212-E April 9, 2010 Exemption No. 10048 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0359

Mr. David MacDonald

President Flamingo Air

262 Wilmer Avenue Cincinatti, OH 45226

Dear Mr. MacDonald:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 20, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Flamingo Air (Flamingo Air) for an ex emption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exempti on, if granted, would allow Flamingo Air, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Flamingo Air.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that2

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant of exemption;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Flamingo Air, an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Flamingo Air, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and

limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Flamingo Air are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Flaming on Air part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADDED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in this Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial condition and results of the Company as of
and for the period covered by this Report.
 By:
    /s/ William H.W. Crawford IVWilliam H.W. Crawford IVPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 10, 2011By:
    /s/ John T. LundJohn T. LundSVP, Chief Financial Officer 
and TreasurerMay 10, 2011
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Alonzo Roshawn Primus

, * From the 29 th District Court

of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. 13606

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 284

- CR * April 19, 2018

The State of Texas

, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(P anel consists of: W illson, J.,

Bailey, J. , and Wright, S.C.J.,

s itting by assignment)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal

is dismissed.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3039

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax

on luxury passenger vehicles.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 9, 1993

Mr. HOAGLAND introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the excise tax on luxury passenger vehicles.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LUXURY TAX ON PASSENGER VEHI4 CLES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 31 of the Internal Reve6 nue Code of 1986 (relating to retail excise taxes) is

7 amended by striking subchapter A.

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

9 (1) Subsection (c) of section 4221 of such Code

10 is amended by striking ‘‘4001(c), 4001(d), or’’.
2

•HR 3039 IH

1 (2) Subsection (d) of section 4222 of such Code

2 is amended by striking ‘‘4001(c), 4001(d),’’.

3 (3) The table of subchapters for chapter 31 of

4 such Code is amended by striking the item relating

5 to subchapter A.

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

7 this section shall take effect on January 1, 1993.

Æ
#### Carlton George MITCHELL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-170.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Aug. 14, 1968.

Lee R. Horton, Jr., Public Defender, and J. Michael McCarthy, Special Asst. Public Defender, Lakeland, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

On February 26, 1968 Mitchell was declared indigent, the Public Defender was assigned to represent him, he pleaded guilty to robbery, was adjudged guilty and sentenced. His motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence was filed on March 25, 1968, raising in vague language a number of questions. On March 28, 1968, the judge who had sentenced Mitchell denied the motion, without a hearing. He found that “all of the grounds except the last are without any merit whatsoever and not such matters as may be urged at this time.” On the last point, the court ruled that Baker v. State, 202 So.2d 563 (Fla.1967), forbidding the appointment of the same attorney to represent two defendants tried jointly does not apply to a case in which both defendants enter pleas of guilty.

We agree. The rationale of *Baker*is that the lawyer may be compelled during trial to take some action on behalf of one defendant which would be prejudicial to the other. It may be that the same lawyer could provide sound counsel to several defendants prior to trial.

The Special Assistant Public Defender briefed for this court only the applicability of *Baker.*He took as settled the denial, without hearing, of Mitchell’s other allegations. If Mitchell does have grounds for vacation of his plea of guilty they ought to be stated with particularly in a subsequent *290petition, after consultation with counsel. We assume that the Public Defender will find time for this purpose. See Bush v. State, 209 So.2d 696 (Fla.App.1968).

Affirmed.

LILES, C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report on Security Capital Group Incorporated dated March 23, 2000 and
our reports on ProLogis Trust dated March 21, 2000 into Security Capital Group
Incorporated's previously filed Registration Statements File Nos. 333-38521,
333-38523, 333-38525, 333-38527, 333-38531, 333-38533, 333-38537, 333-38539,
333-48167, 333-61395, 333-61401 and 333-64979.



                                                      ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Chicago, Illinois
March 23, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3866 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3866

To provide certain employee protection benefits for railroad employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 1994

  Mr. Sanders (for himself, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Williams, Mr. Obey, Mr. 
Coleman, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, 
  Mr. Vento, Mr. Olver, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. Kopetski, Mr. Rahall, Mr. 
  Hamburg, Mr. Filner, Mr. Lantos, Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. 
  Torres, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Jacobs) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide certain employee protection benefits for railroad employees.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 10901 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)--
                    (A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph 
                (3); and
                    (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following 
                new paragraph:
    ``(2) The Commission shall in any order approving an application 
under this section require a fair and equitable arrangement for 
protection of the interests of railroad employees who may be affected 
thereby no less protective of and beneficial to the interests of such 
employees than those established pursuant to section 11347 of this 
title.''; and
            (2) by striking subsection (e).

                                 <all>
```
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 20 13 - 0878 Directorate ID : 20 13 - SW - 033 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model AS350B, BA, B1, B2, B3, AS350C, D, D1, AS355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP Helicopters Number of Helicopt ers (U.S. Operators): 938 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to detect a crack in the pitch horn to prevent failure of the pitch horn, loss of the anti - torque function, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopt er. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 1,946 if necessary to replace a pitch horn Labor per Helicopter ( .1 work hour to inspect a pitch horn, 1 work hour to dye -penetrant inspect a pitch horn x 

### $ 8 5 /work -hour) $ 94

Other (Explain) If it is necessary to repl ace a part, it would take 1 work hour x $85. Total Cost per Helicopter $ 2,031, assuming a part is replaced. Total US Fleet Cost $ 88,172 labor for the inspections Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Y es ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Robert Grant
<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 Quarterly Report of Applied Digital Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
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
<PAGE>

                                                         EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                         ------------

                          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 this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of Applied
Digital Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending
December 31, 2003 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
May 21, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Applied
Digital Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request
##### 



Exhibit 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-48364, 333-38420,
333-31696, 333-93117, 333-92327, 333-11294, 333-88421, 333-39553, 333-106742, 333-118776,
333-121123, 333-123738, 333-126229 and 333-148958) and the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (No. 333-115059, 333-120456, 333-123567, 333-124822, 333-126347, 333-126931,
333-133403, 333-137165, 333-143385, 333-144663 and 333-148974) of our report dated
March 17, 2008 relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries and our report
dated March 17, 2008, relating to the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. as of December 31, 2007, which are
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. We also
consent to the reference to us as Experts in the Registration Statements on Form S-3.  /s/ Eisner LLP March 17, 2008 New York, New York
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3617 Engrossed in House (EH)]

              103d CONGRESS

               1st Session

H.R. 3617

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 
                     1989, and for other purposes.






103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3617

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
 To amend the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 
                     1989, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 104 of the 
Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 
U.S.C. 410r-8) is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the 
following new subsection:
    ``(k)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
Secretary is authorized to use funds appropriated pursuant to this Act, 
including any available funds appropriated to the National Park Service 
for construction in the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Acts for fiscal years 1991 through 1994 for project 
modifications by the Army Corps of Engineers, in such amounts as 
determined by the Secretary, to provide Federal assistance to the State 
of Florida (including political subdivisions of the State) for 
acquisition of lands described in paragraph (4).
    ``(2) With respect to any lands acquired pursuant to this 
subsection, the Secretary may provide not more than 25 percent of the 
total cost of such acquisition.
    ``(3) All funds made available pursuant to this subsection shall be 
transferred to the State of Florida or a political subdivision of the 
State, subject to an agreement that any lands acquired with such funds 
will be managed in perpetuity for the restoration of natural flows to 
the park or Florida Bay.
    ``(4) The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are those lands or 
interests therein adjacent to, or affecting the restoration of natural 
water flows to, the park or Florida Bay which are located east of the 
park and known as the Frog Pond, Rocky Glades Agricultural Area, and 
the Eight-and-One-Half Square-Mile Area.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 23 
      (legislative day, November 22), 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3676

AN ACT

To amend the District of Columbia Spouse Equity Act of

1988 to provide for coverage of the former spouses of

judges of the District of Columbia courts.

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

3 SECTION 1. COVERAGE OF FORMER SPOUSES OF JUDGES

4 OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS UNDER

5 SPOUSE EQUITY ACT.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2 of the District of Co7 lumbia Spouse Equity Act of 1988 (sec. 1–3001, D.C.

8 Code) is amended by striking ‘‘(A) and (C)’’.

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

10 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact-
2

HR 3676 EH

1 ment of the District of Columbia Spouse Equity Act of

2 1988.

Passed the House of Representatives May 25, 1994.

Attest:

Clerk.

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3676

AN ACT

To amend the District of Columbia Spouse Equity

courts.spouses of judges of the District of ColumbiaAct of 1988 to provide for coverage of the former
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 99.5


                  CONSENT OF SALOMON SMITH BARNEY INC.

      We hereby consent to the use of our name and to the description of our
opinion letter under the captions "SUMMARY--Opinions of Financial Advisors"
and "THE MERGER--Opinion of PepsiAmericas' Financial Advisor" in, and to the
inclusion of such opinion letter as Annex C to, the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus of PepsiAmericas, Inc., which Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus is part of the Registration Statement on Form S-4
[Registration No. __] of Whitman Corporation. By giving such consent we do
not thereby admit that we are experts with respect to any part of such
Registration Statement within the meaning of the term "expert" as used in, or
that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under,
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules and regulations of the
Securities and Exchange Commission promulgated thereunder.

Dated: September 19, 2000

                                             /s/ Salomon Smith Barney

                                             SALOMON SMITH BARNEY, INC.
July 1, 2015

Meredith Kurpius, PhD Air Division, US EPA 75 Hawthorne St., AIR

- 7 San Francisco, CA 94105

Dear Meredith :
South Coast Air Quality Management District staff is pleased announce availab i lity of the Final 2015 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Net work Pla n for your review . The Annual Network Plan can be downloaded at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean

- air

plans/monitoring

- network

- plan.

This report fulfills the Federal Regulatory requirement for an annual review of the Air Quality Monitoring N etwork. The plan recognizes and reports needs for additions, relocations, or terminations of monitoring sites and instrumentation. It includes a review of actions taken during the 2014

- 2015 fiscal year and plans for action in the year ahead.

A public wor kshop was conducted on May 21, 2015 to present the 2015 plan and the draft plan was made available on May 22, 2015 for 30 days to allow for public comment per Federal Regulations. There were no comments received in response to the workshop or during the c omment period.

Thank you for your consideration, If you have any questions, please contact me or Jason Low (909

- 396

- 2269, jlow@aqmd.gov) . I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, 

## Rene M. Bermudez

Rene M. Bermudez Principal Air Quality Instrument S pecialist South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765

- 4182 (909) 396

- 2136 RBermudez@AQMD.Gov

CC letter here
SCWC

- 1 8

- 0000 741

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

STATE OF HAWAI  I , Respondent /Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

vs.

MARK BECKER , Petitioner /Defendant

- Appell ant

.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 1 8

- 0000 741 ; C R. NO. 2CPC

- 17

- 0000286 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ. )

Petitioner/ Defendant

- Appellant’s Application for Writ

of Certiorari, filed on August 6, 2021 , is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, O ctober 6, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-18-0000741 06-OCT-2021 09:04 AM Dkt. 10 ODAC
EX-10.29



 Exhibit 10.29 

AMENDMENT NO. 11 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This AMENDMENT NO. 11 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered as of the 18th day of December,
2013, between COMCAST CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation (together with its subsidiaries, the “Company”), and BRIAN L. ROBERTS (“Employee”). 

BACKGROUND 
 WHEREAS, the parties
entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2005, as amended (the “Agreement”), that sets forth the terms and conditions of Employee’s employment with the Company, and 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement on the terms and conditions contained herein. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows: 

1. Subparagraph 5(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following year and amount thereto: “Year – 2014;
Amount - $3,646,519.” Employee hereby elects January 2, 2017 as the scheduled payment date with respect to such amount, provided that Employee may elect to postpone such scheduled payment date to the extent permitted under the
Company’s 2005 Deferred Compensation Plan. 
 2. Except as modified hereby, the Agreement shall continue unmodified and in full force
and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment No. 11 as of the date first-above
written. 
  

			
	COMCAST CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Arthur R. Block

		
	Date:	 	12/18/13
	
	EMPLOYEE:
	
	 /s/ Brian L. Roberts

	Brian L. Roberts
		
	Date:	 	12/18/13
#### ECONOMY AUTO RENTALS v. VICHOT.

No. 37056.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1968.

Rehearing Denied May 14, 1968.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 203 So.2d 643.
#### VALLEYBROOK DEVELOPERS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. GULF POWER COMPANY, Respondent.

No. T-39.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied.