alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AAM-12-330-E 

May 1, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10524 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0447 

Mr. Alan Robertson 

AH Aero Services, LLC 

1980 Airport Road, Hangar E 

Heber City, UT 84032 

Dear Mr. Robertson: 

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 April 14, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of AH Aero Services, LLC (AH Aero Services), for an exemption from part 120 of 

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

Aero Services, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safetysensitive employees under one drug and alcohol 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 AH Aero Services. 

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

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

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

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

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

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. 
2 

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

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

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 AH Aero Services, LLC an exemption from 14 CFR 

part 120 to the extent necessary to allow AH Aero Services, 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 AH Aero Services 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 

AH Aero Services part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
**Annex 21. Item 8.5. – Article 11.5.1. and 11.5.2. of Chapter 11.5. Infection with *Perkinsus marinus***

CHAPTER 11.5.

INFECTION WITH *PERKINSUS MARINUS*

Article 11.5.1.

For the purposes of the *Aquatic Code*, infection with *Perkinsus marinus*means *infection* with the *pathogenic agent**P. marinus*of the Family Perkinsidae.

Information on methods for *diagnosis* is provided in the *Aquatic Manual*.

Article 11.5.2.

Scope

The recommendations in this chapter apply to: ~~Eastern oyster~~American cupped oyster*(Crassostrea virginica)*, ~~Pacific oyster *(Crassostrea gigas)*, Suminoe oyster *(Crassostrea ariakensis)*, soft shell clam *(Mya arenaria)*, Baltic clam *(Macoma balthica)*~~**Ariake cupped oyster (*Magallana* [Syn. *Crassostrea*] *ariakensis*), Cortez oyster (*Crassostrea corteziensis*) and palmate oyster (*Saccostrea palmula*).~~hard shell clam *(Mercenaria mercenaria)*~~. ~~These recommendations also apply to any other *susceptible species* referred to in the *Aquatic Manual* when traded internationally.~~

[...]

____________
#### Edward A. FITZGERALD, Jr., and J. L. Witt, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20191.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 6, 1963.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 27, 1963.

John J. Sullivan, Savannah, Ga., for appellants.

Donald H. Fraser, U. S. Atty., Savannah, Ga., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the contentions made by appellants. We find that the district court committed no error in ending the cross examination of Government witness J. C. Phillips. The witness had been permitted to answer several questions, all producing negative response. The court need not permit repetitive questions touching on the same matter.

As to the contention that the trial judge expressed an opinion as to the guilt of the accused in comments made by him, we think this a rather tenuous argument, and in view of the fact that counsel failed to move for a mistrial or for the court otherwise to instruct the jury with respect to the matter, we conclude there was no reversible error. Likewise we conclude that there was no failure of proof with respect to the possession of the condensor, as charged in the indictment. Although the indictment charged the possession of a Gatling gun type copper condensor, and counsel tells us that the condensor presented to the jury was not made of copper, we find no evidence in the record touching on this point. Finally, there is no substance in the contention that language of the trial court coerced the jury into a verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.
# C_2019423EN.01004801.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Kalypso Media Group v EUIPO — Wizards of the Coast (DUNGEONS)

(Case T-700/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark DUNGEONS - Earlier EU word mark DUNGEONS & DRAGONS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 423/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kalypso Media Group GmbH (Worms, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaité-Orlovskiené, A. Folliard-Monguiral and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Wizards of the Coast LLC (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2018 (Case R 599/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Wizards of the Coast and Kalypso Media Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JAMES ANDREW DOLL

PETITION OF: STEVE RICE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 285 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of November, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
19543

#### Gregory v. McDaniels

Affirmed
#### Hoffa *versus*Morter. Hoffa’s Appeal.

June 8th 1876.

Before Agnew, C. J., Sharswood, Mercur, Gordon, Paxson and Woodward, JJ. Williams, J., absent.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of *Sullivan county:*Of January Term 1876, No. 127. Certified from Eastern District.

Appeal of Jacob Hoffa from a judgment making absolute a rule taken by the above defendant to show cause why the acknowledgment of a sheriff’s deed should not be stricken off or the sale set aside. The facts appear in Jackson, to use, *v.*Morter, *supra.*

Mr. Justice Mercur

delivered the opinion of the court, October 9th 1876.

As an appeal does not lie from the judgment of the court setting aside a sheriff’s sale, the appeal is dismissed.
#### Doe, In re: Jane (DOB 3/17/89).

17797

12/6/96

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 23.1






June 9, 1998

General Nutrition Companies, Inc.
300 Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Dear Sirs:

We   have  made  a  review,  in  accordance  with  standards
established  by  the American Institute of Certified  Public
Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial  information
of  General  Nutrition Companies, Inc. and subsidiaries  for
the twelve weeks ended April 25, 1998 and April 26, 1997, as
indicated in our report dated May 11, 1998; because  we  did
not  perform  an  audit, we expressed  no  opinion  on  that
information.

We  are  aware that our report referred to above, which  was
included  in  your  Quarterly Report on Form  10-Q  for  the
quarter  ended April 25, 1998, is incorporated by  reference
in Registration Statement Nos. 33-58096, 33-68590, 33-93370,
333-00128, and 333-21397 on Form S-8.

We  also  are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant
to  Rule  436(c) under the Securities Act of  1933,  is  not
considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared  or
certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified
by  an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of
that Act.

Yours truly,



Deloitte & Touche LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Fw: Summary of Interagency Comments under EOs 12866 and 13563 -- SSM Petition 

NPRM 2060-AR68

Paul Shriner to: Geoffrey Wilcox, Phil Lorang 01/31/2013 07:59 AM

Cc: Paul Balserak, Lesley Schaaff

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

----- Forwarded by Paul Shriner/DC/USEPA/US on 01/31/2013 07:59 AM -----

From: "Frey, Nathan J." <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>

To: Paul Shriner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Nicole Owens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/30/2013 05:47 PM

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EOs 12866 and 13563 -- SSM Petition NPRM 

2060-AR68

Attached for your review and comment please find a summary of interagency comments under EOs

12866 and 13563 regarding the proposed rule entitled, State Implementation Plans: Response to

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying

to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; RIN # 2060‐AR68.

Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions

Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_13563_SSM_Petition_2060-AR68_Proposedrule.docx
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 10.9

                        ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERSHIP INTEREST

BY THIS ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERSHIP INTEREST ("Assignment") made and entered into
as of the 29th day of December 2000, AMORTIBANC INVESTMENTS L.C., a Kansas
Limited Liability Company.,("Assignor"), and 1st Realty Investments, Inc., a
Nevada For Profit Corporation, ("Assignee"), agree as follows:

         1. Assignment. For the amount of $10.00 evidenced by a note for that
amount from Assignee in favor of Assignor, together with other necessary and
agreed upon consideration as set forth below, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, Assignor hereby irrevocably sells, transfers and
assigns to Assignee all of its membership interest and participation percentage
in Prom Partners L.P. Assignee hereby accepts the assignment and transfer of the
Assignors' membership interest in Prom Partners L.P., and agrees to assume any
and all obligations and responsibilities associated with such interest from and
after the date of this Assignment and hold Assignors harmless from any and all
liabilities relating thereto.

         2. Further Acts: Additional Documents. Assignors and Assignee shall
perform all such further acts and execute and deliver any and all additional
documents and instruments that may be necessary or desirable to consummate,
evidence or confirm the assignment of the interest described herein.

         3. Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Assignment has been executed as of the day and
year first above written.

                                        "ASSIGNORS"

                                        AMORTIBANC INVESTMENTS, L.C. a Kansas
                                        limited liability company


                                        s/    Edward W. Dietrich
                                              ------------------
                                        Name  Edward W. Dietrich
                                              ------------------
                                        Title Vice President
                                              --------------

                                        "ASSIGNEE"

                                        1st Realty Investments, Inc. a Nevada
                                        For Profit Corporation

                                        /s/   William Szilagyi
                                              ----------------
                                        Name  William Szilagyi
                                              ----------------
                                        Title President
                                              ---------
16877

#### Magoon Bros. v. Innoma America

Affirmed
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 of
Belden & Blake Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; 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.
 Date: August 14, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ James M. VanderhiderJames M. Vanderhider, President and Chief
Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 24, 2009 

d0217 

Order 

 

February 24, 2009 

137618 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137618 

 COA: 287081 

Hillsdale CC: 07-311535 

WILLIAM ROBERT NINER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 25, 2008 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MAGAININ
PHARMACEUTICALS INC'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,997
<SECURITIES>                                    15,912
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,206
<PP&E>                                           6,201
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,680
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,164
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,544
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,798
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,321
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  53
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,149)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,149)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

December 21, 2012

*

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 12-1367

ANTONIO I. BRYANT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GENERAL PACKAGING PRODUCTS, a

Delaware corporation, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 1:06-cv-00114

Elaine E. Bucklo,

Judge.

O R D E R

Onconsiderationofthepetitionforrehearingandrehearingenbanc,filedonDecember

5, 2012, no judge in active service has requested a vote, and all of the judges on the original

panel have voted to DENY the petition forrehearing. Accordingly, the petition forrehearing

is DENIED.

The final two sentences of the order issued by the Court in this case on November 20,

2012, are hereby amended to read as follows, with deletions struck through and additions in

bold:

Judge Joel M. Flaum did not participate in the consideration of the petition for *

rehearing.
Moreover, even if Brown Bryant had articulated an argument under Rule 60(b), a

postjudgment motion under even the “catchall” provision of that rule cannot be

granted unless it is filed within a reasonable time after the judgment. FED. R. CIV. P.

60(c)(1); Arrieta v. Battaglia, 461 F.3d 861, 865 (7th Cir. 2006); Ingram v. Merrill Lynch,

Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 371 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2004). Brown Bryant has not

even attempted to explain how his motion was filed in a reasonable time when it came

more than four years after the judgment and his previous motion attacking the

settlement on a different ground.

An amended order shall be issued accordingly.
February 17, 1998

20844

#### Alvarado v. Hygrade Electric Co.

Affirmed
CHAPTER 11.2.**INFECTION WITH *BONAMIA EXITIOSA***

[...]

Article 11.2.1.

For the purposes of the *Aquatic Code*, infection with *Bonamia exitiosa* means *infection* with the *pathogenic agent*~~B.~~*Bonamia exitiosa*of the Family Haplosporidiidae.

Information on methods for *diagnosis* is provided in the *Aquatic Manual*.

Article 11.2.2.

**Scope**

The recommendations in this chapter apply to the following species that meet the criteria for listing as susceptible in accordance with Chapter 1.5.: Argentinean flat oyster (*Ostrea puelchana*), Australian mud oyster *(Ostrea angasi),*~~and~~ Chilean flat oyster *(Ostrea chilensis),*crested oyster (*Ostrea equestris*)*,~~~~*~~dwarf oyster*(Ostrea stentina),*~~**eastern oyster*(Crassostrea virginica),*European flat oyster*(Ostrea edulis),*Olympia oyster*(Ostrea lurida)*and Suminoe oyster*(Crassostrea ariakensis**).*~~These recommendations also apply to any other~~*~~susceptible species~~*~~referred to in the~~*~~Aquatic Manual~~*~~when traded internationally.~~

[...]

___________________________