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

Docket No: 

### FAA

- 2014

- 0646 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 

### 2013

- SW

- 053

- AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.:

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM



### N o C omments/Only Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are

required.

No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

lis t latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues

from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA

- IR

- M

- 8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one o f the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO

, we don’t agree because

ISSUE 2 : Select one of the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree w ith because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:



### Page 1 of 3If NO

, we don’t agree because

For additional issues, do uble

- click here



### Page 2 of 3

### S ignature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.:

ASE Printed Name : Date

Branch M anager Date



### Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




In
      connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
      ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
      ‘‘Report’’) by MDwerks Inc. (the ‘‘Registrant’’), I, Howard Katz, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and




2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial conditions and results of operations of Registrant.


Dated:
                August 13, 2007
            
            /s/
                Howard KatzChief
              Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

FRANK ROSADO,

Petitioner

v.

THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE PA. 

SUPREME COURT,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 83 EM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2022, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and the Application for an 

Immediate Hearing are DENIED.
04-15-00204-CR

ACCEPTED

04-15-00204-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

4/7/2015 3:18:15 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 4/7/2015 3:18:15 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IASIS Healthcare LLC;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(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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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):
    /s/ W. Carl Whitmer

W. Carl Whitmer
Chief Financial Officer
**
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) and Rule 15d-14(a)as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Jonathan Landsberg, certify that: 

(1) I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of 26North BDC, 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 tomake 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 materialrespects 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(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)) 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, toensure 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 aboutthe 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 the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’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 overfinancial reporting; and 

(5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof 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 arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 
  **26North BDC, Inc.**Date: March 8, 2024  By: /s/ Jonathan Landsberg   Jonathan Landsberg   
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

(*Principal Financial Officer*)
**
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 SendTec, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald Gould, Principal 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, to my knowledge:



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



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



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Donald Gould             
|Donald Gould                 
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
|August 14, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22785-22786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9233]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9660-6]


Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; Estate 
of Benjamin C. Schilberg, Cadlerock Properties Site, Ashford and 
Willington, CT

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement for recovery of past costs concerning the 
Cadlerock Properties Superfund Site in Ashford and Willington, 
Connecticut with the following settling party: Estate of Benjamin C. 
Schilberg. The settlement requires the settling party to pay $170,000 
to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. The settlement includes a 
covenant not to sue the settling party pursuant to Section 107(a) of 
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). For thirty (30) days following the date of 
publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments 
relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments 
received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if 
comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that 
the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
    The Agency's response to any comments received will be available 
for public inspection at 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109-3912.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by May 17, 2012 of this notice.

[[Page 22786]]


ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Barbara Gutierrez, Attorney-
Advisor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW. (2272A), Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone No. 202-562-4292) and 
should refer to: In re: Cadlerock Properties Superfund Site, U.S. EPA 
Docket No. 01-2012-0017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the proposed settlement may 
be obtained from Barbara Gutierrez, Attorney-Advisor, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. (2272A), 
Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone No. 202-562-4292; Email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#246351504d415656415e0a46455646455645644154450a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="642311100d011616011e4a06051606051605240114054a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>).

    Dated: April 10, 2012.
James T. Owens, III,
 Director, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration.
[FR Doc. 2012-9233 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**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**









I,
      Peter
      J. Anderson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
      30,
      2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable, and that information contained
      in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of Prestige Brands Holdings,
      Inc.




**/s/
                PeterJ.
                Anderson**Name:Peter
                J. AndersonTitle:Chief
                Financial OfficerDate:November
                9, 2006
Motion to Withdraw Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

April 7, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00844-CR

TYRONE BERRY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1019634

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to sexual assault of a child. On May 2, 

2006, pursuant to the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial 

court sentenced appellant to confinement for ten years in the Institutional Division 

of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant did not file a direct appeal 

from his conviction. In this appeal, appellant is challenging the trial court’s order 

signed August 9, 2013, denying relief on appellant’s motion for post-conviction 

DNA testing pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See 
2

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01–.05 (West 2006 & Supp. 2014). Appellant 

filed a timely notice of appeal. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1978).

Counsel has complied with the Anders procedures set out in Kelly v. State, 

436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). A copy of the appellate record 

was provided to appellant, and appellant was advised of the deadline to file any pro 

se response to counsel’s brief. Appellant was granted several extensions of time to 

file a responsive brief. In addition, appellant was granted leave to file a responsive 

brief of up to 65 pages in length. Appellant has now filed a pro se response to 

counsel’s brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and the pro se 

response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we 

find no reversible error in the record. We need not address the merits of each claim 

raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are 

no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Wise.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
#### Eddie Lawrence PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 73-2516.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Resubmitted March 22, 1976.

Decided June 2, 1976.

*587Alan P. Owens, Norfolk, Va., for appellant.

J. Brian Donnelly, Asst. U. S. Atty., Virginia Beach, Va., for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER, CRAVEN, BUTZNER, RUSSELL, FIELD and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, Sitting En Banc.

PER CURIAM:

In an opinion filed June 3, 1975, the majority of the court sitting en banc vacated the prior panel decision, *United States v. Phillips,*502 F.2d 227 (4th Cir. 1974), but for variant reasons reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. Subsequently a petition for a writ of *certiorari*was granted by the Supreme Court, and on March 22, 1976, our judgment was vacated and the cause remanded for further consideration in light of *United States v. Gaddis,*424 U.S. 544, 96 S.Ct. 1023, 47 L.Ed.2d 222 (1976).

We have now reconsidered in light of *Gaddis*and affirm the judgment of conviction below.

*AFFIRMED.*

WINTER, Circuit Judge

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent.

The decision in *United States v. Gaddis,*424 U.S. 544, 96 S.Ct. 1023, 47 L.Ed.2d 222 (1976), does not deal with the doctrine of collateral estoppel which, in my view, was correctly articulated and applied by the majority panel decision. *Phillips v. United States,*502 F.2d 227 (4 Cir. 1974). The jury’s verdict in the first trial conclusively decided that defendant was not one of the bank robbers. Moreover, under *Gaddis,*424 U.S. at 550, n.15, 96 S.Ct. at 1027, and *Heflin v. United States,*358 U.S. 415, 79 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959), proof that defendant was a robber was irrelevant to the issue of defendant’s guilt on the possession charge, even if the fact sought to be proved had not already been conclusively decided adversely to the government’s evidence. Thus I would conclude that such evidence was erroneously admitted at the second trial — that on the possession charge. To me it is manifest that such proof was prejudicial. On this record I cannot say, as the majority implicitly decides, that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury was uninfluenced by the erroneously admitted evidence. I would reverse and grant a new trial.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 34,178

5 JASON PACHECO, 

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

8 Charles W. Brown, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender

13 Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender

14 Santa Fe, NM

15 for Appellant

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
2

1 {1} Defendant Jason Pacheco appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the

2 metropolitan court’s conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating

3 liquor. [DS 1; RP 1, 78] In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed

4 to affirm Defendant’s convictions and adopt the memorandum opinion of the district

5 court. [CN 1-2] Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition. We have given due

6 consideration to the memorandum in opposition, and, remaining unpersuaded, we

7 affirm Defendant’s convictions.

8 {2} Defendant raises no new arguments apart from those that he made in his

9 docketing statement [DS 11] and in the statement of the issues he filed with the district

10 court in his on-record appeal [RP 49-60]. In this Court’s notice of proposed

11 disposition, we proposed to adopt the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned

12 memorandum opinion in response to Defendant’s arguments. [CN 1-2; see also RP

13 69-75] Defendant has failed to raise any new arguments or issues to convince us to

14 reconsider our proposed adoption of the district court’s memorandum opinion. As

15 such, all of the arguments in Defendant’s memorandum in opposition have been

16 addressed by this Court in its notice of proposed disposition and/or the district court’s

17 memorandum opinion this Court proposed to adopt in our notice of proposed

18 disposition, and we refer Defendant to the responses therein. [See RP 69-75] 
3

1 {3} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed disposition and

2 herein, and for the reasons articulated in the memorandum opinion of the district

3 court, we affirm Defendant’s convictions.

4 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 

6 _______________________________________

7 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 

10 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

11 

12 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
-83 -82 -81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76

37 38 39 40 41



### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 05/26 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
NIOSH Office of Agricultural Safety 

and Health

Brad Husberg, Director

Pietra Check, Deputy Director
Office of Agriculture Safety and Health

(OASH)

• Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing (AgFF)

• Set research priorities

• Coordinate intramural and extramural 

research
Office of Agriculture Safety and Health

• Coordinate NIOSH AgFF Program

– Budget

– Strategic directions

– Evaluation

– Outcome tracking

– NORA

– Respond to requests
AgFF Program Components

Intramural

• Intramural Projects

• Division Discretionary 

Projects

• Other competitive research 

projects

 NIOSH AgFF Steering 

Committee

Extramural

• Ag Centers

• Cooperative agreements

• Grants

• Contracts

• NORA

 NORA Sector Council
Office of Agriculture Safety and Health

(OASH)

Thank You
Exhibits 4.2
​

​
7 February 2022
Barclays
European Loans Agency
1 Churchill Place
London
E14 5HP
For the attention of Aliraza Moledina, European Loans Agency
Vodafone Group Plc - USD 3,935,000,000 (as increased to USD 4,004,000,000) Credit Agreement originally dated 27 February 2015 and as amended pursuant to an amendment agreement dated 10 March 2021 (“RCF”).
Included within the RCF referenced above is an Extension Option, Section 6. Whereby, Vodafone may give notice to the Facility Agent not more than 60 days and not less than 30 days before the second anniversary that it wishes to request that the Final Maturity Date be extended for a further period of one year i.e. extend the current Maturity Date of 10 March 2026 to 10 March 2027.
Please accept this letter as confirmation that Vodafone wishes to apply for such a one-year extension in accordance with Section 6 of the RCF. In your role as Facility Agent please can you communicate this request to all Lenders and collate the Lender responses by Wednesday 16 February 2022.
If you have any questions or require clarification, please do not hesitate to contact Jamie Stead, Vodafone Group Treasury Director.
Yours faithfully,
	​


	​



	
	​

	​
	​

	Jamie Stead
	​

	​
	​

	Group Treasury Director



​

Vodafone Group Plc                                 T +44 (0) 1635 33251
1 Kingdom Street, Paddington Central     F +44 (0) 1635 238 080
London, W2 6BY, United Kingdom         vodafone.com
Registered office: Vodafone House, The Connection, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 2FN, United Kingdom, Registered in England No. 01833679