alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Richard E. Stone, Appellant, v Department of Investigation of City of New York et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.) entered May 10, 1990, which, *inter*alia, denied and dismissed in part petitioner’s CPLR article 78 application seeking to obtain disclosure of respondent Department of Investigation’s investigatory file under the Freedom of Information Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We have reviewed said respondent’s investigatory file in camera, as did Supreme Court, and conclude that disclosure was properly limited by the exemptions for intra-and-interagency materials (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [g]) and for employment histories and confidential reports (Public Officers Law § 89 [2] [b] [i], [v]). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

Leslie C. Abbott

Senior Attorney

1901 L Street, N.W., Suite 640

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 263

- 6285

(202) 263

- 6291

- Fax

leslie.abbott @wnco.com

_______________________________________________ _____________________________

August 19 , 2013

VIA EMAIL

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards Service

Federal Aviation Administration

AFS

- 1, Flight Standards Service, Room 821

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

john.allen@faa.gov

FILED ELECTRONICALLY

U.S. Departmen t o f Transportation

Docket M anagemen t Sy stem

1200 N ew J ersey Avenue

R oo m W12

- 140

Washington, DC, 20590

Re: Withdrawal of Petition for Relief from 14 CFR § 121.436( d ) ; Pilot

Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier

Operations; Docket No. FAA

- 2010

- 0100

Dear Sir:

On July 23, 2013, Southwest Airl ines Co. (“Southwest”) filed a P etition with

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in this docket requesting limit ed relief from

the Final Rule FAA enacted on July 15, 2013 entitled Pilot Certification and

Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations

. 1 Among other things, the

Final Rule requires that second

- in

- command (SIC) pilots hold an airline transport

pilot certificate with an airplane type rating for the aircraft being flown

.

In recognition of the burden that these new requirements place on airline pilot

training resources

, the Final Rule extend s the compliance date “for those pilots who

are employed as second in command in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013” from

August 1, 2013 until January 1, 2016. Southwest’s P etition requested the same

extended compliance period for its pilots currently employed in pilot

- in

- command

(PIC) positions that will be transitioning to second

- in

- command positions on different

aircraft during 2014

. Because Southwest has approximately 350 AirTran Boeing

1 The full text of the Final Rule can be found at 78 Fed. Reg. 42324 (July 15, 2013)

.Withdrawal of Petition for Relief from 14 CFR 121.436(d)

August 19, 2013

Page 2

717 PICs that will be transitioning to Boeing 737 SIC positions that do not possess a

Boeing 737 type rating

, this relief would provide the Company with additional time to

train and type rate these pil ots, thereby contributing to a smooth transition process

and full compliance with the new Final Rule requirements.

Since the filing of its Petition, Southwest has had subsequent discussions

with the FAA and the Southwest Certificate Management Office ( CMO) in particular.

Southwest has been reassured that the FAA will work in partnership with Southwest

and will be able to provide the support, expertise and assistance that Southwest

needs to meet the addition al type

- rating requirements for its PICs transitioning to

SIC positions in the timeframe necessary to support its operations . Based on these

assurances, Southwest hereby withdraws its Petition.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________ Leslie C. Abbott

cc: Robert Burke (FAA)
----

Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order brought on 28 January 2005 by Intek Company against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-1/05 SA)

(2005/C 82/11)

An application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 January 2005 by Intek Company, represented by R. Nathan, avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

----
#### In the Matter of Sunset Sanitation Service Corp., Respondent, v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Smithtown et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Smithtown dated September 13, 1988, which declared that the petitioner’s resource recovery, separation and transfer facility was not a "non-nuisance industry” pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Smithtown, and therefore denied the petitioner’s application to build such a facility, the appeal, by permission, is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered June 16, 1989, which annulled the determination and remitted the matter to the appellants for rehearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Subsequent to the close of the public hearing on the petitioner’s application, the appellants received a Planning Advisory Report from the Town of Smithtown Planning and Community Development Department. This report gave a highly negative evaluation of the petitioner’s application, and in addition, set forth factual allegations in support of the conclusion that the petitioner’s facility "may be more appropriately classified as a junkyard than a non-nuisance industry”. Because the petitioner was not given the opportunity to rebut the new evidence contained in the report, which evidence was expressly relied upon by the appellants, the trial court properly ordered a rehearing in this matter *(see, Stein v Board of*
      *756
      *Appeals,*100 AD2d 590; *see also,*2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 25.14 [3d ed]). Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
13.2













Certification
of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to






Title
18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to






Section
906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002













I, James
Vandeberg, Chief Financial Officer of Reg Technologies Inc., certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that,
to the best of my knowledge:






1. The
Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Reg Technologies Inc. for the year ended April
30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));
and






2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Reg Technologies
Inc.











Seattle,
      Washington.
                
                March
      24, 2009
              by:  /s/ James Vandeberg
                James
      Vandeberg
                Chief
      Financial Officer











A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Reg Technologies Inc. and will be retained by Reg Technologies Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 5, 2018.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago*                     (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

                    1.                     *Holata Micco, LLC, and Bowlegs Creek, LLC, both of Naples, Florida*; to become bank holding companies by acquiring voting shares of The Leaders Bank, Oak Brook, Illinois.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 5, 2018.

Ann Misback,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-19566 Filed 9-7-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
IC 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 668 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 2, 2013 

Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 14 Main Street in Brockport, New York, as 

the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Nicholas J. Reid Post Office Building’’. 

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


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

S 668 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT NICHOLAS J. REID POST OF2 FICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 14 Main Street in Brockport, 

5 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Staff 

6 Sergeant Nicholas J. Reid Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Nich11 olas J. Reid Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the Senate August 1, 2013. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN:______SE03770A1_________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
### MANDATE


## Court of Appeals
**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 14

- 00277

- CR

SHANE ALLEN MIKEL , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 232nd District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1372459).

TO THE 232ND DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS :

Before this Court, on the 7th day of April 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or to
reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by
the trial court on March 5, 2014. After submitting the case on
the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the
parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains
no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial
court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.Judgment rendered April 7, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Justice Jennings.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in
this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

October 2, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK OF THE COURT
Exhibit
23.01
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-157692 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-60295, 333-110959,
333-130405 and 333-160444 on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 24,
2010, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of
Central European Media Enterprises Ltd. (which report expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 160, Non-Controlling Interests in
Consolidated Financial Statements – an amendment of ARB 51 (included in
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification
(ASC) Topic 810, Consolidation) and the
adoption of FASB Staff Position APB 14-1, Accounting for Convertible Debt
Instruments That May Be Settled in Cash Upon Conversion (Including Partial Cash
Settlement) (included in FASB ASC Topic 470, Debt)) and the effectiveness
of Central European Media Enterprises Ltd.'s internal control over financial
reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Central European
Media Enterprises Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2009.
 
 DELOITTE
LLP
 London,
United Kingdom
 February
24, 2010
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of
Principal Executive OfficerPursuant 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 Oban Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April
30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roger Ng, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: August 24, 2011 |                                                    | /s/ Roger Ng
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | ------------
|                      | Name: Roger Ng
        Principal Executive Officer
----

|   | (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:  June 24, 2011 | By:    | /s/Anthony S. Sciortino                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           |   | Anthony S. Sciortino                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|                           |   | President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|                           |
| Date:  June 24, 2011 | By:    | /s/Daniel McGowan                                                       |
|                           |   | Daniel McGowan                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|                           |   | Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2619
RUBEN MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER, a Division of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-3415-3-17BC) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 24, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ruben Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Barron Grier, III, GRIER LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals various pre-trial orders of the magistrate judge. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's order awarding Appellant damages in his negligence suit against the Appellee and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the orders and judgment of the magistrate judge. Martin v. Goodyear Auto Serv. , No. CA-94-3415-3-17BC (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of J.R. Suratwala, Appellant, v Daniel Casey, as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay, dated March 26, 1986, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for several area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated July 14, 1986, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s arguments, we find that the determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay is supported by substantial evidence and was not illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion *(see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley,*45 NY2d 441). The petitioner has failed to establish that strict compliance with the zoning law will cause "practical difficulties” *(Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra,*at 445), since he is able to utilize the subject property without the requested variances *(see, Matter of Paniccia v Volker,*133 AD2d 404). Nor has the petitioner demonstrated that he would suffer significant economic injury, "for the mere fact that the property could be used more profitably if a variance were to be granted is insufficient to warrant the issuance of a variance” *(Matter of Bennett v Board of Review,*158 AD2d 520, 521). Moreover, the petitioner is presumed to have had knowledge, at the time he purchased the motel, as to the restrictions imposed upon it by the prevailing zoning ordinance. Thus, "whatever hardship now exists was clearly self-created, and this factor may properly be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town * * * in deciding to deny [the petitioner’s] application for an area variance” *(Matter of Iannucci v Casey,*140 AD2d 343, 343-344).

Finally, we find no merit to the petitioner’s claim that he was not given an adequate opportunity to review and rebut a recommendation of the Nassau County Planning Commission that the petitioner’s application be denied. The record clearly demonstrates that the petitioner failed to object to, or even comment on this recommendation when it was read into evidence at the hearing *(cf., Matter of Stein v Board of Appeals,*100 AD2d 590). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

November 13, 2019

 

Via EDGAR

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

Judiciary Plaza

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Re: Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VOC Energy Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.

 

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 
|     | The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,   N.A. |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------|
|     | Trustee for VOC Energy Trust                      |
|     |                                              |   |
|     | By:                                               | /s/ MICHAEL J. ULRICH |
|     |                                              | Michael J. Ulrich |
| * * | * *                                          | *Vice President and Trust   Officer* |

 

----
#### Stephanie Rose et al., Appellants, v Ayelet Realty Co. et al., Respondents.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Leonard Cohen, J.), entered on August 20, 1990, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Leonard Cohen, J., with costs. No opinion. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.