alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AAM-10-334-E 

Jul 29 2010 

 Exemption No. 10108 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0727 

Mr. Steven A. Darr 

Chief Inspector 

Signature Engines, Inc. 

4760 Airports Road 

Cincinnati, OH 45226 

Dear Mr. Darr: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated July 15, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf Signature Engines, Inc. (Signature Engines), for an exemption from part 120 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow 

Signature Engines, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

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

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Signature Engines. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 
2 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant 

of exemption; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Signature Engines, Inc., an exemption from part 120 to the 

extent necessary to allow Signature Engines which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Signature Engines are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at 

all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Signature Engines part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Dr. James R. Fraiser 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1473

THOMAS E. TILLEY; IRIS M. TILLEY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-97-1-MC-D)

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 1, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas E. Tilley, Iris M. Tilley, Appellants Pro Se. Janet A.

Bradley, Melissa Anemojanis Holton, Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; John Francis

Corcoran, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas E. and Iris M. Tilley appeal from the district court’s

order denying their petition to quash a summons issued to a thirdparty recordkeeper. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of the petition. See 26 U.S.C.A.

§ 7609(a)(1), (c)(2)(D) (West Supp. 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
Attachment E

Work Sheets used to Calculate Registrant Labor Costs 

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0493 and is 

part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement.

NAICS: 325300

Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

Labor Category: Formula Managerial Technical Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate1 = W $54.34 $28.88 $17.23 

Benefits Percentage2 Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44%

Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $24.15 $12.84 $7.66 

Loaded Hourly Rate Wb = W + B = 

W(1+Lb)

$78.49 $41.72 $24.89 

Overhead Percentage3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour OH = Wb*Lo $39.25 $20.86 $12.44

Fully Loaded Hourly 

Rate

Wf = Wb + OH

= W + B + OH 

$117.74 $62.58 $37.33 

1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm May 2012 data

 NAICS 325300 - Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

 Standard Occupational Codes: 

 Management: 11-0000, Management Occupations 

 Technical: 19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 

 Clerical: 43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations 

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. 

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth 

Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34. The loading for indirect costs is within the 

range of 20-70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
Work Sheets used to Calculate EPA and Federal Government Labor Costs

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0493 and is 

part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement

NAICS: 999100 

Federal Executive Branch

Labor Category: Formula Managerial Technical Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate1 = W $55.66 $36.11 $20.59 

Benefits Percentage2 Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44%

Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $24.74 $16.05 $9.15 

Loaded Hourly Rate Wb = W + B = 

W(1+Lb)

$80.40 $52.16 $29.74 

Overhead Percentage3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour OH = Wb*Lo $40.20 $26.08 $14.87 

Fully Loaded Hourly 

Rate

Wf = Wb + OH

= W + B + OH 

$120.60 $78.24 $44.61 

1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm May 2012 data

 NAICS 999100 - Federal Executive Branch

 Standard Occupational Codes: 

 Management: 11-0000, Management Occupations 

 Technical: 19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 

 Clerical: 43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations 

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. 

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth 

Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34. The loading for indirect costs is within the 

range of 20-70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
391 A.2d 710

#### Miller, Appellant, v. Miller.

Argued March 20, 1978.

Edward Greer, with him Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe, Cramer & Jamieson, for appellant; Arthur L. Jenkins, Jr., with him Smith, Aker, Grossman, Hollinger & Jenkins, for appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appeal quashed. No order having been entered at the August 25, 1976, hearing, appellee could not be in contempt; assuming an order of August 25, 1976, the order of March 24, 1977, refusing to hold appellee in contempt was final and therefore not susceptible to exceptions.
##### 



POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polypore International, Inc.;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 the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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)) for the registrant and have:
 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 the registrant, 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 the registrant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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrant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
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: November 14, 2006
    
    /s/ Lynn AmosLynn AmosChief Financial Officer
#### Sophia L. SUMLER, a/k/a Sophia Mason, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-782.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 15, 1988.

*387Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., John Koenig, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of sentences imposed for the offenses of child abuse and aggravated child abuse, after remand by this court. In *Sumler v. State,*506 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), we determined that in departing from the recommended sentencing range established by the Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.701 sentencing guidelines the trial court had relied upon both permissible and impermissible reasons. On remand the trial court has again departed from the guidelines recommendation, relying upon the reason which we approved in the prior appeal, that appellant was on probation for child abuse when she abused her physically helpless 15 month-old child. As we previously indicated, this reference to the character of appellant’s conduct for which probation was revoked describes circumstances sufficiently egregious to warrant a departure from the recommended guidelines sentence, in accordance with *State v. Pentaude,*500 So.2d 526 (Fla.1987). We therefore affirm the sentencing orders now appealed.

MILLS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ex parte Marina Urbina

Appellate case number: 01-18-00177-CR

Trial court case number: 04CR2126-83-1

Trial court: 405th District Court of Galveston County

Appellant, Marina Urbina, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s denial of 

her application for a writ of habeas corpus. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.072 

(West Supp. 2017). On April 17, 2018, we abated this appeal and remanded the case for 

the trial court to execute a certification of appellant’s right to appeal. The district clerk 

has filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certification stating that the case “is 

not a plea bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal.” We reinstate the case 

on the Court’s active docket.

Further, the record was due to be filed in this Court by March 15, 2018. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 31.1. A clerk’s record was filed on March 21, 2018. Before we abated this 

appeal, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the Court might consider the appeal 

without a reporter’s record unless, by April 12, 2018, appellant caused the record to be 

filed, or provided proof that she had arranged to pay for the record or is indigent. See id.

31.1, 35.3(b), 37.3(c). Appellant has not responded, and a reporter’s record has not been 

filed. Accordingly, the Court will consider the appeal without a reporter’s record. See id. 

31.1; see, e.g., Ex parte Riaz, No. 01-17-00616-CR, 2018 WL 326301, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 9. 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 10, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         105,577
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  24,756
<ALLOWANCES>                                   76
<INVENTORY>                                    1,418
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               133,744
<PP&E>                                         60,892
<DEPRECIATION>                                 23,977
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 221,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          135,276
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       100
<OTHER-SE>                                     55,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   221,423
<SALES>                                        140,636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,636
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               955
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6,123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                14,663
<INCOME-TAX>                                   5,797
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            8,866
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      603
<NET-INCOME>                                   8,263
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.80



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Frank Easton, Defendant.

County Court, Kings County,

March 24, 1959.

*Eli Wager*for defendant.

*Edward S. Silver, District Attorney (Aaron E. Koota*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Hyman Barshay, J.

This is a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served by the District Attorney of Kings County upon the movant, as president of Amalgamated Union, Local 224, requiring him as such officer, to appear before the Kings County Grand Jury on the date specified therein (now adjourned pending disposition of this application) and to bring with him and produce the books and records of the said union and welfare fund of that union for the period from January 1, 1957 to and including the date of the subpoena duces tecum, January 23, 1959. The items called for in the subpoena duces tecum are specified therein.

Oral argument established the following facts. Prior to the issuance of this subpoena duces tecum, an employee of this union named Abraham Levine was indicted by the said Grand Jury for extortion and coercion. Subsequent proceedings against the said employee resulted in the dismissal of said indictment on motion of the District Attorney.

*575The Grand Jury was conducting an investigation entitled *People*v. *John Doe,*the nature of which concerned the alleged criminal activities of labor unions and their personnel in Kings County. While the aforesaid proceedings were pending against the said employee and before their ultimate disposition, the subpoena duces tecum concerned in the instant application was issued and served upon the movant pursuant to section 609 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides: *‘*District attorney may issue subpoenas, for witnesses before grand jury. The district attorney of the county may issue subpoenas, subscribed by him for witnesses within the state, in support of the prosecution or for such other witnesses as the grand jury may direct, to appear before the grand jury, upon an investigation pending before them.”

There was no evidence adduced before me showing any connection between the *John Doe*inquiry being conducted by the Grand Jury and the dismissal of the indictment against Levine, the labor union employee. Perhaps the coincidence of dates in the proceedings against Levine and the service of the subpoena duces tecum led the movant to the erroneous assumption that the matters were interrelated.

From all the facts elicited by the court, the inference is clear that the inquiry before the Grand Jury has no relationship whatever with the matter concerning Levine.

While inquisitorial power is vested in the Grand Jury, a subpoena issued by it may be attacked on the ground that it was issued in bad faith. No such proof was presented to me.

The motion is, therefore, denied and the movant is directed to obey the subpoena in all respects and appear before the Grand Jury on the first day of April, 1959, and on such other further days that he may be directed to appear before the Grand Jury.

Submit order.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mueller Group, Inc. (the "Report") for the purpose
of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
of the United States Code.

I,
Dale B. Smith, the Chief Executive Officer of Mueller Group, Inc., certify that, to the best of my knowledge:



|Date: March 31, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/DALE B. SMITHDale B. Smith
Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
    
    the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Amerisa KornblumAmerisa KornblumChief Financial Officer
Exhibit
      32.1




APD
      ANTIQUITIES, INC.




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 USC SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the periodic report of APD ANTIQUITIES, INC., a Nevada
      corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, CINDY K.
      SWANK, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
      hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
      States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.




This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.




Date:
      August 8, 2007




By:
      /s/
      Cindy K. Swank


Cindy
      K.
      Swank, President


Chief
      Executive Officer,


Chief
      Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 244 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 244

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 10, 2001

   Received and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Authorizing the printing of a revised edition of the publication 
                         entitled ``Our Flag''.

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

SECTION 1. PRINTING OF REVISED EDITION OF ``OUR FLAG''.

    A revised edition of the publication entitled ``Our Flag'', revised 
under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing, shall be 
printed as a House document.

SEC. 2. NUMBER OF COPIES.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), there shall 
be printed a number of copies of the publication described in section 1 
as follows:
            (1) 250,000 for the use of the House of Representatives, 
        distributed in equal numbers to each Member of the House and 
        each Delegate and Resident Commissioner to the Congress.
            (2) 51,500 for the use of the Senate, distributed in equal 
        numbers to each Senator.
            (3) 2,000 for the use of the Joint Committee on Printing.
            (4) 1,400 for distribution to the depository libraries.
    (b) Alternative Number.--If the total printing and production costs 
of the number of copies provided under subsection (a) exceed $150,000, 
there shall be printed the maximum number of copies of the publication 
described in section 1 for which such total costs do not exceed 
$150,000, with distribution allocated in the same proportion as in 
subsection (a).

            Passed the House of Representatives October 9, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```