alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 1 - 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

1212 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.842.4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

March 24, 2011 

via email and regulations.gov 

Esta Rosenberg 

Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division 

George Wellington 

Chief, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Joint Application of Delta and China Eastern 

 For Statements of Authorization and Codeshare Exemptions 

 Docket DOT-OST-2011-0065 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg and Mr. Wellington: 

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all carriers on the service list to the above 

referenced application filed on March 23, 2011 and there are no objections. In these 

circumstances, we urge that the application be granted as soon as possible. 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

cc: Bob Finamore, DOT 

Evelyn Sahr, Counsel for China Eastern 

 James Ehrig, Counsel for China Eastern 

info@airlineinfo.com
AFS-13-398-E

July 1, 2013

 Exemption No. 10815

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0496

Ms. Mariano Aguilar

Parent of Grace Aguilar Abascal

67 Whisperwood Road

Thornhill, Ontario L4J9C9

Dear Ms. Aguilar:

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

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received May 31, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Grace Aguilar Abascal for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, 

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

exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, 

manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard 

a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

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 Grace.

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

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using 

restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security 

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the 
2

petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by 

persons with disabilities.

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.

• 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 Grace Aguilar Abascal an exemption from § 121.311(b). 

In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Grace is

aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary 

to allow her to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Grace’s parents or 

a caregiver accompanying her. Grace Aguilar Abascal may only occupy a passenger seat with 

no passenger seated behind her. In addition, Grace’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of 

this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours 

before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards

 Service

Enclosure
Exhibit 13.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual
Report of Procaps Group, S.A. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, as filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ruben Minski, Chief Executive
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:



(i) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|/s/ Ruben Minski |                        
|---------------- | -----------------------
|Name:            | Ruben Minski           
|Title:           | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:            | April 29, 2022
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 Annual Report of Digital
Health Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Daniel Sullivan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 operation of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 29, 2022



| | /s/ Daniel Sullivan                         
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Daniel Sullivan                             
| | Chief Financial Officer                     
| | (Principal financial and accounting officer)
Exhibit
32.1




TOT
Energy, Inc.


19950 W.
Country Club Drive


8th
Floor


Aventura,
FL 33180





February
16, 2009




Securities
and Exchange Commission


100 F
Street, NE


Washington,
DC 20549




Re:
Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350




Dear
Ladies and Gentlemen:




In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TOT Energy
Inc., for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, each of the undersigned officers
of TOT Energy Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





1)
            such Quarterly Report on Form
      10-Q of TOT Energy Inc., for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, 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 such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TOT Energy Inc., for the quarter ended
      December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of TOT Energy
      Inc.





BY:/s/
      Mike ZoiMike
      ZoiChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





/s/
      Jonathan NewJonathan
      NewChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to TOT Energy Inc. and will be
retained by TOT Energy Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.




In
accordance with Item 601 of Regulation S-B, this certification is
being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.1 to TOT Energy Inc.’s quarterly report and
shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as
expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.
[No. 14247-7-III.

Division Three.

June 18, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Kleber V. Quevedo, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitti-tas County, No. 94-1-00006-2, Michael E. Cooper, J., entered July 26, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, C.J., concurred in by Munson and Thompson, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 27, 2014

p0519

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2014

148676

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148676

COA: 309276

Macomb CC: 10-000648-FC

LEONART NAZARKO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 12, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
1

Assessing	the	Effect	of	Five	Gasoline	Properties	on	Exhaust	Emissions	from	LightDuty	Vehicles	certified	to	Tier-2	Standards

Analysis	of	Data	from	EPA	Phase	3

(EPAct/V2/E-89)

Appendix		N.3

Model	Fitting	Information	for

Ethanol (Bag	1)

This appendix summarizes model fitting for Bag-1 Ethanol. Model-fitting techniques and approaches 

summarized in Section 8.7. Features of the data and modeling for this compound are listed below.

Fuel-parameter matrix: FULL

Media contamination: YES

No. measurements: 913

No. censored values: 193

Modeling approach: TOBIT REGRESSION

Estimated Dependent Variable model: YES
2

Models fit for Ethanol, Bag 1 (all models include an intercept term) 

Model Term Notation Model

Full FM6 FM9 FM10 FM11

etOH Ze ● ● ● ● ●

Arom Za ● ● ×

RVP Zr ● ● ● ● ●

T50 Z5 ● ● ● ● ●

T90 Z9 ● ● ● ● ●

etOH × etOH ZZee ● ● ● ● ●

T50 × T50 ZZ55 ● ● ● ● ●

etOH × Arom ZZea ● ×

etOH × T50 ZZe5 ● ×

etOH × T90 ZZe9 ● ×

etOH × RVP ZZer ● ×

Arom × T50 ZZa5 ● ● ×

Arom × T90 ZZa9 ● ×

T90 × T90 ZZ99 ● ● ● ×

T50 × T90 ZZ59 ● ● ● ● ×

Arom × RVP ZZar ● ● ×

RVP × T90 ZZr9 ● ×

Model Fitting History for Ethanol, Bag 1 (FM11 selected as best-fit model).

Fit Parameters Test with respect to

Full

Test with respect to

Previous Model

Model p -2lnL BIC

1 Dev.1

d Pr>χ

2 Dev. d Pr>χ2

Full 18 632.42 750.84

FM6 12 633.33 712.28 0.9125 6 0.99

FM9 9 634.97 694.18 2.5494 9 0.98 1.6369 3 0.65

FM10 8 635.10 687.74 2.6863 10 0.99 0.1369 1 0.71

FM11 7 637.88 683.93 5.4581 11 0.91 2.7719 1 0.095

1 A lower value indicates a better fit. 1 The deviation is the difference in

the -2loglik statistics for the 

nested and reference models,

respectively, per Error! Reference source not 

found..
3

Coefficients and Tests of Effect for the Full and Best-Fit Models – Ethanol (Bag 1).

Effect Full Model Best-Fit Model (FM11)

Estimate Std.Err. d.f. tvaluePr>t Estimate Std.Err. d.f. tvaluePr>t

Intercept1

15 -4.9081

Ze 1.4759 0.07240 15 20.38 <0.00001 1.4643 0.07115 15 20.56 <0.00001

Za -0.0067 0.04327 15 -0.16 0.88

Zr -0.05004 0.04316 15 -1.16 0.26 -0.05990 0.02940 15 -2.06 0.057

Z5 0.1050 0.03806 15 2.76 0.015 0.07188 0.02964 15 2.37 0.032

Z9 -0.1261 0.03701 15 -3.47 0.0034 -0.09990 0.03574 15 -2.78 0.014

ZZee -0.4787 0.06014 15 -7.96 <0.00001 -0.4967 0.05229 15 -9.51 <0.00001

ZZ55 0.1261 0.05018 15 2.51 0.024 0.1121 0.03826 15 2.90 0.011

ZZea -0.005952 0.03881 15 -0.15 0.88

ZZe5 0.02820 0.05277 15 0.54 0.60

ZZe9 0.0008509 0.06491 15 0.0090 0.99

ZZer 0.03237 0.05103 15 0.64 0.53

ZZa5 0.03318 0.03212 15 1.04 0.32

ZZa9 -0.01143 0.03461 15 -0.33 0.74

ZZ99 -0.5112 0.04523 15 -1.13 0.28

ZZ59 0.05311 0.04341 15 1.22 0.24

ZZar 0.04136 0.02855 15 1.45 0.17

ZZr9 -0.008676 0.04644 15 -0.20 0.85

2  veh

1

0.1283

2 

0.5697 0.05739

1 Not fit by the model, but manually recalculated from intercepts for individual vehicles.
4

 Coefficients for Models (FM11) for individual Jackknife replicates used to calculate standard 

errors for model terms.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6853** 

ROBERT DARNELL ROBERTS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. SOLOMON HEJIRIKA, Sr.; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Alexander Williams, Jr. , District Judge. ( 8:11

- cv - 00868

- AW )

Submitted : September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Robert Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Darnell Roberts seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and has filed motion s for appointment of counsel . The district court’s order is n ot appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . 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) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slac k v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roberts h as not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Roberts’ motion s for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the dec isional process.

DISMISSE D
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 Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of employees from the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On December 21, 2011, the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, during the period from January 1, 1958 through December 31, 1983, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the SEC.

                        This designation will become effective on January 20, 2012 unless Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         reporting the addition of this class to the SEC or the result of any provision by Congress regarding the decision by HHS to add the class to the SEC.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 1-(877) 222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to                         *DCAS@CDC.GOV.*

John Howard,

Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 2012-850 Filed 1-17-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
I)ISN’IISS; Opinion filed October 9, 2012

In The 

## unrt uf 1piatE 

## ..Fift1i 

## Thtrict nf Lrxa at Ja11zis No. 05-12-01086-CV CLASSiC SUPEROOF LLC, Appellant V. DONNA MASSOUD FIKIA DONNA BEAN AND PROSPERITY BANK, Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 3-1338-2012 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before ChiefJustice Wright andJustices Francis 

### and Lang-Miers Opinion By ChiefJustice Wright Beforethe Courtis appellant’s unopposedmotionto dismissthe appeal. Appellant informs the Courtthat it no longerdesires to pursue the appeal. Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEx. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

CAROL 

### WR1G( /CHIEFMSTICF/ / 1 ’V /‘ / 7/ 7 

### 121086F.P05

### nitrt nf Apicahi 

## FIftIi Ji 1 trict nf 1cxu at 

## t1a1ktj JUDGMENT CLASSIC’ SUPhRC)OF LLC, Appellant Appeal from the County Court at Law No. S ofCohn County. Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 3-1338- No. 05-12-01086-CV V. 2012). Opinion delivered by ChiefJustice Wright. DONNAMASSOUDF/K/ADONNABEAN Justices Francis and Lang-Miers, AND PROSPERITY BANK, Appellees participating. Based on the Courts opinion ofthis date. the appeal is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that the parties 

### hear their own costs ofthe appeal. Judgment entered October 9.2012.

(‘.\R()I.YN WRIGII I (‘IIII 12 .11 SIi(’l
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 21766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8641]

[[Page 21766]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER12-678-000, ER12-679-000]

Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Notice of 
Technical Conference

    By order dated March 30, 2012, in Docket Nos. ER12-678-000 and 
ER12-679-000, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) 
directed staff to convene a technical conference regarding proposals by 
the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO) 
regarding Revenue Sufficiency Guarantee (RSG) costs associated with 
resources committed for voltage or local reliability requirements (VLR 
costs).\1\ In Docket No. ER12-678-000, MISO proposed to allocate a 
greater proportion of VLR costs to the load in the Local Balancing 
Authority Area benefitted by such commitments. In Docket No. ER12-679-
000, MISO proposed a mechanism by which to mitigate the exercise of 
market power with regard to offers made to address VLR issues. In its 
order, the Commission accepted and suspended for five months both of 
MISO's filings, subject to the outcome of the technical conference and 
further Commission order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 138 
FERC ] 61,235 at P 49 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that such conference will be held on May 15, 2012 at 
the Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426, beginning at 9 a.m. (EDT) in Room 3M-2A&B. The technical 
conference will be led by Commission staff.
    The purpose of the technical conference is to discuss the issues 
raised by MISO's proposed VLR cost allocation methodology and 
mitigation mechanism. A subsequent notice detailing the topics to be 
discussed will be issued in advance of the conference. Following the 
conference, the parties will have an opportunity to file written 
comments that will be included in the formal record of the proceeding, 
which, together with the record developed to date, will form the basis 
for further Commission action.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or 202-208-8659 (TTY); or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with 
the required accommodations.
    All parties are permitted to attend. For more information on this 
conference, please contact Stephen Pointer at [email protected] 
or 202-502-8761, Adam Pollock at [email protected] or 202-502-8458, 
or Katherine Waldbauer at [email protected] or 202-502-8232.

    Dated: April 4, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8641 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Curtis JACKSON.

No. 88-KH-0205.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Jackson, Curtis; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “F”, No. 262-167.

*429Denied. Relator must first present his claims to the district court using the uniform application for post conviction relief.
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June
30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:/s/ Randy L. ChurcheyRandy L. ChurcheyChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)