alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Virginia One Development, INC, Avery Park Partners, 

LLC d/b/a A very Park, DSH Diplomat, LLC d/b/a 

Diplomat Townhomes, Colony Creek, LLC, and 

Crossings Townhomes, LLC, 

Complainants/ Appellant 

v. 

The City of Atlanta, Georgia, 

Respondent 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

FAA Docket 16-12-09 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR, Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Final Agency Decision will be issued in this matter is hereby extended 

to on or about November 30, 2015. 

An extension of time is necessary in response to a notification to the Associate Administrator 

that the parties to this proceeding are involved in settlement negotiations that may lead to a 

resolution of this matter. 

Eduardo A. Angeles 

~t?-v Associate Administrator 

for Airports 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on g- :)/ I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time, 

addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant 

Steven M. Taber 

Taber Law Group, P.C. 

1 League, #60036 

Irvine, CA 92602-0036 

staber@taberlaw. com 

Counsel for Respondent 

Eric N. Heyer 

THOMPSON HINE LLP 

1919 M StreetN.W., Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20036 

Eric.Heyer@thompsonhine.com 

John L. Watkins 

Roy E. Hadley, Jr. 

THOMPSON HINE LLP 

Two Alliance Center 

3560 Lenox Road, Suite 1600 

Atlanta, GA 30326-2905 

John. Watkins@thompsonhine.com 

Roy.Hadley@thompsonhine.com 

Hand Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

FAA Eastern Region, AEA-600 

I Claudia Roberts 

Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis
EXHIBIT 32.1




        Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10Q-SB of Thai One On,
Inc. (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Evon Au, Chief
Executive Officer of Registrant, 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 the best of my knowledge and
belief:

   (1)  the quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.


Date:  August 14, 2005         /s/ Evon Au
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer of
                              Thai One On, Inc., Registrant
* 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

April 6, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30632

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTHUR J. GOINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(02-CR-20041-2)

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

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Arthur J. Goins appeals his conviction for

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The government

challenges our jurisdiction, arguing that the district court abused

its discretion in granting Goins an extension of time on the

grounds of excusable neglect under FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(4). The
2

government also contends that, even with the extension of time,

Goins’s notice of appeal was untimely. 

After considering the relevant factors, we have determined

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an

extension of time based on excusable neglect. See Pioneer Inv.

Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395

(1993); United States v. Clark, 51 F.3d 42, 44 (5th Cir. 1995). We

have further determined that, given the court’s extension of time,

Goins’s notice of appeal was timely filed. See United States v.

Miller, 666 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1982); Deloney v. Estelle, 661

F.2d 1061, 1063 (5th Cir. 1981). We therefore have jurisdiction to

hear Goins’s appeal.

Goins contends that the evidence was insufficient to support

his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). He argues that the

evidence shows merely that he legally possessed loaded firearms in

his home, but not that he did so in furtherance of any drug

trafficking crimes. 

The evidence adduced at trial was that loaded semi-automatic

weapons were found in the same closet as a bag containing

approximately 196 grams of marijuana, and that crack cocaine and

scales for weighing narcotics were found in another part of the

small home. Given the proximity of the firearms to illegal drugs

and the presence of scales used in drug trafficking, and viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational

juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Goins
3

possessed the firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.

See United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 410-11

(5th Cir. 2000). 

The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.
#### Zachary P. SACHS, a/k/a Paul Sachs, Appellant, v. Dorothy M. CONTI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sidney Schwartz, deceased, Appellee.

No. 4-86-0720.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 14, 1987.

Harry M. Rosen and Steven Bornstein of Rosen, Rosen, Kreiling & Bornstein, P.A., Miramar, for appellant.

A.C. Paoli of Paoli and Paoli, Hollywood, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon a review of the record we find that there is insufficient evidence as a matter of law to support the judgment which was based upon a finding that the check given by the decedent, Sidney Schwartz, to Mr. Sachs constituted a loan and not a gift.

REVERSED.

DELL, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: YAN SUI,

 Debtor,

RICHARD ALAN MARSHACK,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

PEI-YU YANG,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-55956

D.C. No. 8:13-cv-00519-MWF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 25, 2014** 

Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Pei-Yu Yang appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in an

FILED

JUL 7 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
adversary proceeding brought by the bankruptcy trustee Richard Alan Marshack

alleging that debtor Yan Sui fraudulently transferred his interest in real property to

Yang. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo,

Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary adjudication on the trustee’s

fraudulent transfer claims under California Civil Code §§ 3439.04 and 3439.05

because Yang admitted that Sui transferred his interest in the real property to her

without receiving anything in exchange for the transfer and did so with the intent

to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors, and because Yang did not bring a motion

to withdraw her admissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b). See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 36(b) (“A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established

unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.”);

Conlon, 474 F.3d at 621 (“Unanswered requests for admissions may be relied on as

the basis for granting summary judgment.”); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7036

(applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 in bankruptcy adversary

proceedings).

Yang’s contentions that the requests for admissions were defective and

invalid, that the trustee’s complaint was invalid and untimely, and that the

bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding are

2 13-55956
unpersuasive.

We deny all pending motions and requests, including Sui’s motion to

intervene, filed on February 18, 2014.

AFFIRMED.

3 13-55956
#### STATE ex rel. Donald COLLINS v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden.

No. 86-KH-1504.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re Collins, Donald; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “D”, No. 26064.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      22,558,929
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 47,540,736
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      10,006,952
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         9,625,615
<LOANS>                                    254,964,105
<ALLOWANCE>                                  4,320,563
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             461,448,330
<DEPOSITS>                                 366,638,089
<SHORT-TERM>                                34,440,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         33,181,639
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,798
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,163,804
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              27,188,602
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,167,242
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,174,207
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             7,341,449
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,017,803
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,736,521
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,604,928
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   30,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             110,079
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,699,744
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,404,726
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   874,482
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.42
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,750,305
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             3,117,068
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  369,463
<RECOVERIES>                                    31,283
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            4,320,563
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         4,320,563
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2





Certification of Principal
Financial Officer


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 5, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2010 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.
  PintsopoulosAnthony
      C. PintsopoulosPrincipal
      Financial OfficerNovember
      10, 2010
DATE GRANTED


EMPLOYEE NAME
EMPLOYEE ADDRESS

Re:  Employment Related Stock Options, VarTech Systems Inc.
     and EMPLOYEE NAME, Social Security No. ______________

Dear EMPLOYEE NAME:

In accordance with the authority given to me by the Board of Directors of
VarTech Systems Inc., I am pleased to advise you that as a result of your
fine work with the company, you are hereby granted the option to purchase
up to ________ shares of the authorized common stock of VarTech Systems Inc.
upon the terms and conditions as set forth herein.

The purchase price for shares of stock purchased pursuant to this option shall
be $_____ per share.  You may exercise these options commencing ___________ for
a period of ___ years from that date.  Any option not exercised within that
period shall be expired.

To exercise the options provided herein, you shall be required to give written
notice of such exercise to the company by personal delivery to the Mr. Brent
Hedges, Treasurer, or his successor.  The notice of exercise shall state the
number of shares to be purchased.  The notice shall be accompanied by payment,
by certified funds, of the option price for each option so exercised.  The
company shall then cause a timely issuance of certificates representing the
shares so purchased through its transfer agent for delivery to you.

The company looks forward to a long and mutually profitable relationship
concerning your employment.

Sincerely yours,

C. Wayne Prater, President and CEO


cc:  Brent Hedges, Treasurer

<PAGE>
#### Tim J. ALLEN v. TRAFFIC TRANSPORT ENGINEERING, INC. a/k/a Stuart Trailers.

No. 86-C-2517.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Complete Auto Transit Inc. — Other; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-5118; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “B”, No. 83-19720.

Prior report: La.App., 496 So.2d 1122.

Denied.
PUBLIC HEARING ENERGY EFFICIENCY TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL FURNACES AND CERTIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES FOR HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING AND WATER HEATING EQUIPMENT Thursday, January 27,2000 9:00 A.M. 

## - 5:00 P.M.

PURPOSE OF THE HEARING The purpose of this public hearing is to hear the views of interested persons on the proposed rules concerning test procedures for commercial haces,and certification and enforcementprocedures for commercial heating, air conditioning and water heating equipment. The Department will consider the views presented and comments in formulating a final rulemaking.

I. OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTION (9:OO-9: 15AM) 11. AGENDA REVIEW- (9: 15-9:25AM) 111. BRIEF REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RULE- (9:25-9:40AM) BREAK (15 Minutes) IV. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION A. Test procedures for commercial hrnaces (955-12:OO NOON) B. Sampling, Certificationand Enforcement Procedures for CommercialHVAC and Water Heating equipment (1:30-3:30PM) V. SUMMERY DISCUSSION AND ADJOURNMENT (3:30-5:00PM)
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**











Certification
      by the Co-Presidents


of


Boardwalk
      GP, LLC


pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


(as
      adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Co-Presidents of Boardwalk GP, LLC
      hereby certify, to such officers’ knowledge, that the quarterly report on Form
      10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, (the "Report") of Boardwalk Pipeline
      Partners, LP (the “Partnership”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Condensed
      Consolidated Balance Sheets and Statements of Income of the
      Partnership .











August
      1,
      2006




*/s/
      Rolf A. Gafvert*


Rolf
      A.
      Gafvert


Co-President


( co-principal
      executive officer)














*/s/
      H. Dean Jones II*


H.
      Dean
      Jones II


Co-President


(co-principal
      executive officer)
#### GENERAL CONFERENCE OF the SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, Appellant, v. Shanthabai SMITH, et al., Appellees.

No. 87-2432.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 2, 1988.

Conroy, Simberg & Lewis, Hollywood, and Henry T. Wihnyk, for appellant.

Keyfetz, Poses & Halpern, Miami, for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On the authority of *Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chambers,*526 So.2d 66 (Fla.1988), overruling *American Motorist Ins. Co. v. Coll,*479 So.2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), *review denied,*488 So.2d 829 (Fla.1986), upon which the trial court then correctly relied below, the order denying a claim of compensation lien filed by the employer in a medical malpractice action arising in the course of the plaintiff’s employment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to fix an appropriate lien in favor of the appellant. Accord *Marriott InFlight Servs. v. Arza,*528 So.2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 89 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.89
                                        Agreed to March 14, 2000        

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE.

    There is established a Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies (in this resolution referred to as the ``joint committee'') 
consisting of 3 Senators and 3 Representatives, to be appointed by the 
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, respectively. The joint committee is authorized to 
make the necessary arrangements for the inauguration of the President-
elect and Vice President-elect of the United States on January 20, 
2001.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE.

    The joint committee--
        (1) is authorized to utilize appropriate equipment and the 
    services of appropriate personnel of departments and agencies of 
    the Federal Government, under arrangements between the joint 
    committee and the heads of those departments and agencies, in 
    connection with the inaugural proceedings and ceremonies; and
        (2) may accept gifts and donations of goods and services to 
    carry out its responsibilities.
  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.

  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
#### Lee Burnett, Plaintiff, *v.*Sidney A. Bell, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

December 19, 1958.

*280*John C. O’Connor*and *Richard Ruber*for defendant.

*Finkelstein <& Robinson (Kenneth V. Fisher*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Frangís X. Conlon, J.

The defendant moves for an order (1) precluding the plaintiff for failing to serve a bill of particulars in compliance with a demand, (2) staying plaintiff until a written authorization is given to obtain hospital records, (3) staying plaintiff until authorization is given to examine X rays, and (4) staying plaintiff until a verified bill of particulars is served.

The plaintiff consents to the preclusion order if a bill is not served within 30 days, objects to items 2 and 3 on the ground that they seek privileged communications and in a manner not allowed under the Civil Practice Act and asserts that defendant has waived his right to a stay under item 4 since defendant has served a notice to examine plaintiff and only after receipt of that did plaintiff serve the cross notice to examine defendant.

The motion is in all respects granted. On consent the motion to preclude is granted unless the plaintiff serves a bill of particulars in compliance with the demand within 30 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered herein. The plaintiff is not entitled to an examination before trial of the defendant until the bill is served (New York County Supreme Court Trial Term Bules, rule XI, subd. 9). Accordingly the notice to examine defendant before trial is dismissed without prejudice to service of a new notice after the bill is served. As to the claim that the authorizations sought under the rules of this court are in conflict with sections 352 and 354 of the Civil Practice Act, in the case of *Plachte*v. *Bancroft Inc.*(3 A D 2d 437) the power of the courts over their calendars by the imposition of rules was challenged, as here, and that power was upheld. This court, aware of the motivation for this rule, will not attack its propriety, but will conform with the reasons advanced in *Plachte*v. *Bancroft Inc. (supra).*

Settle order.
**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**

| (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                Partnership. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Matthew A. Jones                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Matthew                A. Jones                                        |
| Title: | Chief                Financial Officer of the Managing General Partner |
| Date:  | May                14,  2007                                      |