alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 2, 2015

Mr. Sean Cope

465 Coloma Street Unit D

Sausalito, CA 94965

Dear Mr. Cope :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition 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 No t Process Your Request

We received your July 15, 2015, exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2772 , but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole

.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Plea se 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 receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/ s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5378]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2011-0478; FRL-9642-5]


Texas: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The State of Texas has applied to EPA for Final authorization 
of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant Final 
authorization to the State of Texas. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' 
section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by an 
immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the 
immediate final rule because we believe this action is not 
controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have 
explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the 
immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this 
authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will 
become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take 
further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose 
this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not 
take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final 
rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for 
comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this 
time.

DATES: Send your written comments by April 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional 
Authorization Coordinator, (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting 
Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the 
materials submitted by the State of Texas during normal business hours 
at the following locations: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 
Texas 75202-2733, phone number (214) 665-8533; or Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality, (TCEQ) 12100 Park S. Circle, Austin TX 78753-
3087, (512) 239-6079. Comments may also be submitted electronically or 
through hand delivery/courier; please follow the detailed instructions 
in the ADDRESSES section of the immediate final rule which is located 
in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson (214) 665-8533.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the 
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations''section 
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 17, 2012
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012-5378 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
DOT-OST- 1?17-2 7?f)

Schlemmer, Kevin (OSn

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Schlemmer, Kevin (OST)

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:45 PM

Chuck Howell; Doug Voss (dvoss@flygreatlakes.com); 'Mike Matthews'; 'Brad Rawson'

(brad.rawson@skywest.com); 'mike. thompson@skywest.com'

Matthew Leitner Omsairport@daktel.com); 'manager@devilslakeairport.com'; Adams,

Kevin (OST); Devany, Dennis (OST)

Request for clarification on EASproposals for DVL and JMS

Regarding the proposals for Essential Air Service (EAS) at Devils Lake and Jamestown, North Dakota, from carriers

holding authority to operate scheduled service, SkyWest Airlines' proposal for service to both communities does not

meet EASminimums in terms of frequency requirements, specifically 2 daily round trips 6 days a week with not more

than one intermediate stop on each flight per 49 USC41732(b)(1)(a).

Additionally, Great Lakes Airlines' current service does not meet the aforementioned EASminimums in terms of

frequency requirements.

Given that neither SkyWest's proposal nor Great Lakes' current service meet EASminimum frequency requirements, we

request clarification from both carriers on their proposed service levels at the stated subsidy levels by COB tomorrow

(Thursday, January 23, 2014).

Regards,

Kevin Schlemmer

Chief, Essential Air Service & Domestic Analysis Division

United States Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave SE

Washington, DC 20590

(202) 366-3176 phone

(202) 366-763B fax

1

...•1

..0
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40842 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JOSE HUMBERTO AVALOS

- GUTIERREZ, also known as Jose Garza

Ramirez , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:15

- CR

- 169

- 1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Humberto Avalos

Gutierrez raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez

Lugo , 782 F. 3d 198, 204

- 05 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 136 S. Ct. 533 (2015)

. In Martinez

- Lugo , 782 F.3d at 204

- 05, we held that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior felony conviction of a drug trafficking

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited ci rcumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 17, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40842 Document: 00513383787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2016No. 15

- 40842

2 offense is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneratio n or commercial activity. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED , and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-40842 Document: 00513383787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2016
June 30 , 2015

Mr. A ntonio Cruz

GOLFTXZ

44213 Bowers Court

Fre mont, CA 94539

Dear Mr. Cruz :

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 c an not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your March 25 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0754 ),

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the ex emption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your req uest 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.

If We Do No t 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
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as                           ( print page 12600)                        amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.                

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; ZHD1 DSR-Z 52 1.                    

*Date:*                         March 16, 2012.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Peter Zelazowski, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health And Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-7510, 301-435-6902,                         *peter.zelazowski@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: February 22, 2012 .

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-4904 Filed 2-29-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**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-QSB of Red Rock
      Pictures Holdings, Inc., for the Quarter Ending May 31, 2007, I, Robert Levy,
      Chief Executive Officer and I, David Kane, Chief Financial Officer of Red Rock
      Pictures Holdings, 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-QSB for the period
      ending May 31, 2007, 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-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2007, fairly represents in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Red Rock Pictures
      Holdings, Inc.




Dated:
      July 16, 2007




**Red
      Rock Pictures Holdings, Inc.**




By:
            */s/
                Robert Levy*
              President,
                Chief Executive Officer and
                Director





*/s/
                David Kane*
              Chief Financial
                Officer (Principal Accounting
                Officer)
**Exhibit
      32.1**


**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 Jaguar Acquisition Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 (the
“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I, Jonathan Kalman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and





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





By:
              /s/
              Jonathan
                Kalman
              
              Dated:
                February
                13, 2007Jonathan
                  Kalman
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
                (Principal
                  Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

10-Q Exhibit 32.1: Certifications 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 iShares® Silver Trust (the Trust) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lee T. Kranefuss, Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the
Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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.



|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 6, 2009                                                                            
|                                                                                                
|/s/    Lee T. Kranefuss Lee T. Kranefuss * Chief Executive Officer (Principal executive officer)





|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Kranefuss is signing in his capacity as an officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   | (3) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|

|   | (4) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                        |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Yan                Liang                Fan                        |   |   |        |
| Yan                    Liang Fan Chief                    Financial Officer |   |   |        |
|                                                                        |   |   |   |

----
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

___________________

NO. 09-12-00250-CR

___________________

MARCUS EUGENE MORGAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 128th District Court

Orange County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-040080-R

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Marcus Eugene Morgan pled 

guilty to burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(3) (West 

2011). Under the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred the 

adjudication of Morgan’s guilt, placed Morgan on community supervision for ten 

years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. Subsequently, the State filed a motion asking 

the trial court to find Morgan guilty of burglarizing a habitation. After a hearing, 
2

the trial court found Morgan guilty, entered a judgment assessing a ten-year 

sentence, and imposed a $1,000 fine. However, the trial court then suspended 

Morgan’s sentence and placed him on probation for ten years. 

Subsequently, the State filed a motion asking the trial court to revoke 

Morgan’s probation. After a hearing on the motion to revoke, the trial court 

revoked Morgan’s probation. After Morgan’s sentencing hearing, the trial court 

entered a judgment requiring Morgan to serve seven years in prison and to pay a 

fine of $1,000.

On appeal, Morgan’s counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s 

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. 

State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On September 6, 2012, we granted 

an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se response. Morgan has not 

filed a response.

We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s 

conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it 

unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. 
3

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

______________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

Submitted on December 28, 2012

Opinion Delivered February 13, 2013

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.

 

1

Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
*Pursuant to 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5

TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60608

Summary Calendar

ARMANDO MONTES DE OCA-CASTILLO;

ELSA LUCERO-REYES,

Petitioners,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

(A74-590-845 & 846)

July 26, 1999

Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Armando Montes de Oca-Castillo and Elsa Lucero-Reyes have filed a

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order of exclusion.

Montes and Lucero contend that their due process rights were violated because the

immigration officer at the port of entry did not adequately apprise them of their

right to withdraw their applications for admission into the United States, and the

immigration judge refused to allow them to withdraw their applications for

admission during the exclusion hearing. These issues, however, were not presented
 

1 Ozdemir v. INS, 46 F.3d 6 (5th Cir. 1994).

 

2 Green v. State Bar of Texas, 27 F.3d 1083 (5th Cir. 1994).

 

3 Delgado-Carrera v. INS, 773 F.2d 629 (5th Cir. 1985).

2

to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to decide

them.1

Montes and Lucero also assert that the BIA violated their due process rights

by conducting a “cursory” or “summary” review of their appeal. This issue has not

been discussed in the body of appellant’s brief and therefore is deemed abandoned.2

Finally, Montes and Lucero contend that exclusion proceedings were

inappropriate in their case, maintaining instead that they should have been placed

in deportation proceedings. This contention is unavailing; exclusion proceedings

were appropriate in this case.3

The petition for review is DENIED.
0 

0 

LSI Medience Corporation COPY OF THE ORIGINAL 

KUMAMOTO LABORATORY 

LSI MEDIENCE CORPORATION 

STUDY DIRECToR: To•• on" r! N"(tJt,.J_. 

DATE : ;it trY 9 , .J.,J I <f 
0 

0 

2 
0 

0 

3 
0 

0 

4 
0 

0 

5 
0 

0 

6 
0 

0 

7 
0 

0 

8 
0 

0 

9 
0 

0 

10 
0 

0 

II 
0 

0 

12 
0 

0 

13 
0 

0 

14 
0 

0 

15 
0 

0 

16 
0 

0 

17 
0 

0 

18 
0 

0 

19 
20 
21 
22 
0 

0 

23