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

Mr. Steven Hall

Innovative Marketing Solutions, Inc.

12485 Rhode Island Avenue

Savage, MN 55378

Dear Mr. Hall :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§ § 61.113(a); 61.113(b); 91.119(c); 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1);

91.409(a)(1); 91.409(a)(2); 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

(14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request a nd what you should do in the next

30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your June 1, 2015

, exemption request into the public docket

(No. FAA− 2015

− 2220 ), 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 reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

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.

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

Avia tion Administration (FAA) requirements 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. Please note that § 1 1.63(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.

I f 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

Enclosure3
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20018

Summary Calendar

JAMES EVERETT GRESSETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OFFICERS PRECINCT 4, Officer #1, #2, #3, #4,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CV-214

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Everett Gressett, Texas prisoner # 02056761, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint wherein he raised claims of 

negligence, deliberate indifference, and excessive force. Gressett’s notice of 

appeal of the final judgment dismissing his § 1983 complaint was not timely. 

See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1) (setting a 30-day period for noticing an appeal). 

Gressett did not seek to extend the time to appeal and did not file a 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20018 Document: 00514650790 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2018
No. 18-20018

2

postjudgment motion within 28 days from the judgment under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 59(e), which would have brought the underlying judgment up 

for review. See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 

668-69 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Because the appeal was not timely filed, the 

appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. See FED. R. APP. P. 

4(a)(1); In re Deepwater Horizon, 785 F.3d 1003, 1009 (5th Cir. 2015). 

 Case: 18-20018 Document: 00514650790 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2018
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 20 14 - 0137 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 1 35 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### 2013 - 0150 **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
# L_2006278EN.01000801.xml

| 10.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 278/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 278/8

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1487/2006

of 9 October 2006

amending Regulation (EEC) No 2921/90 as regards the amount of the aid for the production of casein and caseinates from skimmed milk

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 15(b) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2921/90 of 10 October 1990 on aid for the production of casein and caseinates from skimmed milk (2) sets the amount of aid for the production of casein and caseinates from skimmed milk. In view of the development in the price of skimmed milk powder on the internal market and the price of casein and caseinates on the Community and world markets, and in particular of a general increase of prices of casein and caseinates, the amount of the aid should be fixed at zero for as long as the current situation persists. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2921/90 of 10 October 1990 on aid for the production of casein and caseinates from skimmed milk (2) sets the amount of aid for the production of casein and caseinates from skimmed milk. In view of the development in the price of skimmed milk powder on the internal market and the price of casein and caseinates on the Community and world markets, and in particular of a general increase of prices of casein and caseinates, the amount of the aid should be fixed at zero for as long as the current situation persists.

| (2) | Regulation (EEC) No 2921/90 should be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Regulation (EEC) No 2921/90 should be amended accordingly.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article (2)1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2921/90, ‘EUR 0,52’ is hereby replaced by ‘EUR 0,00’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 October 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 279, 11.10.1990, p. 22. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 935/2005 (OJ L 158, 21.6.2005, p. 5).

2

---
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37592

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

STEVEN REED CANNON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 740

Filed: December 10, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of six months, for burglary, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Steven Reed Cannon was convicted of burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401. The district 

court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of six 

months, to run consecutively to a previously imposed sentence, and retained jurisdiction. 

Cannon appeals, contending that the sentence is excessive because it was ordered to run 

consecutively rather than concurrently with his previously imposed sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Cannon’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
EXHIBIT
31.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jason
Smart, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zandaria Ventures,
Inc.;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:





a. designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;


b. evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
quarterly report based on such evaluation; and


c. disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





5. I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):




a. all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and


b. any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:
August 14, 2009





/s/
Jason
Smart


Jason
Smart


Chief
Accounting Officer
#### RALPH BRUNO *v.*CAR SERVICE, INC.

*Peter E. Garvey,*in support of the petition.

Decided April 15, 1998

The defendant BMW of North America’s petition for certification for appeal is dismissed.
CERTIFICATIONS
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL


OFFICER
UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the filing by Lixte Biotechnology Holdings, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2010 (the “Quarterly Report”) with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, I, John S. Kovach, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





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





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





Date:  November
      3, 2010
              By:
              /s/
      JOHN S. KOVACHJohn
      S. KovachChief
      Executive Officer andChief
      Financial Officer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

Appellate case name: Brandy Brenay Charles and Ronald Dwayne Whitfield v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 00 311

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 1 7

- 02559J

Trial court: 314th District Court of Harris County

On December 2 0 , 2018, appell ants Brandy Brenay Charles and Ronald Dwayne

Whitfield filed a pro se “ Amendment & Supplemental to Emergency Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment

, ” with a separate cover letter , in this case and the related appellate cause

number 01

- 18

- 00485

- CV. With respect to this case, this Court’s judgment was issued on May 8, 2018, and our mandate was issued on December 20, 2018.

This Court lacks jurisdictio n to consider this motion because its plenary power has expired. Th is Court’s plenary power expired 30 days after it dismiss ed appellant s ’ pro se motion s for rehearing /en banc reconsideration as moot on August 28 , 2018. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 19.1(b). After the expiration of its plenary power, this Court cannot vacate or modify its judgment and Rule 19.3 limits this Court to items such as correcting clerical errors in its judgment/opinion

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 19.3 (a)

- (d) . Because appell ants ’ “Amendment & Supplemental to Emergency Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment” does

not fall under one of the permitted post

- plenary power items under Rule 19.3, it must be

dismissed.

Accordingly, appell ants’ emergency motion is dismissed for lack of jurisdi ction.

Judge’s signature:

___ /s/ Laura C. Higley

____________ ________

x Acting individually Acting for the Panel
Date: ___ Ja nuary 24, 2019

_____
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  The undersigned, Brent Suen, the Chief Executive Officer of Weyland Tech, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:  1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 23rd day of November, 2015.  /s/ Brent SuenBrent SuenChief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer)
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Seratosa Inc. and will be retained by Seratosa Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Clean Diesel Technologies
Exhibit 10(n)
 
 Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc.
 300 Atlantic Street, Suite 702
 Stamford, CT  06901
 Tel:  (203) 327-7050
 Fax:  (203) 323-0461
 www.cdti.com
 
 Please reply to:  UK Office
 Tel: +44 1208 851213
 
 Mr. Tim Rogers Esq.
 98 Sutherland Avenue,
 Biggin Hill
 Kent
 TN16 3HH
 May 3, 2004
 
 Subject:  Vice President, International Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc.
 
 Dear Mr. Rogers,
 
 Following a full review of the International business, I write to approve the following changes with respect to your employment with this company.
 
 You will from immediate effect open up a UK representative office in London to service the needs of Clean Diesel Technologies’ International operations from Europe and Asia.
 
 Furthermore in accordance with the agreed interim business plan, we will move to create a subsidiary in the UK where you will be appointed Managing Director additionally to you being V-P International.  We ask you to continue with the planning process, with the final Business Plan for being ready for adoption by the end of the year.
 
 You will continue to report to the Chief Executive Officer.
 
 Your salary remains at $225,000 but in recognition of the recent currency rate changes your salary will now be payable in GBP fixed at £133,000 per annum.
 
 To reflect this added responsibility your employment as set out in your original basis of 6 (six) months salary notice either way.
 
 All other terms and conditions of employment as set out in your original offer letter of 23rd September 2003 remain.
 
 On behalf of the Board of Directors we thank you for your contribution and look forward to a successful 2004.
 
 Yours Sincerely,/s/  Jeremy Peter-HoblynChief Executive Officer
 
 Accepted:  /s/ Tim Rogers
 Tim Rogers
RECEIVED 

SERVED SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 

SEP - 8 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICEOFHEARINGS HEARING DOCKET 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

APPLICATION OF 

TRANS NORTH A VIA TJON, LTD 

FDMS DOCKET NO. FAA 2014-1117 

(Equal Access to Justice Action) 

NOTICE OF APPLICANT'S APPEAL 

COMES NOW Applicant, TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD., by and through its 

counsel, BARNETT & BORTH, LLC, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §14.28 and 14 C.F.R. §13.233 and 

hereby appeals the INITIAL DECISION DENYING APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY'S 

FEES AND OTHER EXPENSES dated August 26,2015. Applicant prays tbat the decision be 

reversed. 

Paul R. Borth 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

(815) 356-7042 (FAX) 

Respectfully submitted, 

Attorney for Applicant 

Trans North Aviation, LTD. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Notice of Applicant's Appeal was served via 

US Certified Mail, return receipt requested as follows: 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 

FAX: 202-493-5142 

ONE COPY 

Jessica E. Kabaz-Gomez, Agency's Counsel 

Enforcement Division AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-7395 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E-11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Dated this 1 '' day of September 2015 

2 

Charles R. Barnett, III 

Attorney for Respondent
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 the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of WNC California
Housing Tax Credits, L.P. (the "Partnership") for the year ended March 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Thomas J. Riha, Chief
Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify 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 Partnership.




/S/THOMAS J. RIHA
------------------
Thomas J. Riha
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.


Date:  July 30, 2009
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 31, 2020
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 18
- 00775
- CV

SAN JACINTO RIVER AUTHORITY , Appellant
V. CHIP SANCHES AND MARGARET SANCHES , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harri s County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018
- 23314

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 18, 2020 , the court notified all parties of the court ’ s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a) ; s ee also San Jacinto River Aut h. v. Ogletree , — - S.W.3d

— - , No. 14

- 18

- 00043

- CV, 2020 WL 428913, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 28, 2020, no pet. h.). Appellant filed no response.2

W e dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice F rost and Justices Jewell and Hassan.