alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from the Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On February 2, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Savannah River Site from January 1, 1953, through September 30, 1972, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.

                        This designation became effective on March 3, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384*l*                        (14)(C). Hence, beginning on March 3, 2012, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to                         *DCAS@CDC.GOV*.                    

John Howard,

Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 2012-6474 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
Exhibit
32.1/32.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, David
Rector, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of NanoDynamics Holdings, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended December 31,
2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of NanoDynamics Holdings, Inc.





Date:  February
      17, 2009
                            By:
                            
                            /s/
      David RectorName:
                            David
      RectorTitle:
                            Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief
                              Financial
      Officer





A signed
original of this written statement, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to
NanoDynamics Holdings, Inc., and will be retained by NanoDynamics Holdings,
Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
|   | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 2010(the “Periodic 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 or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | By:    |   | /s/ Cynthia T. Gordon                                |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |   |   | Cynthia T. Gordon                                    |
|   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer) |

----
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 0298 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM072AD

84 - 57 -22, RA --- 12/9/10 84 - 57 -23, RA --- 12/9/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
AAM-12-397-E 

June 20, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10112A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0738 

Mr. Timothy Dunn 

Chief Flight Instructor 

Northeast Helicopters Flight Services, LLC 

P.O. Box 497 

Ellington, CT 06029 

Dear Mr. Dunn: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 

10112, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the 

conditions and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated May 21, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Northeast Helicopters Flight Services, LLC (NHFS) for an extension of Exemption 

No. 10112, as amended. That exemption from § 91.147 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) allows Northeast Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts 

of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing 

program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

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

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of [amendment to] the exemption 

would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to 

NHFS. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10112, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions 

and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of NHFS 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 

NHFS part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10112, as amended, to August 

31, 2014 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

James R. Fraser, M..D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
#### James M. Graham, Appellant, v. Z. C. Herlong, Appellant.

As a general rule, a court of equity will not require the specific delivery of chattels, unless the hill alleges such chattels to he of peculiar value and character, the loss of which could not he fully compensated in damages.

This case was decided by Division A.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

*Evans Haile*and *Horatio Davis,*for Appellant.

*Bryan*& *Bryan,*for Appellee.

Shackleford, C. J.

This is a suit in equity instituted by the appellee against the appellant in the Circuit Court for Alachua county whereby it is sought to have appellant deliver over to appellee certain shares of railroad stock, which it is alleged had been pledged to appellant by appellee to secure certain indebtedness. A general demurrer was interposed to the bill, which was overruled, *522and from this interlocutory order an appeal was entered to this court. The bill does not alege that the chattels were of peculiar value and character, the loss of which could not be fully compensated in damages. No special grounds are shown for the intervention of a court of equity, and the bill should not be entertained. McCollom v. Morrison, 14 Fla. 414; Dorman v. McDonald, 47 Fla. 252, 36 South. Rep. 52; City of Jacksonville v. Massey Business College, 47 Fla. 339, 37 South. Rep. 432; Florida packing and Ice Co. v. Carney, 49 Fla. 293, 38 South. Rep. 602.

It follows that the interlocutory order appealed from must be reversed, with directions to sustain the demurrer; the appellee to pay the costs of this appeal.

Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ. concur.

Taylor P. J. and Hockbr and Parkhill JJ. concur in the opinion.
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 on Form 10-Q of Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
Report), I, Simon Pedder, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the
periods presented in the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/ SIMON PEDDERSimon PedderPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 2, 2009
### Office U.S. Department ofTranspormtion 1200 New Jersey Avenue. SE Washington, DC 20590 

### RE: E.sse11tial Air Dear Mr. Martin, Several weeks ago you received a letter from the City ofKake that recommended the r;s:sentlat Air Set•vice conn-act he**a~'8rdcd** to Wings ofAlaska. That recommendation was based on a presentation by Wings with no presentation by scheduled or anticipated. Since the writing ofthat letter* the eomm1mity has been afforded the.opportlmityto attend 

### a similar presentation by Air Excursions. The presentation by Excursions·gained the s:uppot1 ofthe**Org~zed** Village ofKake (OVK) and the Kake Comm1mity School District. By now I am sure you have**r~ived** a copy ofthe ofSupport from the Organized Village ofKake, although I am not sure ifyou have received one from the Kake Community School District. While themayor and city coxmcil do not wish to retract Letter ofSupport for Wings ofAlaska, they also do notwish to 

### see that letter take precedence overthe reoommeudations by OVK or the school district That said, When you review public comment and public recommendation, please consider the recommendations ofthe Organized Village ofKake and the Kake Community School District ahead ofthose of the City of

### Kake. Yours truly,

mayor & city council via email
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>
<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                              1,637,332
<SECURITIES>                          601,146
<RECEIVABLES>                       1,543,335
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                         5,558,637
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    9,577,962
<PP&E>                              1,360,186
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     11,230,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               3,652,529
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                6,636
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                          7,368,362
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       11,230,864
<SALES>                            15,613,827
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   15,613,827
<CGS>                               8,599,527
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      12,320,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (5,239,762)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (5,239,762)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                       (5,239,762)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (0.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (0.82)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5975]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-6627-001]


Vigue, Peter A.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on March 6, 2012, Peter A. Vigue submitted for 
filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, 
pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b) 
(2011) and section 45.8 of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's 
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 45.8 (2011).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f5b3b0a7b6ba9b999c9b90a68085859a8781b593908796db929a83"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d79192859498b9bbbeb9b284a2a7a7b8a5a397b1b2a5b4f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 27, 2012.

    Dated: March 6, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5975 Filed 3-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### John CASEY, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. David TRUSS, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.

No. 85CA0132.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

Feb. 6, 1986.

Rehearing Denied March 13, 1986.

Certiorari Denied June 16, 1986.

*986Edward B. Almon, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant and cross-appellee.

March, Myatt, Korb, Carroll & Brandes, Mark L. Korb, Richard S. Gast, Fort Collins, for defendant-appellee and cross-appellant.

*

 Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of the *Colo. Const.,*Art. VI, Sec. 5(3), and § 24-51-607(5), C.R.S. (1982 Repl.Vol. 10).

KELLY, Judge.

Plaintiff, John Casey, a Colorado resident, appeals the judgment of the trial court dismissing his complaint against David Truss on the basis of *forum non conveniens.*Defendant, David Truss, claims to be a resident of Alaska. The trial court found he had been properly served with process in Colorado. Defendant has abandoned his cross-appeal challenging the propriety of this ruling. We reverse.

Plaintiff moved to Alaska in 1979 and lived there for eighteen months. According to his complaint, while he was living in Alaska he was hired by the defendant to perform certain services for which he was not compensated. In 1984, the plaintiff filed his complaint against the defendant in the Colorado courts.

On defendant’s motion, the trial court concluded that Colorado was not the proper forum for the action and declined to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of the doctrine of *forum non conveniens.*This decision was based on the applicability of Alaskan law to the controversy, the availability of Alaskan courts, and factors of convenience and expense.

We agree with plaintiff’s contention that the trial court erred in dismissing the action on the basis of *forum non conve-niens.*That doctrine refers to the power of a court to dismiss a case because “the forum chosen would seriously inconvenience a party and a more convenient forum is available in some other jurisdiction for the resolution of the controversy.” *State v. District Court,*635 P.2d 889 (Colo.1981). Application of this doctrine is limited by Colo. Const, art. II, § 6, which requires all courts to be open to every person. Accordingly, except in the “most unusual circumstances,” the choice of a Colorado forum by a resident plaintiff will not be disturbed. *McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Lohn,*192 Colo. 200, 557 P.2d 373 (1976).

It is undisputed that Casey was a Colorado resident when this action was commenced, and we perceive no “unusual circumstances” sufficient to deprive him of access to his own state’s court system. The factors of inconvenience and expense considered by the trial court are insufficient to oust a resident plaintiff from his chosen forum. *McDonnell-Douglas v. Lohn, supra.*Likewise, the applicability of Alaskan law to this controversy does not justify the trial court’s dismissal. *Crane ex rel. Cook v. Mekelburg,*691 P.2d 756 (Colo.App.1984).

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate Casey’s complaint.

METZGER and SILVERSTEIN,* JJ., concur.
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 Quarterly Report of SRKP 4, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony
C. Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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




                                        /s/ Anthony C. Pintsopoulos
                                        ---------------------------
                                        Anthony C. Pintsopoulos
                                        Principal Financial Officer
                                        November 8, 2005



                                       17
Martin, Michael (OST} 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Mr. Martin: 

JERRYOSULL@aol.com 

Thursday, May 17, 2012 3:28PM 

Martin, Michael (OST) 

Service to Atlanta and Dulles !l 

The Greenbrier County Airport Authority and the Mayor of Lewisburg, WV have reviewed the possibility that the bid by 

Silver Airlines to serve Greenbrier Valley Airport twice a day to Atlanta could be updated to become one flight per 

day to Atlanta and one flight per day to Dulles. This option is considered by the authority and the mayor to be preferable to 

the two flights per day to Atlanta original option. Please proceed. 

Jerry O'Sullivan, Airport Manager 

1