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

1 Member airlines are: Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Atlas Air, Delta Air Lines, Federal Express, 

Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, United Parcel Service, Co. 

Associate member is: Air Canada 

October 3, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System

400 7th Street SW, Plaza 401 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Exemption No. 5400K, (Docket No. FAA-2001-10676) 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, 14 CFR §11.81, Airlines for America1

(A4A) on behalf of its member airlines and other similarly situated Part 121 certificate holders, 

petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 5400K (Docket No. FAA-2001-10676). The current 

exemption (5400K) will expire on January 31, 2016. 

Exemption No. 5400K permits A4A member airlines and other similarly situated Part 121 air 

carriers to use a Phase II (Level C) simulator for pilot-in-command (PIC) training and checking 

in accordance with the requirements of Part 121, Appendix H, amended, provided certain 

conditions and limitations are met. Also, under the terms of the exemption, upgrade training and 

the certification check required by 14 CFR §61.157 can be accomplished in a Phase II 

simulator. 

The conditions and circumstances, in regard to public interest and equivalent levels of safety, 

which warranted the original grant of this exemption, continue to exist. This exemption and its 

predecessors, Exemption No. 5400, have been in use for almost 20 years with no known 

compromise of safety. 

The renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. A4A believes that there is just cause 

to waive the requirement of public notice of this petition. There is no substantial change to the 

exemption and the renewal of this exemption is not precedent setting, therefore, A4A requests 

that publication in the Federal Register be waived as unnecessary.
A summary of this petition is included (Attachment 1) as required by 14 CFR §11.81. If any 

further information is required, please call me at 202-626-4285 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

Jeffrey A. Miller

Managing Director – Flight Operations 

Airlines for America 

1301 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20004 

Attachment 1: Summary of Petition
Attachment 1:

October 3, 2015

Docket No. FAA-2001-10676 

Summary of A4A Petition 

Petitioner: Airlines for America (A4A) 

Regulation Affected: 14 CFR §61.157

Description of Relief Sought: Renew Exemption 5400K with no other changes to the existing 

terms except to extend its termination date. This allows Part 121 operators to use a Phase II 

(Level C) simulator for pilot in command (PIC) training and checking in accordance with the 

requirements of Part 121, appendix H, provided certain conditions and limitations are met.
CALIFORNIA OLIVE COMMITTEE

Marketing Order No. 932 

Term Ends May 31 

MANAGER:

Todd Sanders

Phone: (559) 575-4884 

TSanders@calapple.org 

CHAIRPERSON:

Michael Silveira

Phone: (530) 865-8246 

msilveir@wilbur-ellis.com

PRODUCERS

District Members Alternates Term Ending

District 1 Andy Weinrich

Willows, CA

Carolina Burreson

Orland, CA

2025

District 1 Michael Silveira

Orland, CA

Michael Stokes

Orland, CA

2025

District 1 Edward Garcia

Stockton, CA

Kevin Neeley

Lincoln, CA

2025

District 2 Vito DeLeonardis

Visalia, CA

Mark Heuer

Strathmore, CA

2025

District 2 Pat Ricchiuti

Clovis, CA

Joan Whelan-Vanderhorst

Fresno, CA

2025

District 2 Giulio Zavolta

Sherman Oaks, CA

Jorge Inestroza

Porterville, CA

2025

District 2 John “Rick” Benson

Oakland, CA

Mark Hendrixson

Orange Cove, CA

2025

District 2 Galen Ray Pfeiffer

Exeter, CA

Milo Gorden

Exeter, CA

2025

HANDLERS

Members Alternates Term Ending

Felix Musco

Tracy, CA

Billy McFarland

Tracy, CA

2025

Dennis Burreson

Tracy, CA

Janet Mitchell Edwards

Tracy, CA 

2025

John Pieretti

Tracy, CA

Tracy Wood

Tracy, CA

2025

Thomas Masanes Autard

Tracy, CA 

Scott Hamilton

Truckee, CA

2025

Scott McCoy

Walnut Creek, CA 

Stefan Matthews

Walnut Creek, CA 

2025

America Garman

Walnut Creek, CA

Paul Adcock

Walnut Creek, CA 

2025

Phil Quigley

Walnut Creek, CA 

Damian Gaytan

Walnut Creek, CA 

2025

Julia Tinsley 

Walnut Creek, CA 

Joyner Yu

Walnut Creek, CA 

2025
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20128

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID LEE EDDS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CR-191-1

- - - - - - - - - -

October 22, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Lee Edds appeals his guilty-plea conviction for

possession a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Edds

argues that the federal government cannot, consistent with the

Interstate Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and in the wake

of United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), punish a

felon’s mere possession of a firearm that has traveled in

interstate commerce at some unspecified time in the past because

such possession lacks a sufficient nexus with interstate
No. 97-20128

-2-

commerce. Section 922(g)(1) has been consistently upheld as 

constitutional. See Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563

(1977); United States v. Kuban, 94 F.3d 971, 973 (5th Cir. 1996),

cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 716 (1997); United States v. Rawls, 85

F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
12/31/96 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      10,188,000
<SECURITIES>                                13,303,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,021,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      61,587,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              25,099,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              94,926,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     22,238,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,214,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                94,926,000
<SALES>                                      9,766,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,143,000
<CGS>                                        8,207,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,207,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,176,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,898,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,862,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,532,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,273,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,273,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.60
        

</TABLE>
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1394 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 15 ) ll-B-1 0 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/3/2008 7:22:10AM

Sheet 15 of 57P. 2

A-94-5 2 II-B-1 0 Docke t No . A-94-5 2 Categor y II- B Th e following information i s locate d in th e confidentia l file s ofth e Director , Emissio n Standard s Division , Offic

e o f Ai r Qualit y Planning an

d Standards , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Research Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a27711 . Thi s information i s confidentia

l pendin g fina

l determinatio n b

y the Administrato

r an d i s not availabl e fo

r publi c inspection . CN-N404- 9 96185-C18-0 5 K . Meardon , PES , to Project File . Sit e visi t repor t fo r 7/11/9 6 visi t

t o Sequentia , Inc . i

n Gran d Junction , TN . 10/1/96 . 1 0 pp .
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.26

                             CANCELLATION AGREEMENT

                        CONDITIONAL RIGHT TO OPTION GRANT

In light of the termination of Michael Golden, I hereby agree to cancel on the
date hereof the conditional right pursuant to my Employment Agreement dated
January 5, 2001 to have granted to me on July 5, 2001 an option to acquire
500,000 common shares of vFinance.com, Inc. Such right was subject to certain
conditions which have not been met as of the date hereof.

Dated: April 2, 2001

                                       /s/ Leonard J. Sokolow
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Leonard J. Sokolow
As small farmers, 60acres, we are excited about the opportunity to expand our crops and get away from the corn/beans competition.  Keep up the good work!

Don Workman

Delta, Iowa.
<PAGE>53


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21



                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



                                  STATE OF
                                INCORPORATION      RELATIONSHIP
                                -------------      ------------

BNA Holdings Inc.                 Delaware         100% owned by Registrant

BNA International Inc.            Delaware         100% owned by Registrant

BNA Washington Inc.               Delaware         100% owned by Registrant

Institute of Management
  and Administration, Inc.        New York         100% owned by Registrant

Kennedy Information, Inc.         Delaware         100% owned by Registrant

The McArdle Printing Co., Inc.    Delaware         100% owned by Registrant

Pike & Fischer, Inc.              Delaware         100% owned by Registrant

STF Services Corporation          New York         100% owned by Registrant

Tax Management Inc.               Delaware         100% owned by Registrant
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, Randall K. Gausman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Tut Systems Inc., on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Tut Systems, Inc.



Date: June 10, 2004



By:

/s/ Randall K. GausmanRandall K. Gausman,Vice-President, Finance and Administration, Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Financial Officer)
#### John M. Stefanie et al., Respondents, v Charlotte A. Harvey, Appellant.

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding his contention that he suffered a "serious injury” *981within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). One of plaintiffs physicians opined that plaintiff suffered a "soft tissue injury in the form of stretching of the muscles and ligaments” constituting a "mild weakness” of the musculature which should be a "minimal problem and should not handicap the patient in the vast majority of his daily activities”. Another physician who treated plaintiff indicated that plaintiff exhibited "considerable spasm of the right trapezius muscle” but that the motor strength of the shoulder was "entirely within normal limits” and plaintiff had "full range of motion”. Plaintiff lost only two days of work. The evidentiary materials submitted by plaintiff fail to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff suffered a significant limitation of use of a body function or system or a permanent consequential limitation of use *(see, Scheer v Koubek,*70 NY2d 678; *Egan v Greene,*154 AD2d 574; *Palmer v Amaker,*141 AD2d 622; *Kordana v Pomellito,*121 AD2d 783, *appeal dismissed*68 NY2d 848). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Regulatory Evaluation Form
?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Unscannable Items List
?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Final rule; request for comments
?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Final rule; request for comments grid
www.commodityfoods.org
WHO ARE WE?

Agriculture. Industry. Government. Community.
WHAT WE DO.

Working together to nourish the nation
Mission Statement

▪ Strengthening the impact of domestic USDA Food 

programs.
AGRICULTURE
Agriculture

▪ Working together to nourish the 

nation from our farms to 

market. 

▪ Promote positive images. 

▪ Provide helpful resources and 

clarity on a range of topics.
INDUSTRY
Industry 

▪ ACDA is dedicated to the growth 

and vitality of the USDA Food 

Distribution Programs. 

▪ ACDA Industry Members gain 

access to program leaders and 

members, networking and 

educational opportunities, 

legislative and advocacy support, 

and daily informational updates.
GOVERNMENT
Government

▪ ACDA is the collective voice for 

policy decisions impacting food 

distribution programs. 

▪ We work to address issues that 

impact USDA Food Distribution 

programs.

▪ Federal, State, and Local 

Government collaboration.
COMMUNITY
Community

▪ ACDA provides resources for 

communities nationwide. 

▪ Our mission is to educate and 

empower our communities by 

providing resources for all 

community agencies.
ACDA PROCESSING COMMITTEE

▪ Industry Sub Committees

▪ State Regional Representatives

▪ Associate Representatives

▪ USDA
PAST SEPDS PROCEDURES

▪ Required For Every Processed Product

▪ Required Signatures and Approvals

▪ Different For Every State

▪ USDA Blackout Period

NEW SEPDS PROCEDURES

▪ No State Signatures Or Approvals

▪ USDA Approves And Posts On 

Website

▪ No Blackout Period
WHY ARE THESE CHANGES IMPORTANT?

Savings!

▪ Twenty Labor Hours 

▪ Two Hundred E-mails
WHY JOIN US?

We need your voice.
TRANSPORTATION DOCUMENTS

▪ Advanced Shipment Notices

▪ Bills Of Lading

▪ Sales Orders vs Purchase Orders
ACDA CONFERENCE

ANNUAL

ACDA Annual Conference

Why attend?

▪ Pre-conference sessions

▪ 42 Breakout sessions

▪ 4 General sessions

▪ 2 Receptions

▪ Membership meetings

▪ Networking

▪ FUN!
GET CONNECTED.

www.commodityfoods.org

Here you can also sign up for our public policy/advocacy e-mail subscription service!
Exhibit 10.11
 
        1




---



##### 



SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.By:
    /s/ Daniel A. CacchioneName:
    Daniel A. CacchioneTitle:
    SVP, Chief Underwriting Officer SUA INSURANCE COMPANYBy:
    /s/ Daniel A. CacchioneName:
    Daniel A. CacchioneTitle:
    SVP, Chief Underwriting Officer AEON INSURANCE GROUP, INC.By:
    /s/ Gerald B. BusheyName:
    Gerald B. BusheyTitle:
    CEO/CUO 2
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Dr. Steven Greenfield, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 711 C.D. 2019

:

Hanover Area School District, :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, June 26, 2020, having considered Respondent’s application for 

reargument, and Petitioner’s answer in response thereto, the application is denied.
OXWICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GEBERAL 

AUSTIN. TEXAS 

Bononble Uel?f.a Ca~ba 

couut~ AttQrm 

J*Zforeoa 0 -A 

Reamant, Tma8 
1 

: 

. . 
. . ._ . :.:.*.. 

. 

. ,. .: >.. :: _- 

. 

. . .. :.. 

‘_ 

,. 

-. 

) i.‘,... ., :’ 

, 

” I- 

_.. 

. 

. . .: :.:. 

. . 

’ 
6.. ‘. 

d i : ,-:: .,; : 

ha 81s~ Rx aorta hrxy, % Tex. Cr..& 3 255 

E. 3'. 7fo; lk parte C8xxQ.a. 92 Tex. Cr. R. 309, 2& S. 3. 

6% . . . 

be held crolli;tittrhional.(and ta vlsw of the Piutborlti.. above 
Eta&&~ 

‘. : 

c 

; 

, 

.
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.                  

###### Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

# TIME AND DATE:

2 p.m., Wednesday, May 2, 2012.

# PLACE:

1325 G Street NW., Suite 800, Boardroom, Washington, DC 20005.

# STATUS:

Open.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

                        Erica Hall, Assistant Corporate Secretary, (202) 220-2376;                         *ehall@nw.org.*

# AGENDA:

I. Call to Order

II. Executive Session

III. Financial Report

IV. Grant Approvals

V. Lease Update

VI. FY '12 Milestone Report/Dashboard

VII. NFMC & EHLP

VIII. Program Updates

IX. Adjournment

Erica Hall,

Assistant Corporate Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-9961 Filed 4-20-12; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7570-02-P
#### R.W. Kern, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Circle Industries Corp., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered January 15, 1991, which denied the motion by plaintiffs for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs sought to recover damages premised upon breach of contract and breach of warranty against defendant Circle, a flooring installation company, in connection with the installation by defendant Circle of defective parquet wood floor tiles, manufactured by Sykes Flooring Company, in a residential apartment building owned by plaintiffs.

Upon examination of the record, we find, as did the IAS court, that the plaintiffs’ present motion for summary judgment is precluded by the prior reversal and remand of the underlying action for a new trial by this Court in *R. W. Kern, Inc. v Circle Indus. Corp.*(158 AD2d 363). On the prior appeal, we specifically found that plaintiffs’ reliance on defendant’s recommendation of Sykes tiles, and defendant’s knowledge that Sykes tiles were unfit, are both questions that should have been submitted to the jury. Plaintiffs have presented no substantive evidence entitling them to a judgment, as a matter of law, that defendant Circle breached its duty of fair dealing, nor presented a viable reason for this Court to depart from its prior ruling, where the record is replete with factual disputes as to whether defendant Circle breached its duty of fair dealing merely because it did not disclose to the plaintiffs all the facts defendant Circle knew concerning the develop*516ment and manufacture of the Sykes tiles, and as to when, if ever, during the installation thereof, . defendant Circle breached its duty of fair dealing *(Pernet v Peabody Eng’g Corp.,*20 AD2d 781, 782).

Finally, contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertions, we have not limited the reversal and remand of the underlying action solely to the issue of liability, but rather have similarly remanded for a determination on damages *(R.W. Kern, Inc. v Circle Indus. Corp., supra,*at 363).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00021]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR13-18-000]


Kansas Gas Service, a Division of ONEOK, Inc.; Notice of Petition 
for Rate Approval

    Take notice that on December 14, 2012, Kansas Gas Service, a 
division of ONEOK, Inc. (KGS) filed pursuant to 284.123 of the 
Commissions regulations to revise the rates, terms and conditions of 
its interstate interruptible transportation service to conform to the 
recently revised rates and terms of service approved by the Kansas 
Corporation Commission for intrastate wholesale transportation service, 
as more fully detailed in the petition.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered 
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, 
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or 
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests 
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing 
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the 
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a0e6e5f2e3efceccc9cec5f3d5d0d0cfd2d4e0c6c5d2c38ec7cfd6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f1b7b4a3b2be9f9d989f94a28481819e8385b197948392df969e87">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 4, 2013.

    Dated: December 26, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00021 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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