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

.S

. Department of T ransportation Federal Aviation Administration


## MAY 0 4 2015

Mr. Rafael Gustavo Fassina Marques Airworthiness Office Embraer S.A. Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2.170 12227-901

- S.J. dos Campos- SP Brasil

Dear Mr. Marques : Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue , S.W

. Renton , Washington 98057-3356

We have received your petition letter no. GCF-0333 /2015 , dated March 24 , 2015 , on behalf ofEmbraer S.A. , requesting an amendment to exemption no. 10557. That exemption provided relief from§§ 25.791(a) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations , regarding placement of no-smoking signs on Embraer Model EMB-550 airplanes. Your request for amendment, ifgranted, would include in the exemption the derivative Model EMB-545 airplane. Your petition has been added to public docket no . FAA-20 11-1240 and is being processed. We will contact you ifwe need additional information. We will advise you of our final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have questions in the meantime, you may call Jayson Claar at (425) 227-2194 , e-mail jayson.claar@ faa.gov

. Sincerely,

Mark Forseth Standardization Branch Transport Airplane Directorate Federal Aviation Administration
#### Albert H. McGUFFEE, Jr. v. Alma Jean POWELL.

No. 57869.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

August 3, 1988.

Thomas W. Crockett, Watkins, Ludlam *&*Stennis, Jackson, for appellant.

James L. Walker, Nausead Stewart and Walker & Walker, Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Hinds County; Stuart Robinson, Chancellor.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART.

HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., PRATHER, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Kevin NUNNERY v. Harry CONNICK, District Attorney.

No. 88-KH-0268.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Nunnery, Kevin; applying for writ of mandamus, supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 319-292.

Denied. Bill of information was filed 4/6/88, according to information furnished *151this Court by the docket clerk of Section G, Criminal District Court.
#### Leonard C. BALAS, Jr., Appellant, v. Kathryn BALAS, Appellee.

No. 87-2933.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 9, 1988.

Christopher F. Wells of Mouser & Wells, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

John T. Robinson of Robinson, Steagall, Silvers, Bomstein, Govan & Fusco, St. Pe-tersburg, for appellee.

HALL, Judge.

Leonard Balas appeals from a nonfinal order directing him to undergo a psychological evaluation before the trial court will consider his motion to reestablish visitation with his minor son. The order also directs Balas to deposit such sums of money as are necessary to pay for the evaluation into the trust account of his attorney. We reverse and remand this cause for determination of two factors which are necessary to the validity of the order.

The basis for the trial court’s order was a letter written by Balas to the court and to his ex-wife in which Balas expressed his anger and frustration at being prohibited from contact with his son pursuant to an order of contempt. However, the order contains no finding by the court that it is in the best interests of the child that visitation with his father be suspended pending the father’s psychological evaluation. Indeed, there is no indication in the letter that Balas intended any harm to his son or to his ex-wife, or to the court for that matter.

“It is the public policy of this state to assure that each minor child has *344frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or the marriage of the parties is dissolved....” § 61.13(2)(b)l, Fla.Stat. (1987). Accordingly, the denial of visitation rights is not favored unless the best interests and welfare of the child so dictate. *Nalley v. Nalley,*406 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Consequently, we remand this cause with directions that the trial court conduct a hearing to determine whether the child’s best interests are served by suspending visitation with Balas pending the latter’s psychological evaluation.

If suspension of visitation is found not to be in the child's best interests, on remand we further direct the court to conduct a hearing to determine Balas’s ability to pay for the psychological evaluation. Because financial inability to pay child support is an invalid reason for terminating a parent’s visitation rights, § 61.13(4)(c)(l), Fla.Stat. (1987); *Heckler v. Heckler,*351 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), we feel that financial inability to pay to satisfy a condition of reestablishing visitation rights would likewise be an invalid reason for terminating those rights. If the court finds that Balas is unable to pay for the evaluation, it should make arrangements for the evaluation to be conducted at no cost to Balas.

Reversed and remanded with directions consistent with this opinion.

RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
III

Calendar No. 20

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 51

Providing for members on the part of the Senate of the Joint Committee

on Printing and the Joint Committee on the Library.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 25, 1999

Mr. MCCONNELL, from the Committee on Rules and Administration, reported

the following original resolution; which was placed on the calendar

RESOLUTION

Providing for members on the part of the Senate of the

Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint Committee

on the Library.

1 Resolved, That the following-named Members be, and

2 they are hereby, elected members of the following joint

3 committees of Congress:

4 JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING: Mitch McConnell,

5 Thad Cochran, Don Nickles, Dianne Feinstein, and Daniel

6 K. Inouye.
2

SRES 51 PCS

1 JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY: Ted Stevens,

2 Mitch McConnell, Thad Cochran, Christopher J. Dodd,

3 and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Calendar No. 20

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 51

RESOLUTION

Providing for members on the part of the Senate of

Committee on the Library.the Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint

FEBRUARY 25, 1999

Placed on the calendar
#### Leroy P. and Hazel Wiltz TEVY v. Elmo J. LABORDE, Sr., M.D., et al.

No. W89-721.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

July 6, 1989.

Durio, McGoffin, Gary McGoffin, Stacy S. Lee, Lafayette, for defendants.

Glenn Armentor, Lafayette, for plaintiffs.

Before GUIDRY, FORET and YELVERTON, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY:

Plaintiffs-respondents, Leroy Tevy and Hazel Tevy, have continued to refuse to participate in the medical review panel proceedings in this case. The very purpose of the medical review panel legislative enactment is to require a complainant to participate in proceedings before the panel as a prerequisite to his filing judicial proceedings in pursuit of his medical malpractice claim; to hold otherwise would thwart the very purpose of the statute; therefore, respondents must participate in the proceedings before the medical review panel. The trial court erred in refusing to order this participation.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the trial court’s judgment denying the Motion to Compel Participation Before a Medical Review Panel filed by defendant-relator, Elmo J. Laborde, Sr., M.D., be and the same is hereby reversed. Respondents are hereby ordered to participate in the medical review process to the extent required by law.
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 134

Designating September 8, 2000, as Galveston Hurricane National

Remembrance Day.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 6, 2000

Mrs. HUTCHINSON (for herself and Mr. GRAMM) submitted the following

concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Designating September 8, 2000, as Galveston Hurricane

National Remembrance Day.

Whereas September 8, 2000 marks the 100th anniversary of

the hurricane that struck Galveston, Texas on September

8, 1900, the deadliest natural disaster in United States

history;

Whereas an estimated 6,000 people died in a few hours in

this thriving port of 37,000, dubbed the ‘‘Wall Street of

the West’’ at the dawn of the 20th century;

Whereas vast waves, surging flood waters, and powerful

winds of more than 120 miles an hour overtook the town,

in an era without radar, satellites, or modern radio, making off-shore hurricanes difficult to track;
2

•SCON 134 ATS

Whereas the residents of Galveston island showed much courage and sacrifice during the tempest, exemplified by 10

nuns who lost their lives along with the 90 children they

were trying to save at St. Mary’s Orphanage on the

beach;

Whereas Galveston never lost her resilient spirit, built a sturdy 17-foot sea wall that staved off other fierce hurricanes, pumped in millions of tons of sand from the Gulf

of Mexico in order to raise the level of the city and its

buildings to a safer height, and became a beautiful and

prosperous town yet again;

Whereas the city of Galveston is this year holding a ceremony

commemorating the hurricane, launching educational efforts, and celebrating the rebirth of Galveston after the

storm; and

Whereas our Nation, which benefits from modern weather

technology and the lessons learned from the Galveston

tragedy, should never cease to improve hurricane forecasting and make life safer and more secure along our

coasts: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That—

3 (1) September 8, 2000 is designated as Gal4 veston Hurricane National Remembrance Day; and

5 (2) the President is authorized and requested to

6 issue a proclamation in memory of the thousands of

7 Galvestonians and other Americans who lost their
3

•SCON 134 ATS

1 lives in the devastating hurricane of 1900 and the

2 survivors who rebuilt Galveston.

Æ
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 340

Designating December 10, 2000, as ‘‘National Children’s Memorial Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 21, 2000

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DODD, Mr. DORGAN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HELMS,

Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KERREY, Mr. KOHL,

Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.

ROBB, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. TORRICELLI,

Mr. HAGEL, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BYRD, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr.

BIDEN, Mr. ROTH, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. ENZI, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. KERRY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. BUNNING, Mr.

DOMENICI, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr. WARNER, Mrs. BOXER, and

Mr. WELLSTONE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

OCTOBER 24 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating December 10, 2000, as ‘‘National Children’s

Memorial Day’’.

Whereas approximately 80,000 infants, children, teenagers,

and young adults of families living throughout the United

States die each year from myriad causes;

Whereas the death of an infant, child, teenager, or young

adult of a family is considered to be 1 of the greatest
2

SRES 340 ATS

tragedies that a parent or family will ever endure during

a lifetime; and

Whereas a supportive environment and empathy and understanding are considered critical factors in the healing

process of a family that is coping with and recovering

from the loss of a loved one: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL CHILDREN’S ME3 MORIAL DAY.

4 The Senate—

5 (1) designates December 10, 2000, as ‘‘Na6 tional Children’s Memorial Day’’; and

7 (2) requests that the President issue a procla8 mation calling upon the people of the United States

9 to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and

10 activities in remembrance of the many infants, chil11 dren, teenagers, and young adults of families in the

12 United States who have died.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000849116
<NAME> ACE CASH EXPRESS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          60,168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,660
<ALLOWANCES>                                       803
<INVENTORY>                                      2,449
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,039
<PP&E>                                          42,660
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,330
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,635
<SALES>                                        100,194
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,194
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    49
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,437
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,587
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,185
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,402
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,402
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Russell BRILEY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 88-KH-1286.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 31, 1988.

In re Briley, Russell; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 310193.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Michael NICHOLAS.

No. KA 7751.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 30, 1987.

Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Patricia Edwards, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, for the State.

Sherry Watters, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for Nicholas.

Before CIACCIO and LOBRANO, JJ., and CADE, J. Pro Tern.

PER CURIAM.

In a prior appeal Nicholas’ conviction on one count of forgery was affirmed; his adjudication as a fourth offender was upheld; his forty year sentence was found excessive and was accordingly vacated, and the matter was remanded for resentencing. *State v. Nicholas,*491 So.2d 711 (La. App.4th Cir.1986). On remand the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-five years without benefit of parole.

In the present appeal Nicholas again argues that his sentence is excessive. In a supplemental *pro se*brief he also argues that his adjudication as a fourth offender rests on insufficient proof that he was the person convicted of the predicate offenses.

The record of the resentencing hearing shows the same thorough consideration of aggravating and mitigating sentencing factors as was given on original sentencing, and establishes compliance with C.Cr. P. Art. 894.1. Although we find no cases involving comparable circumstances,1 given this defendant and his crime, and given the statutory range of possible sentences *209(twenty years to life, see R.S. 15:529.-lA(3)(a)), we cannot find that the sentence actually imposed is grossly disproportionate or constitutes a “purposeless imposition of pain and suffering.” See *State v. Brogdon,*457 So.2d 616, 625 (La.1984), cert. denied 471 U.S. 1111, 105 S.Ct. 2345, 85 L.Ed.2d 862 (1985).

The evidentiary question was not raised in the prior appeal and is not now properly before us. Nicholas is free to file an application for post conviction relief in the district court.

There are no errors patent on the record.

The sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

1

. But see *State v. Francis,*482 So.2d 154 (La. App.4th Cir.1986) (fifteen year sentence for third offender forgery conviction not excessive); *State v. Young,*432 So.2d 1012 (La.App.1st Cir. 1983) (ten year sentence; same).
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT
 
 I, Chien
Chih Liu, Chief Executive Officer of Rotoblock Corporation, hereby certify
that:
 
 (1)  I have
reviewed this quarterly report of Rotoblock Corporation;
 
 (2)  Based on
my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 (3)  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of Rotoblock Corporation as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;
 
 (4)  Rotoblock
Corporation's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)):
 
 (a)  Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to Rotoblock Corporation, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b)  Evaluated
the effectiveness of Rotoblock Corporation's disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (c)  Disclosed
in this report any change in Rotoblock Corporation's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during Rotoblock Corporation's most recent
fiscal quarter (Rotoblock Corporation's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
quarterly report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, Rotoblock Corporation's internal control over financial
reporting; and
 
 (5)  Rotoblock
Corporation's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
Rotoblock Corporation's auditors and the audit committee of Rotoblock
Corporation's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 (a)  All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect Rotoblock Corporation's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and
 
 (b)  Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in Rotoblock Corporation's internal control over
financial reporting.
  
 Dated: September
13, 2008 ROTOBLOCK
CORPORATION
 
 /s/ Chien
Chih Liu
 By: Chien
Chih Liu, Chief
Executive Officer
From: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Willis James" <jwillis@titanamerica.com>

Date: 01/25/2010 02:24 PM

Subject: RE: EPA Organic HAP Data for Alternate THC Limit

This is form the old docket

This is from the 2007 ICR data. 

Keith W. Barnett

USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

Mail Code D243-02

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

919-541-5605

barnett.keith@epa.gov

From: "Willis James" <jwillis@titanamerica.com>

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/25/2010 01:09 PM

Subject: RE: EPA Organic HAP Data for Alternate THC Limit

Keith:

Are you able to point me in the right direction for this data?

Thanks

Jay

From: Willis James 

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:33 PM

To: Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: EPA Organic HAP Data for Alternate THC Limit

Keith

I am trying to find the organic HAPs data that the EPA used in setting the alternate THC limit. We have 

not been able to find on the Docket. Is this something you have that you can share.

Thanks

Jay
Jay Willis

James S. Willis, III, P.E., P.G.

Corporate Engineering Environmental Manager

Titan America, LLC

6071 Catawba Road

Troutville, Virginia 24175

Office: (540) 966-6534 

Fax: (540) 966-6812

Mobile: (540) 892-9983

jwillis@titanamerica.com

Confidentiality Notice:

This message including files attached to it, may contain 

confidential information that is intended only for use of the 

Addressee(s) names above. 

If you are not an intended recipient any dissemination or 

copying of the information contained in this message or the 

taking of any action in 

reliance upon the information, is strictly prohibited. If you 

have received this message in error, please notify the sender 

immediately by

return Email or by phone and delete the original transmission 

and any attachments without reading or saving in any manner. 

Thank you.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129838 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129838 COA: 262003 Wayne CC: 98-010702-01 LOUIS THOMPKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to a ppeal the October 20, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0320 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 27, 2006

Clerk
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 13

- 00954

- CR

RAYMOND BUCHANAN, JR

. , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 300th District Court of Brazoria County. (Tr. Ct. No. 68872 ).

TO THE 300TH DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court , on the 16 th day of December 2014 , the ca se upon appeal to revise

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by

the trial court on October 18, 2013. After submitting the case

on the appellate record and the arguments properly rai sed by

the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms

the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered Decembe r 16 , 2014.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland andHuddle. Opinion delivered by Justice Huddle.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order o f our said Court in

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

May 22, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT