alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
800 17th Street, NW, Suite 1100 | Washington, DC 20006 | T 202.955.3000 | F 202.955.5564 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com

Gary L. Halbert 202.469.5150 gary.halbert@hklaw.com

Charles D. Tobin 202.419.2539 charles.tobin@hklaw.com

Jennifer M. Nowak 202.419.2451 j ennifer.nowak@hklaw.com

Anchorage | Atlanta | Austin | Boston | Chicago | Dallas | Denv er | Fort Lauderdale | Jacksonville | Lakeland | Los Angeles | M iami New York | Northern Virginia | Orlando | Portland | San Francisco | Tallahassee | Tam pa | Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach 

### October 14, 2015

Via www.regulations.com
U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: The E.W. Scripps Company Petition for Summary Grant of Exemption Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11 and Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

Dear Sir or Madam:
The E.W. Scripps Company (hereinafter “Scripp s”), hereby applies for an exemption from certain Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), listed below, to allow for the operation of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to conduct comme rcial flights for aerial photography and filming under the conditions outlined herein or as may be established by the FAA. 1 

### As set forth below, the operations for which this exemption is sough t would be carried out in accordance with the conditions the FAA has placed on holders of similar exemptions. As such, we request summary approval of this petition for exemption pursuant to FAA’s summary grant policy, announced on April 9, 2015. 2



### Scripps, one of the nation’s largest independent TV station owners, with 33 television stations in 24 markets and a reach of nearly one in five U.S. households, would operate the UAS to capture aerial footage from lower altitudes than possible from traditional helicopter aerial footage, supplementing coverage of a wide variety of news events. The operation of UAS will allow Scripps to provide news coverage that can not be collected by helicopter in a cost-effective and/or safe manner. Additionally, for Scripps st ations that do not currently have helicopter operations, the use of UAS will allow for local aerial coverage that previously was unavailable,

1 See Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Reform Act), P.L. 112-95 (2012); see also 14 C.F.R. Part 11.

2 See FAA Press Release, http://www.faa.gov/news/ updates/?newsId=82485

.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00222-CV

Michael Belcher and Vicky Belcher, Appellants

v.

Woodlake Property Owners Association, Section One, Inc.; William “Bill” King; and, 

Thomas “Tom” Kirwan, Appellees

FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 

NO. 285,950-B, THE HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellants filed this interlocutory appeal from the district court’s order denying 

their motion to dismiss under Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See 

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 27.001–27.011, 51.014(a)(12) (Texas Citizens Participation 

Act). This automatically stayed all proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of the 

appeal. See id. § 51.014(b).

Appellants filed a motion to lift the stay of the trial-court proceedings to allow the 

district court to make the findings prescribed in section 27.007 of the Texas Civil Practice and 

Remedies Code. See id. § 27.007(a). Appellants also request that we direct the district clerk to 

supplement the records in this appeal within ten days of the district court’s signing of the order 

making the above findings. Finally, Appellants seek an extension of time to file their brief with 

this Court to incorporate and address the district court’s findings under section 27.007(a). 
Appellees have not responded to Appellants’ motion.

We grant Appellants’ motion in part. We lift the stay of the trial-court 

proceedings for 30 days (until July 8, 2019) to allow the district court to issue an order making 

the findings required by section 27.007(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and 

directing the district clerk to prepare and forward an appropriate supplemental clerk’s record to 

this Court. The supplemental clerk’s record should be forwarded to this Court within ten days 

after the district court signs the order. 

Because Appellants have already filed their appellate brief, we dismiss as moot 

their request for an extension of time. Appellants may file a supplemental brief to incorporate 

and address the district court’s findings within fifteen days of the district court’s signing of the 

order making the findings.

It is ordered on June 7, 2019.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Kelly and Smith
#### Roger Leroy DEGARMO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 92-2725.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1993.

*143William C. Zapalac, Dan Morales, Atty. Gen., Austin, TX, for respondent-appellant.

Greg Gladden, Houston, TX, for petitioner-appellee.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The State of Texas entered into a stipulation with petitioner. The stipulation was reduced to writing and filed with the district court. In the stipulation, the state and petitioner agreed that should the federal district court grant relief the state would not appeal. The district court granted relief, and the state has appealed.

We have considered the written briefs in this case and heard oral argument. We are persuaded that the stipulation must be enforced by its terms. This appeal is dismissed and the case is remanded to the district court to allow it to enforce the grant of habeas relief.

The state will within ten days of this order by letter brief offer any reasons it may have why sanctions ought not be imposed in this appeal. Petitioner will reply ten days thereafter. We reserve decision whether any sanctions ought to be imposed and if so the form they should take.

This case aside we pause to report that we are aware of the difficulties for counsel in death cases both for the state and habe-as petitioners. Many of these difficulties are visited upon the court as well. The law is complex and there is often little time. In this environment, we are careful to read our rules in ways that will not chill vigorous advocacy. It does not follow, however, that anything goes. We will not tolerate abuse or sharp practice by counsel — for the state or the petitioner. Counsel proceeding in vigorous good faith representation need not fear sanctions. Others can expect it.

We offer no opinion regarding the wisdom of the stipulation. The failure to abide its terms, however, only worked to further delay and cannot be abided. The petitioner, his family, and the family of the victim all must be perplexed at the functioning of the legal system in this case. It is a dismal record.

Appeal DISMISSED.
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|EXHIBIT 22
PARITZ & COMPANY, P.A.CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
We
have issued our report dated March 10, 2005, accompanying the financial statements of Trimol
Group, Inc. to be contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB (the 10-KSB) for Trimol
Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, for its fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. We consent to the
use of the aforementioned report in the 10-KSB and to the use of our name as it appears therein.
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

| |                             
| | ----------------------------
| | /s/ Paritz & Company, P.A.  
| |                 
| | PARITZ & COMPANY, P.A.      
| | Certified Public Accountants
| |                             
| | April 14, 2005              

|35
|--
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1543 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1543

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
       To clarify the treatment of Nebraska impact aid payments.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF IMPACT AID PAYMENTS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Education shall treat any State 
as having met the requirements of section 5(d)(2)(A) of Public Law 81-
874 for fiscal year 1991, and as not having met those requirements for 
each of the fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994, if--
            (1) its program of State aid was not certified by the 
        Secretary under section 5(d)(2(C)(i) of Public Law 81-874 for 
        any fiscal year before fiscal year 1991;
            (2) the State submitted timely notice under that section of 
        its intention to seek that certification;
            (3) the Secretary determined that the State did not meet 
        the requirements of section 5(d)(2)(A) of Public Law 81-874 for 
        fiscal year 1991; and
            (4) it has made a payment to each local educational agency 
        in the State, other than any local educational agency that 
        received a payment for fiscal year 1991 under section 
        3(d)(2)(B) of Public Law 81-874, whose State aid it reduced for 
        that fiscal year, in the full amount of that reduction.
    (b) Repayment not Required.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, any local educational agency in such a State that received funds 
under section 3(d)(2)(B) of Public Law 81-874 for fiscal year 1991 
shall not, by virtue of subsection (a), be required to repay those 
funds to the Secretary.

            Passed the Senate January 26, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1543

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

       To clarify the treatment of Nebraska impact aid payments.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                            3292
<SECURITIES>                                     45066
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 48771
<PP&E>                                           12678
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (50)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   78234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              980
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           104
<OTHER-SE>                                       77150
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     78234
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4622
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       50
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   631
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3441
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3441
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3441
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>
----

COUNCIL DECISION

of 19 December 2006

amending Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field

(2006/965/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 90/424/EEC is amended as follows:

Article 2

Decision 90/638/EEC is repealed from the date of taking effect of the Decision laying down the criteria referred to in the fourth subparagraph of Article 24(2) of Decision 90/424/EEC and the detailed rules referred to in Article 24(10) of that Decision.

Article 3

For programmes approved before the taking effect of this Decision, the relevant provisions of Decision 90/424/EEC before it was amended by this decision shall continue to apply. Notwithstanding Article 24(1), programmes for Enzootic Bovine Leucosis and Aujeszky's disease may be funded until 31 December 2010.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 December 2006.

For the Council

The President

J. KORKEAOJA

----

(1)  Opinion delivered on 12 December 2006 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(2)  Opinion delivered on 26 October 2006 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3)OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19. Decision as last amended by Decision 2006/782/EC (OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 57).

(4)OJ L 347, 12.12.1990, p. 27. Decision as amended by Directive 92/65/EEC (OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 54).

(5)OJ L 94, 31.3.2004, p. 63. Decision as amended by Decision 2005/123/EC (OJ L 39, 11.2.2005, p. 53).

(6)OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1; corrected version in OJ L 191, 28.5.2004, p. 1.

(7)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on a European Fisheries Fund (OJ L 223, 15.8.2006, p. 1).

(8)OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 14.’

(9)OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.’.

----

ANNEX

Animal diseases and zoonoses

----
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 Date: August 14, 2008
    By:
    /s/ KI NAMKI NAMChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First National Power Corporation,a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter endingMarch 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Wanner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and 

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company. 

 

 

***/s/ Peter Wanner                           ***

Peter Wanner, Chief Financial Officer

Dated: May 9, 2006
EXHIBIT 23.1

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

 

We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 33-85896) and Forms S-8 (File No. 33-78592, File No. 333-69913, File No. 333-79445, File No. 333-37912, File No. 333-79503, File No. 333-62078 and File No.333-76488) of D&E Communications, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 11, 2005 relating to thefinancial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

 

/s/    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

 

 

Philadelphia,Pennsylvania 

March 14, 2005
Re:
    
    Registration Statement on Form S-8 of 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock,
par value $0.00001 per share, of Local.com Corporation




---



##### 



Very truly yours,/s/ Rutan & Tucker, LLP
LARRY LEGEL, CPA

Practice Concentrating in
Taxation and Securities

800 W. Cypress Creek Road, Suite 470
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309

Tel: (954) 493-8900
Fax: (954) 493-8300
e-mail: legelcpa@bellsouth.net

ACCOUNTANT'S REVIEW REPORT

Shareholders
Bernard, Allan & Edwards, Inc.
Leesburg, FL


I have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of
Bernard, Allan & Edwards, Inc. as of and for the periods ending
March 31, 2003 and 2004, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, and shareholders'equity and cash flows
for three months ending March 31, 2003 and 2004 in
accordance with standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants.  All information included in these
financial statements is the representation of the management of
Bernard, Allan & Edwards, Inc.

A review consists principally of inquiries of company personnel and
analytical procedures applied to financial data.  It is substantially
less in scope than an audit in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards, the objective of which is the expression of an
opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, I do not express such an opinion.

Based on my review, I am not aware of any material modifications
that should be made to the accompanying financial statements in
order for them to be in conformity with Accounting Principles
Generally Accepted in the United States.




Larry Legel, CPA

May 11, 2004
Ft Lauderdale, FL
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
    OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
    DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.  Form 10-Q Form 10-Q)
  Form 10-Q
  Form 10-Q
  David
    A. DeLorenzo
   President and Chief Executive Officer
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Morrish Wallace Construction, Inc. d/b/a )

Ryba Marine Construction Co. ) ) Under Contract No. W911XK-l l-C-0009 ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 58921

Jeffrey M. Gallant, Esq. Thomas M. Keranen, Esq. Bret S. Wacker, Esq.

Clark Hill, PLC Detroit, MI Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Paul D. Sax, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorney U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 10 September 2014

# (~~ Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58921, Appeal ofMorrish Wallace Construction, Inc. d/b/a Ryba Marine Construction Co., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Aimed Services Board ofContract Appeals
Post O ffice B ox 12548, A ustin, Texas 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • www.texasattor neygeneral.gov 

ELIZABETH R. B. STERLING 512.475.4152

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL elizabeth.sterling@texasattorneygeneral.gov

November 20, 2015

Jeffrey D. Kyle

Clerk, Third Court of Appeals

Price Daniel Sr. Building 

209 West 14th Street, Room 101 

Austin, Texas 78701 

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 03-15-00386-CV

Trial Court Case Number: D-1-GN-09-002116

Style: Harris County Hospital District

v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

Dear Mr. Kyle:

In response to your letter dated November 4, 2015, Kellie Billings-Ray will be

presenting oral argument on behalf of the Public Utility Commission of

Texas in the above-styled cause on December 16, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. 

Sincerely yours,

 /s/Elizabeth R. B. Sterling 

Elizabeth R. B. Sterling

Assistant Attorney General

State Bar No. 19171100

Environmental Protection Division

512.463.2012

512.457.4616 (fax)

elizabeth.sterling@texasattorneygeneral.gov

ACCEPTED

03-15-00386-CV

7919025

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

11/20/2015 9:29:21 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/20/2015 9:29:21 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
Mr. Jeffry Kyle

November 20, 2015

Page 2

Post O ffic e B o x 1 2 5 4 8 , Au stin , Te x a s 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • www.t e x a s a tto r n e y g en e r a l.g o v 

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this the 20th day of November 2015, a true and

correct copy of this letter was served on the following counsel electronically,

through an electronic filing service and by email.

HARRIS COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Bruce S. Powers

Texas Bar. No. 

1019 Congress, 15 Fl. th

Houston, Texas 77002

713.274.5144 

713.755.8924 (fax)

e-mail: bruce.powers@cao.hetx.net

ATTORNEYS FOR HARRIS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT

 /s/ Elizabeth R. B. Sterling 

Elizabeth R. B. Sterling