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 that2

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
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION
     I, Michael Stojda, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Splinex Technology Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4.  The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the small business issuer and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the smallbusiness issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small businessissuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;and
5.  The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors andthe audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.         By:                                     /s/ Michael Stojda    Michael Stojda  February 14, 2005  President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7706

RANDY WAY POINDEXTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIE WELDON, Warden for Lieber Correctional Institution; ANNIE NEGLEY, Lieutenant for Lieber Correctional Institution; L. J. ALLEN, Regional Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-935-6-13AK) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 2, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy Wayne Poindexter, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Duncan, LEWIS, ROGERS & LARK, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Raymon E. Lark, Jr., BELSER, LEWIS, ROGERS & LARK, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Poindexter v. Weldon , No. CA-97-935-6-13AK (D.S.C. Nov. 12, 1997). 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
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 The Bancorp Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul Frenkiel, 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.
 
 /s/Paul  FrenkielExecutive Vice President of Strategy,Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryAugust 9, 2011
Exhibit 32

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of McNab Creek Gold Corp. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,Kenneth G. Townsend, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Sect.1350, as adopted pursuant to Sect. 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

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

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the14th day of February, 2007.

***/s/ Kenneth G. Townsend***

Chief Executive Officer

----

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of McNab Creek Gold Corp. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,Christopher Turley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Sect. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sect. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

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

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the14th day of February, 2007.

***/s/ Christopher Turley***

Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 11.0

 

KEARNY FINANCIAL CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

STATEMENTS RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

(In Thousands, Except Per Share Data, Unaudited)

 

 

|                                                                                     |   | Three Months Ended |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                     |   | September 30, 2009 |   |   |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |
| Income available to common stockholders                                                  | $      | 1,095              |   |   |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |
| Weighted average shares outstanding                                                      |   | 68,074             |   |   |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |
| Basic earnings per share                                                                 | $      | 0.02               |   |   |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |
| Income for diluted earnings per share                                                    | $      | 1,095              |   |   |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |
| Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding for diluted computation |   | 68,074             |   |   |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |
| Diluted earnings per share                                                               | $      | 0.02               |   |   |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |
#### Robert L. JACKSON, a/k/a Ronnie Lee Jensen, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dan CRONIN, Manager of Safety and Excise, and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the City and County of Denver, and Wayne K. Patterson, Warden of the Jail, City and County of Denver, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 79SA508.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

April 21, 1980.

J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Craig L. Truman, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Shelley Gilman, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for petitioner-appellant.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., John Daniel Dailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents-appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner Jackson appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He asserts that the extradi*104tion request by the state of Kansas was insufficient in that it alleged escape from custody as the basis for his return to the demanding state of Kansas but failed to include a copy of the judgment of conviction or resulting sentence. Section 16-19-104, C.R.S.1973 (now in 1978 Repl.Vol. 8). We disagree.

The issue which has been raised here has already been settled by this court in *Norrod v.*Bower, 187 Colo. 421, 532 P.2d 330 (1975).1

Judgment affirmed.

1

. *Norrod*states:

> “Appellant further argues that the extradition documents should not have been predicated on appellant’s alleged commission of the substantive crime of escape. Rather, he claims the extradition should have been based upon that alternate portion of the statute, C.R.S.1963, 60-1-3 [now section 16-19-104, C.R.S.1973], which allows extradition of a person who has escaped from confinement. He contends that since the extradition documents did not include a copy of the judgment of conviction or of the sentence imposed in execution thereof, the documents are insufficient. In answer, we merely point out that it is fundamental that the statutory grounds of section 60-1-3, which are required to be set forth in the form of demand for execution, are stated in the alternative. If any one ground is adequately set forth as required by the statute, then the demand is sufficient in form to authorize the execution of the personal demand.”
CCC COMMODITY INVENTORY

As of February 28, 2019

OUTSTANDING UNDER LOAN CCC-OWNED

CY 2016 CY 2017 CY 2018 INVENTORY 2/

(Million Units Except as Noted) (Actual Units)

BUTTER (LB) - - - 0.0

CHEESE (LB) - - - 0.0

NONFAT DRY MILK (LB) - - - 0.0

BARLEY (BU) 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0

CORN (BU) 0.0 1.1 766.1 0.0

OATS (BU) 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

SORGHUM (BU) 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0

SOYBEANS (BU) 0.0 0.0 173.5 0.0

WHEAT (BU) 0.1 0.0 44.4 0.0

RICE (CWT) 0.0 0.0 27.2 0.0

REFINED SUGAR (Mil. Lbs.) 0.0 96.0 974.0 0.0

 IN-PROCESS BEET 0.0 0.0 1,098.0 0.0

RAW CANE SUGAR (Mil. Lbs.) 0.0 0.0 1,451.2 0.0

 IN-PROCESS CANE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

HONEY (Mil. Lbs.) 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0

PEANUTS (tons) 0.0 0.0 1,748,850.0 121,684.76

CANOLA SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 1,266.0 0.0

CRAMBE (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FLAXSEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0

MUSTARD SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 4.0 53.0 0.0

RAPESEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SAFFLOWER SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SESAME SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SUNFLOWER SEED (OIL) (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 343.0 0.0

SUNFLOWER SEED (Other) (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 54.0 0.0

DRY PEAS (CWT) 1/ 0.0 3.0 684.0 0.0

LENTILS (CWT) 1/ 0.0 4.0 729.0 0.0

CHICKPEAS (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 976.0 0.0

UPLAND COTTON (BALE) 200 100 4,303,300 0

ELS COTTON (BALE) 0 0 153,300 0

1/ Minor Oilseeds & Pulses are in thousand units.

Report Completed: March 13, 2019

2/ CCC acquired 7,099.63 tons peanuts in August from July maturing loans, for a total beginning inventory of 7,099.63 

tons. CCC acquired another 59,478.73 tons of peanuts in September due to August maturing loans. CCC acquired 

another 21,325.03 tons of peanuts in October due to September maturing loans. CCC acquired another 33,781.37 tons 

of peanuts in November due to October maturing loans.This brings total peanut inventory to 121,684.76 tons.
# C_2004106EN.01006503.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/65

---

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

3 February 2004

in Case T-422/03 R: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International Inc v Commission of the European Communities

(Interim measures - Directive 67/548 - Urgency)

(2004/C 106/134)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-422/03 R, Enviro Tech Europe Ltd, established in Surrey (United Kingdom), and Enviro Tech International Inc, established in Chicago (United States of America), represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and F. Simonetti); APPLICATION for suspension of two acts of the Commission of 3 November 2003 and an order requiring the Commission not to propose the reclassification of nPB under the 29th adaptation to technical progress of Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging, and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234), the President of the Court of First Instance, has given an order on 3 February 2004, in which it:

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
.,, THE HE'ART OF HODAG COUNTRY**~"1** ,.;..;..;.:;:;: 

# CITY OF

Office ofthe City Administrator August 9, 2012 U. S. Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Analysis Essential Air Service Division 

### 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 

### 20590 

# I 

# EL

Attn: Mr. Dennis 

### J. DeVany, Chief Essential Air Sef'{ice Division RE: Docket OST-2011-0109 Rhinelander, Wisconsin Dear Mr. DeVany, 

### Od'r·OST'·2.D ll•O

### lO'l 

# DER

As Mayor ofthe City of Rhinelander, I have received the proposals of SkyWest, Great Lakes, and Sovereign Air Inc. Our Airport Commission has provided me a review of the proposals and based on the needs of our community and the traveling public we support the SkyWest Airlines proposal. The City of Rhinelander and its surrounding communities depend on the critical air service to support business, tourism, and economic growth to the region. SkyWest Airlines as a Delta connection flying to Minneapolis/St Paul will once again bring us seamless service. In partnership with the Commission we are looking forward to working closely with SkyWest Airlines to make this crucial service successful and to grow our market to its fullest potential. Sincerely,**~·** f

. J , /l 

## I

.(, '**L-<:~** .....**;~ ~**  '**y~.-.·~·** Richard J. Johns Mayor Cc: Michael Thompson- Market Development Michael Matthews
- CFO Robert BKarns
- VP GM

1;;;, S. Stevens Street Hhitwlander, \VI 5·k>O 1 \Vebsite: www.ci.rhinelander.wi.gov Telephone (i!C>) Sliil-8ti02 fax (71C>)365-H630 Email adminraJ,rhinelandcreityhall.org·
No. 12-14-00007-CV

 

In the Court of Appeals

for the 

Twelfth District of Texas

Tyler, Texas

REX SMITH

Appellant

v.

KELLY DAVIS AND AMBER DAVIS

Appellees

Appealed from the 294th Judicial District Court

Van Zandt County, Texas 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

REPLY SUPPORTING REX SMITH’S ANSWERS

TO THE COURT’S QUESTIONS

Jeffrey C. Irion

Texas Bar No. 10413500

240 S. Old Gun Barrel Lane

P. O. Box 5027

Gun Barrel City, Texas 75147

Telephone: 903-887-4050

Facsimile: 866-422-8403

jirionattorney@aol.com

Greg Smith

Texas Bar No. 18600600

RAMEY & FLOCK, P.C.

100 E. Ferguson, Suite 500

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: 903-597-3301

Facsimile: 903-597-2413

 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

ACCEPTED

12-14-00007-CV

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

4/8/2015 2:54:31 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 4/8/2015 2:54:31 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

In response to the Davises’ rehearing motion, this Court requested that Smith file 

answers to certain questions about the proper relief in the case. Smith answered those questions. 

Now, the Davises have filed a reply arguing that Smith somehow waived his position, in 

connection with a prior, successful rehearing motion in this case. For the Court’s benefit, Smith 

concurrently is submitting a brief reply to the allegation of waiver. Smith requests leave that the 

reply would be filed and considered with the other papers relevant to the Davises’ motion for 

rehearing.

Certificate of Conference

Counsel for the Davises states that this motion is opposed.

Conclusion and Prayer

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Rex Smith prays that the Court would 

grant leave to file his Reply Supporting Answers to the Court’s Questions, which Smith submits

simultaneously with this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey C. Irion

Texas Bar No. 10413500

240 S. Old Gun Barrel Lane

P. O. Box 5027

Gun Barrel City, Texas 75147

Telephone: 903-887-4050

Facsimile: 866-422-8403

jirionattorney@aol.com

 /s/ Greg Smith 

Greg Smith

State Bar No. 18600600

RAMEY & FLOCK, P.C.

100 East Ferguson, Suite 500

Tyler, TX 75702

Telephone: (903) 597-3301

Facsimile: (903) 597-2413

gsmith@rameyflock.com

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, REX SMITH

1
Certificate of Service

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the above and foregoing document was served 

upon counsel for Appellees in accordance with the applicable Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on 

this the 8th day of April, 2015, on the following:

Via email

S. Gary Werley, Attorney

1840 Acton Highway

Granbury, Texas 76049

sgwerley@werleylaw.com

 /s/ Greg Smith 

 Greg Smith

2