alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[491o-13-PJ

DEPARBIE"T OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal A\-iation Administration

~~

'11. 1m ""~7'\."1Oit

1'/.1...-..

14 CFR Part .~() 01&3

(Docket No. F \.-\-2010-*****; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM~253-ADI

Amendment .,.j0.~:j, 201 oJJ~0 '-f

RlN 2120-:\AI\4

~'!

./ .

b, h/?.:- .•.•

I j l j I)

~"

b 111/1->1,;

I 1 f., j-{.

Ainvorthines:, Directives; Airbus Model A380-800 Series Airplanes TU!

AGEi\CY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

ed

AtJA, -::r ..•~:.-

c- .e<--

...,.

7f-.---v •

• • • • * * •

Thi" c(' ldition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a ON failure

which' ould affect the structural integrity oftha! wing area.

1n cas~ 'If failure of the master bracket, ilie sub-master bracket would be

able to ;.llstain limit loads but not ultimatb loads.

WI,

~"

This AD rcyui: ~'Sactions tha; are intended to address the unsafe condition described in lJ

condltion (In ,u~aviation product. The MeAl descnbes the unsafe condition asA cruel h,15 been found on Ihe Droop Nole (ON) 1 master sides lay bracket

on the Ilbo<lrd leading edge afan Airbus A380 flight test aeroplane.

originated hy •.1:1 aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe

above. This All results from mandatory continuing airworthiness infonnation (MeAl)

AcnON: Fin.d rule; request for comments.

Slll\-ff';-'lARY: .Vc .lre adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products Ii

!he MeAl.

FAA Form 1360-14.1 (6"89) OFFICIAL FILE COP * u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFfiCE: \895 . 769-211
[49 Ill-13-PI

DEPARTi\IF: '\'T OF TR.;\]'l$PORT ATION

Fedenl A,-ial\on Administrntion

IDocket No. F \A~201O-**'***; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-253-AD)

RIN 2120-:\1\1>4

Airwortbincs.-: Directives; Airbus Model A380-800 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Fc·lcral Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

."

;;/ ,-, ft.;" . ~

-..-.-

j ii. j ~

ACTION: Fin.ll rule; request for comments.

SUMfvlARY: Nc are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products lis ed

above. This All results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl)

-~~

-- originated by ""\ aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe :>On

condition on OIl' aviation product. The MeAl describes tlle unsafe condition as:

A c;,,' has bee" fo""d on the Droop NOJ. (ON) I master sidestay bcacket

on Ihc i lhoard leading edge of an Airbus f.380 flight tcst aeroplane.

In case df failure afthe master bracket, the sub-master bracket would be

abk to :-ustain limit loads but not ultimat~ loads.

This cr ldilion, ifnot detected and corrected, could lead 10a ON failure

which '" auld affect the structural integrity of that wing area .

""'''''''"'''''''"

""

--

• • • • • • •

-....-,-

." This AD rC'4ui; ~s actions thai are intended to address the unsafe condition described i

the MeAl.

FAA Form 1360·14.1 (6·89) OFFICIAL FILE COPY
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Cody Wayne WILLIAMS.

No. 20749-KH.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Jan. 5, 1989.

Cody W. Williams, in pro. per.

John Blake, Jonesboro, for State of La.

Before HALL, MARVIN and LINDSAY, JJ.

Writ Denied. Applicant filed an ex parte motion in the district court for expungement of arrest records (two felonies and two misdemeanors) under LSA-R.S. 44:9. The district court denied the motion “in the ex parte form in which it is sought.” This writ application seeks review of the court’s order denying the motion.

Expungement of felony arrest records may be ordered only after a contradictory hearing with the arresting agency. LSA-R.S. 44:9(C)(2). Although not expressly required by the statute, a motion to expunge misdemeanor arrest records should also be heard contradictorily with the arresting agency because the state or municipality through the arresting agency has an interest in the maintenance of misdemeanor arrest records and expungement of those records may be ordered only upon establishment by the movant of the prerequisites provided in the statute.

*1313Since a motion to expunge arrest records under LSA-R.S. 44:9 requires supporting proof it must be served on and tried contradictorily with the adverse party. It may be initiated in the form of a rule to show cause. See LSA-C.C.P. Art. 963.

The district court did not err in denying applicant’s motion in its present ex parte form. It is also noted that the motion was not supported by the required poverty affidavits or prisoner’s asset information so as to allow filing of the motion without payment of costs or with reduced costs. See LSA-C.C.P. Arts. 5181 et seq.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 0806 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM022AD

84 - 24 -47 --- 4/26/11 84 - 24 -48 --- 4/26/11 84 - 24 -49 --- 4/26/11 84 - 24 - 50 --- 4/26/11

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
49419.

#### HAYNIE v. A & H CAMPER SALES, INC.

Decided March 6, 1975.

*Amos R. Worth,*for appellant.

*Hurt, Hill & Richardson, W. Seaborn Jones, T. Cullen Gilliland,*for appellee.

Clark, Judge.

The Supreme Court on certiorari *(Haynie v. A & H Camper Sales,*233 Ga. 654), having reversed the judgment of this court in *Haynie v. A & H Camper Sales,*132 Ga. App. 509 (208 SE2d 354) our previous judgment is vacated and set aside. In accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court the judgment of the lower court is reversed.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.*
#### Shelly CLEMENT v. Michael TORRES, His Insurance Carrier, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. and Lloyd’s of Louisiana.

No. 87-C-0704.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Clement, Shelly; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86-CA-512; Parish of St. John the Baptist, 40th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 17818.

Prior report: La.App., 503 So.2d 91.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15371-15372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6286]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Announcement of Call for Collaborating Partners for National 
Women's Health Week

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Health, Office on Women's Health, Department of Health and Human 
Services.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office 
on Women's Health (OWH) invites public and private sector women's 
health-related organizations to participate in National Women's Health 
Week (NWHW) as collaborating partners to help create awareness of 
women's health issues and educate women about improving their health 
and preventing disease.

DATES: Representatives of women's health organizations should submit 
expressions of interest by April 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Expressions of interest, comments, and questions may be 
submitted by electronic mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aac0c3c6c684ddcbd9d9cfd8c7cbc49beac2c2d984cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84eeede8e8aaf3e5f7f7e1f6e9e5eab5c4ececf7aae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a> or by regular 
mail to Jill Wasserman, Office on Women's Health, Department of Health 
and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 733E, Washington, 
DC 20201; or via fax to (202) 690-7172.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Wasserman on (202) 205-1952.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OWH was established in 1991 to improve 
the health of American women by advancing and coordinating a 
comprehensive women's health agenda throughout HHS. The office fulfills 
its mission through competitive contracts and grants to an array of 
community, academic, and other organizations at the national and 
community levels. National educational campaigns provide information 
about the important steps women can take to improve and maintain their 
health, such as NWHW.
    NWHW is a week-long health observance that kicks off on Mother's 
Day, Sunday, May 13 and ends Saturday, May 19, 2012. NWHW seeks to 
partner with public sector women's health-related organizations to help

[[Page 15372]]

educate women about improving their physical and mental health and 
preventing disease. With the 2012 theme ``It's Your Time,'' OWH will 
focus on encouraging women to make their health a top priority and take 
simple steps for a longer, healthier, and happier life. For more 
information about National Women's Health Week, please visit http://www.womenshealth.gov/whw.

    Dated: March 9, 2012.
Nancy C. Lee,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health--Women's Health.
[FR Doc. 2012-6286 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-33-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The
undersigned, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Universal Travel Group
(the "Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely
for the purposes of 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-Q of the
Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      August 11, 2009
                /s/ Jiangping JiangJiangping
      Jiang
                  Chairman
      and Chief Executive
Officer
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Kevin Brian McLEOD, Appellee.

No. 87-2294.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 16, 1988.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James A. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals and alleges the trial court erred in imposing a sentence under the Youthful Offender Act (YOA) that deviated downward from the sentencing guidelines without a written order stating reasons for the departure. We affirm.

McLeod entered pleas of guilty to the charges of robbery and kidnapping. His sentencing guidelines scoresheet indicated a sentence within the range of five and one-half to seven years incarceration. McLeod was sentenced under the YOA to four years incarceration to be followed by two years community control on each count,, the counts to run concurrently. No written statement setting forth reasons for the departure sentence was filed by the trial court under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll).* It is that failure to enunciate written departure reasons that the state challenges in this appeal.

This court recently decided the issue before us to the benefit of the defendant in *917
      *State v. Nealy,*532 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) in which we certified the following question to the supreme court:

> WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT IS REQUIRED TO STATE WRITTEN REASONS WHEN IT IMPOSES A SENTENCE UNDER THE YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ACT WHICH IS LESS THAN THAT RECOMMENDED UNDER THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES?

As we did in *Nealy,*we find no necessity for the trial court to provide written reasons in support of such a departure sentence under the YOA and affirm the trial court. We again certify the above question to the supreme court as one of great public importance.

AFFIRMED.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

The rule provides:

> 11. *Departures From the Guideline Sentence:*Departures from the recommended or permitted guideline sentence should be avoided unless there are circumstances or factors which reasonably justify aggravating or mitigating the sentence. Any sentence outside of the permitted guideline range must be accompanied by a written statement delineating the reasons for the departure. Reasons for deviating from the guidelines shall not include factors relating to prior arrests without conviction. Reasons for deviating from the guidelines shall not include factors relating to the instant offenses for which convictions have not been obtained.

Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(ll).

PARKER, Judge,

specially concurring.

For the reasons which I expressed in *Nealy,*I concur only with the result reached in this case and readopt my concurring opinion in *Nealy.*I also agree that the question presented above should be certified.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 69 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 69

Requesting that the United States Postal Service issue a commemorative 
postal stamp honoring the 200th anniversary of the United States naval 
                            shipyard system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 5, 1999

  Ms. Snowe submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Requesting that the United States Postal Service issue a commemorative 
postal stamp honoring the 200th anniversary of the United States naval 
                            shipyard system.

Whereas in the year 2000, the United States naval shipyards will celebrate 200 
        years of service to the Nation;
Whereas naval technology has proven invaluable to the Nation by strengthening 
        national defense, preserving world maritime freedom, and producing 
        scientific breakthroughs;
Whereas in peacetime, ships built in United States naval shipyards patrol around 
        the clock to preserve peace and keep the United States free;
Whereas Kittery, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard was the first major United States 
        naval shipyard of the modern era;
Whereas on June 12, 2000, the Kittery, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard will celebrate 
        the 200th anniversary of its founding;
Whereas since its inception at Kittery, Portsmouth, the United States naval 
        shipyard system has grown to include 11 facilities located on both the 
        Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii;
Whereas since 1800, United States naval shipyards have built hundreds of naval 
        ships, and completed thousands of overhauls on ships of both the United 
        States Navy and those of many United States allies;
Whereas today, the United States Navy is the preeminent naval force in the 
        world, and ships constructed in United States naval shipyards have 
        helped lead the way to victory in numerous global conflicts; and
Whereas United States naval shipyard workers, both past and present, have a 
        well-deserved sense of pride in their accomplishments, which have kept 
        our Navy strong and our country free: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Congress requests that--
            (1) the United States Postal Service issue a commemorative 
        postage stamp in honor of the 200th anniversary of the founding 
        of the United States naval shipyards; and
            (2) the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee recommend to the 
        Postmaster General that such a stamp be issued.
                                 <all>
```
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 accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Allyn P. Hebner, Chief
Financial Officer of Motricity, Inc. (the Registrant), hereby certifies that:



|1. | The Registrants quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1
(the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: August 5, 2010



/s/ Allyn P. HebnerAllyn P. HebnerChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer)
NO. 07-08-0025-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

MARCH 13, 2008

______________________________

PEGGY G. PENNEY, APPELLANT

V.

DEBORAH MANGUM, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 17TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY;

NO. 017-220803-06; HONORABLE FRED W. DAVIS, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Appellant, Peggy G. Penney, appeals from a judgment granting appellee an

easement along appellant’s real estate. The appellate record was due in this case by

January 25, 2008. The clerk’s record was filed on January 28. The court reporter did not

file a reporter’s record prior to January 25 and has not requested an extension to file the

reporter’s record. This court sent the court reporter a letter dated February 8, 2008

requesting information as to the status of the reporter’s record and informing the court

reporter of the availability of forms for requesting an extension if needed. The court
2

reporter was to inform this court of the status on or before February 19, 2008. As of this

date, this court has not had any communication from the court reporter.

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further

proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c). Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately

cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the

following:

1. whether the reporter’s record can reasonably be filed in a manner that

does not further delay the prosecution of this appeal or have the

practical effect of depriving Penney of her right to appeal, and

2. whether an alternate or substitute reporter should or can be appointed

to complete the record in a timely manner.

The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed. In addition, the trial court

shall (1) execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues,

(2) cause a supplemental clerk’s record to be developed containing its findings of fact and

conclusions of law and all orders it may issue as a result of its hearing in this matter, and

(3) cause a reporter’s record to be developed transcribing the evidence and arguments

presented at the aforementioned hearing, if any. The trial court shall then file the

supplemental clerk’s record and any reporter’s record transcribing the hearing with the

clerk of this court on or before April 25, 2008. Should further time be needed by the trial

court to perform these tasks, the same must be requested before April 25, 2008.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam
#### John L. ATWATER, Jr., Appellant, v. Patricia M. ATWATER, Appellee.

No. 87-1415.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 28, 1988.

*995Christopher J. Smith, of Williams, Smith & Summers, P.A., Tavares, for appellant.

Richard W. Hennings, of Cauthen, Ro-buc, Hennings, Milton, Oldham & Cox, P.A., Tavares, for appellee.

UPCHURCH, F.D., Jr., Judge,

Retired.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dissolution of marriage which denied the appellant/husband’s claim for a special equity in the marital home. He contends that he contributed funds from a source outside of the marital relationship and, pursuant to *Ball v. Ball,*335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976), he is entitled to a special equity because the wife has not proved a gift was intended when title was taken to the property as tenants by the entireties.

Subsequent to the institution of this appeal, the husband purchased the wife’s interest in the property. The wife has now moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the issue of the special equity was moot.

The husband characterizes his purchase of the wife’s interest in the real property as tantamount to the payment of a judgment on appeal, and cites this court’s opinion in *Ronette Communications Corp. v. Lopez,*475 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In that case, this court held that an appellant does not lose its right to an appeal when it involuntarily paid a judgment after execution to avoid a levy on its property. The husband argues that he was under a court order to place the property on the market for sale therefore his purchase of the property was involuntary.

This argument is without merit. The appeal of the judgment in this instance precluded enforcement of the court’s order. Unlike a money judgment which could be enforced by levy and sale of property seized pursuant to the levy, sale of the property in question here could only be enforced by application to the court. This remedy was no longer available because the trial court lost jurisdiction when the notice of appeal was filed.

The husband argues that his special equity should attach to the funds which he paid to the wife for her interest in the property. We cannot accept this position. The sale was the result of arms-length negotiations between them to buy or sell their respective interests. The husband agreed to buy the wife’s interest for a specific sum, without any sort of reservation of rights. He cannot now complain that he made a bad bargain.

Because the sale of the property effectively disposes of all issues on appeal, the appeal is DISMISSED.

ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21.1

New Hampshire Thrift Bancshares, Inc.

Subsidiaries
of the Registrant



|                                       |  |                        |  |                                                 
|-------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Subsidiary                             |  | Percentage ofOwnership |  | State of Incorporation                          
|Lake Sunapee Bank, fsb                 |  | 100%                   |  | Incorporated under the laws of the United States
|NHTB Capital Trust I                   |  | 100%                   |  | Delaware                                        
|NHTB Capital Trust II                  |  | 100%                   |  | Connecticut                                     
|NHTB Capital Trust III                 |  | 100%                   |  | Connecticut                                     
|Subsidiaries of Lake Sunapee Bank,
fsb
|Subsidiary                             |  | Percentage ofOwnership |  | State of Incorporation                          
|Lake Sunapee Group, Inc.               |  | 100%                   |  | New Hampshire                                   
|Lake Sunapee Financial Services Corp.  |  | 100%                   |  | New Hampshire