alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 27, 2015

Exemption No. 11946A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA− 20 15− 1455

Mr. Matthew J. Clark

Counsel f or R TI Group, LLC

Dentons US, LLP

1676 International Drive, Penthouse

M clean , VA 22102

Dear Mr.Clark:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter dated July 22, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Avia tion Administration (FAA) on

behalf of RTI Group, LLC (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to your

current exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a),

61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151( a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and

(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the

petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection. You requested an amendment

to conduct closed

- set motion picture and television filming to your operations.

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 det ermined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

. T he

unmanned aircraft authorized in the original grant are comparable in type, size, weight, speed

and operating capabilities to those in this petition

.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 11946

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is2

granted an amendment to add closed

- set motion picture and television filming to its UAS

operations.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 11946 remain in effect exc ept

as follows. Condition No. 2 has been update d to permit closed

- set motion picture and

television filming

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed

- set motion picture and television filming

are permitted.

T his exemption terminates on July 31, 2017 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Christopher MORTIMER, Appellee.

No. 85-250.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 18, 1986.

Rehearing Denied March 19, 1986.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Renee Ruska Pelzman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Eric Wm. Hendon, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of *McKnight v. Bloom,*490 So. 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
i NO. 03

- 14

- 00 694

- CV

In the Third Court of Appeals

Austin , Texas

A NTHONY P ASSEUR

, A PPELLANT

v.

F EDERAL H OME L OAN M ORTGAGE C ORPORATION

, A PPELLEE

A PPEAL F ROM C AUSE N O

. 14

- 0981

- CC4

C OUNTY C OURT AT L AW N UMBER F OUR

W ILLIAMSON C OUNTY

, T EXAS

H ON

. J OHN M C M ASTE R P RESIDING

APPELLANT’S OPPOSED M O TION FOR EXTENSION OF TIM E TO

FILE BRIEF

Stephen Casey

Texas Bar No. 24065015

C ASEY L AW O FFICE

, P.C.

595 Round Rock West Drive

Suite 1 02
Round Rock, Texas 78681 Telephone: 512

- 257

- 1324

Fax: 512

- 853

- 4098 stephen@caseylawoffice.us ORAL

ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Counsel for Appellant Anthony Passeur ACCEPTED

03-14-00694-CV

5182898

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

5/6/2015 4:55:21 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK1 GROUNDS FOR MOTION

1. Appellant ’s Brief is due to be filed in Court on May 6, 2015

.

2. Due to a family illness , c ounsel’s appeara nce t o deliver testimony before the legislature

, t he impending due date of a Cert Petition , and the due date of a 5 th

Circui t Brief, counsel is in need of more time to adequately draft and file Appellant’s Brief

.

3. Appellant is asking for a 30

- day extensi on

.

4. This is Appellant’s first request for an extension.

PRAYER

For the foregoing reasons, Appellant pray s the Court will grant the motion.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephen Casey

Stephen Casey

Texas Bar No. 24065015

595 Round Rock West Drive, Sui te 1 02 Round Rock, Texas 78681 Telephone: 512

- 257

- 1324

Fax: 512

- 853

- 4098 stephen@caseylawoffice.us

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that I have conferenced with opposing counsel, Travis Gray,

vi a e

- mail on May 6, 2015 . Opposing counsel is opposed to the Motion for

Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief.2 /s/Stephen Casey

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion has

b een served on Wednesday, May 6, 2015 , on the following via facsimile

transmission:

Travis Gray Jack O’Boyle and Associates travis@jackoboyle.com

/s/ Stephen Casey
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6801

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES E. DOWNING, a/k/a Marcus Moultrie, a/k/a

Rahmel Lyles, a/k/a Ramez Lyles,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (4:05-cr-00052-H; 4:06-cv-00184-H)

Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 10, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James E. Downing, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Kimberly Ann

Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James E. Downing seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his

subsequent motion for reconsideration. The orders are not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Downing has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARPREET SINGH THIND,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74430

Agency No. A075-252-584

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 23, 2010** 

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Harpreet Singh Thind, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

SEP 07 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74430

abuse of discretion, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007), and

we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Thind’s motion to reopen as

untimely because Thind filed it nearly two years after the BIA issued its final

order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Thind failed to demonstrate changed

country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for

filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v.

Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (underlying adverse credibility

determination rendered evidence of changed country conditions immaterial).

We decline to reconsider Thind’s contentions regarding the BIA’s July 18,

2005, order affirming the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination,

because this court previously decided those issues in Thind v. Gonzales, 218 Fed.

Appx. 607 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2007). See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320

(9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that under the “law of the case doctrine,” one panel of

an appellate court will not reconsider questions which another panel has decided on

a prior appeal in the same case).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### William Bailey et al., Respondents, *v.*Dawson Bronx Corp., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 30, 1959.

Judgment affirmed, with $25 costs.

Steuer, Hofstadter and Hecht, JJ., concur.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR 

FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585 

Room 1E-245 

February 6, 2008 

Purpose

The Department is holding this informal public meeting as a first step in the standards 

rulemaking process for fluorescent lamp ballasts. This meeting is intended to familiarize 

interested stakeholders with the approach and analytical tools that the DOE proposes to use in its 

analysis for proposed standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. The meeting will solicit feedback 

on the assumptions, methodology, and analytical tools DOE proposes to use in this rulemaking. 

Agenda 

9:00 - 9:05 am Welcome 

9:05 - 9:20 am Introductions, and Agenda Review 

9:20 - 9:40 am Opening Remarks 

9:40 - 10:00 am Regulatory History and Scope of Coverage 

10:00 – 10:30 am Test Procedure and Energy Conservation Standard Overview 

10:30 - 10:45 am Break 

ANOPR ANALYSIS 

10:45 - 11:30 am Market and Technology Assessment and Screening Analysis 

11:30 - 12:00 am Engineering Analysis and Product Price Determination 

12:00 am - 1:00 pm Break for Lunch (on your own) 

1:00 – 1:15 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0007 COMMENT 06
1:15 - 2:00 pm Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization, Life-Cycle Cost 

and Payback Period Analysis 

2:00 - 2:30 pm Shipments Analysis, National Impact Analysis 

NOPR ANALYSIS 

Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis 

2:30 – 2:45 pm Break 

2:45 - 3:15 pm Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

3:15 - 3:45 pm Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, 

Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory Impact Analysis 

FINAL RULE 

3:45 - 4:30 pm Other Issues and Comments; Closing Remarks 

4:30 pm Adjourn 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0007 COMMENT 06
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 17, 2012, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Global Climate and Energy Project (“GCEP”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership, nature and objective. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, DE, has been added as a party to this venture. The change in its nature and objectives is that the members of GCEP have amended the agreement between them to extend the termination of GCEP, which currently will terminate August 31, 2014.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and GCEP intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On March 12, 2003, GCEP filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 4, 2003 (68 FR 16552).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 8, 2011. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 1, 2011 (76 FR 31638).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2012-7077 Filed 3-22-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### Faith A. Finke, Wife of/and Gregory I. MUNDY v. KULKONI, INC., et als.

No. 87-C-0809.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1987.

In re Finke, Faith A.; Mundy, Gregory L; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86-CA-556; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. *“J”,*No. 289-898.

Prior report: La.App., 503 So.2d 66.

Denied.

CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MATTHEW T. CRUMLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-2570

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:16-cv-00389-LAS, Senior Judge Loren A. 

Smith.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

MATTHEW LEO EANET, Eanet, PC, Los Angeles, CA, 

argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

 KELLY A. KRYSTYNIAK, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

DOUGLAS K. MICKLE, CHAD A. READLER, MICHAEL D.

SNYDER; JOHNATHAN D. HAMILTON, Air Force Legal Oper-
ations Agency, United States Department of the Air 

Force, Joint Base Andrews, MD. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and 

TARANTO, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 October 5, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
steam_record - Fw: Request for Extension of Time for Questionnaire - Plant ID 09522 

 

-----Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US on 07/02/2010 08:10PM ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Kolarick, John" <jkolarick@libgen.com> 

Date: 06/29/2010 05:59PM 

cc: Tom Favinger <tfavinger@cpv.com>, Joseph Michienzi <jmichienzi@cpv.com>, "Duff, Dan" 

<dduff@libgen.com>, "Pamela.Berner@NAES.com" <Pamela.Berner@NAES.com> 

Subject: Request for Extension of Time for Questionnaire - Plant ID 09522 

Dear Ms. Alicia,

Liberty Electric Power received the Department’s request for the completion of the Questionnaire for the Steam

Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines.  Attached is a request for an extension of time.  Please advise on our

request at your earliest convenience.

Thank you,

John

John Kolarick

Plant Manager

Liberty Electric Power, LLC

1000 Industrial Highway

Eddystone, PA 19022

Main: 610‐872‐2300

Direct: 610‐872‐8022

Fax: 610‐872‐7685

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: <steam_record@erg.com>, <jordan.ronald@epa.gov>

Date: 7/2/2010 7:10 PM

Subject: Fw: Request for Extension of Time for Questionnaire - Plant ID 09522

Attachments: Request for Extension of Time - Plant ID 09522.pdf

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C2E39C0D... 3/21/2011
1Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-31036

Summary Calendar

__________________

ARMANDO BATISTA-LEVYA, JR.,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

 Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-122

- - - - - - - - - -

April 15, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Armando Batista-Levya appeals the denial of his petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he

challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision dismissing

his appeal from the immigration judge's order of exclusion.

Batista-Levya argues that he was denied due process of law at his

exclusion hearing due to lack of representation by counsel. An

excludable alien is not entitled to appointed counsel at government

expense at an exclusion hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1362; Prichard-
Ciriza v. I.N.S., 978 F.2d 219, 222 (5th Cir. 1992). His assertion

that the immigration judge violated certain sections of the

Immigration Act is not considered for failure to brief it

adequately. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.

1993).

Batista-Levya also requests appointment of counsel and an

evidentiary hearing. The motion for appointment of counsel is

DENIED. See Fifth Circuit Plan § 2; Santana v. Chandler, 961 F.2d

514, 516 (5th Cir. 1992). The motion for an evidentiary hearing is

DENIED as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.
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 QC Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas E. Nickerson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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

Dated: November 8, 2006



/s/ Douglas E. NickersonDouglas E. NickersonChief Financial Officer




Page 42
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-29,547-08

EX P ARTE ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Relator ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NOS. 9408436-E AND 9408436-F IN THE 339T H DISTRICT COURT FROM HAR RIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R
Relator has filed a motion for l ea v e to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. I n it, he contends that he filed applications for writs of habea s corpus in the 339t h District Court of Harris C ounty challeng ing cause numbers 9408436 -E an d 9408436-F
. The trial court enter ed order s desig nating issues in both cause s on Fe bruar y 1, 2013 and J anuar

y 6, 2014, respe ctively . These a pplications have y et bee n forwa rded to this Court. Respondent, the J udg e of the 339th District Court of Har ris County , shall file a response with this Court by having the Dis trict C l erk submit the records on such habeas corpus applications. I n the alterna tive, Respondent may resolve the issues set out in the order s desig nating issues and then2

have the District Clerk submit the rec ords on such applications. I n either case , Respondent’s answe r shall be submitted within 30 day s of the date of this orde r. This a pplication for leave to f

ile a writ of manda mus will be held in abey ance until R espondent ha s submitt ed a r esponse.

Filed: Oc tober 8, 2014 Do not publish
Certification of Cord Blood America, Inc. Chief  Executive Officer, Matthew L. Schissler, pursuant  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


EX-32.1


CORD BLOOD AMERICA, INC.  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 Cord Blood America, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew L. Schissler, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer), of the Company 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:  (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.  Date:    December 8, 2006By: /s/Matthew L. SchisslerMatthew L. Schissler,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)