alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Kruger, Brett (OST) 

Subject: RE: Kingfisher application for exemption ^P'^TA^in'r 

,' ^'/rnAflGNS 

From: Magali, Nicholas rmailto:Nicholas.Maqali@clvdeco.usl .... 

Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9:27 AM '' ' "-^ ':• 32 

To: Kruger, Brett (OST) 

Cc: Carlsen, Christopher 

Subject: RE: Kingfisher application for exemption 

Mr. Kruger, 

I have obtained clarification regarding the ownership of Watson Limited as set forth below. Thank you for you patience 

with respect to this remaining issue. 

We have confirmed that Watson Limited is owned 100 percent by Continental Administration Services, which is in 

incorporated in Nevis Islands. Continental Administration Services Limited is in turn owned 100 percent by Continental 

Administration Services BVI Limited, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Continental Administration 

Services BVI Limited is in turn owned by Mr. Jay Vallabh and Ms. Susanne Vallabh, who each 50 percent of the 

company. Jay Vallabh and Susanne Vallabh are Swiss citizens. 

1 trust this email is sufficient but if any supplemental filing on the docket is necessary, please let me know. 

Sincerely, 

Nick Magali
AFS-12-344-E June 1, 2012

Exemption No. 10159A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9352

Ms. Patricia Deimer-Steineke Manager, International Aerobatic Club (IAC) Experimental Aircraft Association

P.O. Box 3086 Oshkosh, WI 54903

Dear Ms. Deimer-Steineke:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 10159. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 30, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of International Aerobatic Club (IAC) for an extension of Exemption No. 10159. That exemption from §§ 91.151(a)(1) and 91.9(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows IAC members to carry less than the visual flight rules (VFR) fuel requirements under certain conditions and be exempted from carrying the aircraft flight manual during aerobatic competition and aerobatic practice flights.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to IAC.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10159 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. This exem ption is applicable for flights conducted under daylight hours in VFR conditions only.

2. The exemption holder and IAC members shall comply with the requirements of an approved pilot operating handbook and/or aircraft flight manual concerning minimum fuel quantity during aerobatic flight.

3. This exemption applies only to members of the IAC when participating in IACsanctioned aerobatic competitions and practice sessions for that event, at the event site, and in the same location and conditions as the competition.

4. All flights must takeoff and land from the sa me airport with the appropriate aircraft flight manual readily available at that airport before takeoff and after landing.

5. Each IAC member participating in an IAC-sanctioned aerobatic competition must be given a formal briefing by the event sponsor on the provisions of this exemption.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 10159 to June 30, 2014 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption

No. 10159.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
Exhibit 10.3


 


March 20, 2017


 


NioCorp Developments Ltd.


7000 South Yosemite Street, Suite115

Centennial, CO 80112


 


Attention: John F. Ashburn Jr., Vice President
& General Counsel


 


Dear Sirs/Mesdames:


 


		Re:	Amending Agreement -

Credit Facility Agreement between NioCorp Developments Ltd. and Mark Smith



 


Pursuant to a credit facility agreement
between NioCorp Developments Ltd. (the "Borrower") and Mark Smith (the "Lender") dated January 16th,
2017 (the "Credit Facility Agreement"), the Lender advanced a loan to the Borrower on the terms and conditions set out
therein.


 


The Borrower and the Lender wish to amend
the Credit Facility Agreement in the manner set forth herein.


 


INTERPRETATION


 


All words and expressions defined in the
Credit Facility Agreement have the same meaning when used herein. Reference to the Credit Facility Agreement includes amendments
thereto from time to time, including the amendments made by this amending agreement. All references herein to sections of or schedules
to an agreement other than this amending agreement are to sections of and schedules to the Credit Facility Agreement, unless otherwise
expressly stated. Clause headings are for reference only.


 


EFFECTIVE DATE


 


The provisions of the Credit Facility Agreement
are amended as set out in this amending agreement effective as of March 20th, 2017.


 


AMENDMENTS


 


		1.	Section 1.1(K) of the Credit Facility Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with
the following new Section 1.1(k):



 


“Term” means
a period commencing on the Effective Date and expiring June 16, 2018.


 




     


     


    

 


MISCELLANEOUS


 


With the exception of the foregoing amendments,
the Credit Facility Agreement shall continue in full force and effect unamended.


 


This amending agreement may be executed
by the parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered (including by facsimile transmission
or as a pdf attachment to an e-mail) shall constitute an original, but all such counterparts when taken together shall constitute
one and the same instrument.


 


Please indicate your acceptance of this
amending agreement by signing and returning the enclosed duplicate copy of this letter.


 


	Yours truly,	 
	 	 
	MARK A. SMITH	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Accepted as of the 20th day of March, 2017.	 
	 	 
	NIOCORP dEVELOPMENTS lTD.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	 	 
	 	Name: John F. Ashburn Jr.	 
	 	Title: Vice President & General Counsel	 


 




    	 	– 2 –
Ryder Scott Company
Petroleum Consultants

1100 Louisiana                                         Fax (713) 651-0849
Suite 3800  Houston, TX  77002-5218              Telephone (713) 651-9191






                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM CONSULTING FIRM




      We consent to the  reference to our name included in this Annual Report on
Form  10-K  for  the  year  ended December 31, 2000 for Dyco Oil and Gas Program
1984-1 Limited Partnership.



                                    //s// Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

                                    RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.






Houston, Texas
January 31, 2001
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK Research Enhancement Center.                    

*Date:*                         March 12, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, NIDDK Democracy II, Suite 7000A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Elena Sanovich, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7351, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, 301-594-8886,                         *sanoviche@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 8, 2024. 

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-02988 Filed 2-13-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 0461 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NM

- 159

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 38 .0 $ 3,230.0

0 $ 

### 0 $ 3,230.00 

### 71 $ 229,330.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compl iance: 

### 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 229,330



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

On

- Condition Costs :

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Corrective Action 98

. 

### 0 $ 8,330.00 $6,258 $ 14,588.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0 .00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Wi ll the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include spec ific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of AmericanWest Bancorporation



|                                 |  |                        |  |                                             
|-------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary               |  | State of Incorporation |  | Other Names Under WhichBusiness is Conducted
|AmericanWest Bank                |  | Washington             |  | Far West Bank                               
|AmericanWest Statutory Trust I   |  | Connecticut            |  |                                             
|Columbia Trust Statutory Trust I |  | Connecticut            |  |                                             
|AmericanWest Capital Trust II    |  | Delaware               |  |                                             
|AmericanWest Capital Trust III   |  | Delaware               |  |                                             

AmericanWest Bancorporation owns 100% of the voting stock of AmericanWest Bank, and owns 100% of the Common
Securities and related voting rights associated with the trusts listed above.
<PAGE>
                                       
                               INDEX TO EXHIBITS
                                  FORM 10-K/A
                               (AMENDMENT NO.1)
                              Fiscal Year Ended
                               January 31, 1998

EXHIBIT NUMBER 23(b).


Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 


                                      -28-
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 23(b)


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation of our report dated January 14, 1999 relating 
to the financial statements of the Elgin Riverboat Resort-Riverboat Casino as 
of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for each of the three years in the period 
ended December 31, 1998 included (or incorporated by reference) into the 
filing on Form 10-K/A on or about March 29, 1999, of Circus Circus 
Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended January 31, 1998, into 
the Company's previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statements File Nos. 
2-91950, 2-93578, 33-18278, 33-29014, 33-39215, 33-56420, 33-53303 and 
333-51073 and into the Company's previously filed Form S-3 Registration 
Statement File No. 333-60975.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


March 29, 1999


                                      -29-
#### Thomas ROBERTS, Appellant, v. Juanita ROBERTS, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 5, 1957.

Sam M. Ward, Hazard, for appellant.

W. Major Gardner, Gardner & Gardner, West Liberty, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY, Judge.

Thomas Roberts appeals from part of a judgment which .awarded to Juanita Roberts the custody of two of their children and $60 per month for their support and allowed her attorneys $150 for their fee. Ap-pellee’s attorneys are not parties to this appeal. Therefore, the question of their allowance cannot be considered. Best v. Best, Ky., 264 S.W.2d 281; Conlan v. Conlan, Ky., 293 S.W.2d 710.

Appellee charged as the grounds for her divorce that appellant had abandoned her and had a confirmed habit of drunkenness. Appellant asserted no ground for divorce in his answer, but alleged appellee was not a proper person to have custody of their two small girls, ages 13 and 11 years. Two boys, both older than the girls, were also born to the marriage. They live with appellant.

Numerous objections are made by appellant to the custody award. Presumably, all of them were considered by the Chancellor. None of them is sufficient to show that appellee is not a fit, suitable, or proper person to have the custody of the two little girls. Appellant expresses fear that the girls will not receive the full benefit of the award in their favor and that its use *758may be diverted by appellee and her parents, with whom she and the girls live. This is anticipatory and does not constitute a question for our consideration now. The record indicates that appellant’s real objection is that he is compelled to pay $60 per month for the support of his two children.

Appellant has engaged in various types of construction and mining work. At the time of this action, he was a partner in a small coal mining operation in Knott County. His earnings, according to his estimate, were from $84 to $140 per week. Appellee was not shown to have any income or estate.

The award of child custody and allowance for child support are matters properly within the Chancellor’s discretion. Conlan v. Conlan, Ky., 293 S.W.2d 710. The record in this case does not disclose any abuse of this discretion by the Chancellor.

Judgment affirmed.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1423 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

115 4th Avenue Southwest in Ardmore, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Specialist 

Micheal E. Phillips Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 7, 2011 

Mr. COLE (for himself, Mr. BOREN, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. LUCAS, and Mr. 

LANKFORD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 115 4th Avenue Southwest in Ardmore, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Specialist Micheal E. Phillips Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SPECIALIST MICHEAL E. PHILLIPS POST OF4 FICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 115 4th Avenue Southwest in 

7 Ardmore, Oklahoma, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Specialist Micheal E. Phillips Post Office’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1423 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Specialist Micheal 

5 E. Phillips Post Office’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### Henry BUSTILLOS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27574.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 27, 1955.

*163No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

This purports to be. an appeal from a conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol, with punishment assessed at a fine of $200. As required by Art. 827, C.C.P., the record does not reflect that a notice of appeal was given and entered of record.

In the absence thereof, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2014

ALLOY LEWIN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-1975

[August 13, 2014]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael I. Rothschild, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 00-5384CF10A.

Bernard F. Daley of The Daley Law Firm, Tallahassee, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court order summarily denying appellant’s third 

motion for post-conviction relief and/or habeas corpus petition. This 

motion was unsworn, untimely, successive and patently without merit. 

Appellant filed two prior motions for post-conviction relief, the summary 

denial of which this court affirmed per curiam in Lewin v. State, 881 So. 

2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), and Lewin v. State, 901 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2005).

Accordingly, we caution appellant that the filing of any future 

successive and frivolous pro se motions, petitions or appeals attacking 

his convictions and sentences in this case may result in sanctions, such 

as a ban on future pro se filings in this court and/or referral to prison 

officials for disciplinary procedures. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 

(Fla. 1999). See also § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(n). 

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-20-0000104

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
CHRIS SLAVICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (S.P.P. NO. 1PR191000014 (CR. NO. 1PC041001534))

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Chan, JJ.)Upon consideration of self-represented PetitionerAppellant Chris Slavick's (Slavick) July 7, 2020 declaration in response to the June 24, 2020 order to show cause, the papers in support, and the records in appellate case numbers CAAP-20- 0000076 and CAAP-20-0000104, it appears that (1) Slavick's appeals in CAAP-20-0000076 and CAAP-20-0000104 are from the same January 23, 2020 circuit court order denying his petition for post-conviction relief under Hawai # i Rules of Penal Procedure Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-20-0000104 23-SEP-2020 09:19 AMN O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### Rule 40 in 1PR191000014; 1 

### and (2) the appeal in CAAP-20-0000104 should be dismissed as duplicative.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal in CAAP-20-0000104 is dismissed without prejudice to this court's consideration of the appeal in CAAP-20-0000076.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions in CAAP20-0000104 are dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, September 23, 2020. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Associate Judge

1 Slavick filed in the circuit court the notice of appeal that resulted in the creation of CAAP-20-0000076 and he filed in this court the notice of appeal that resulted in the creation of CAAP-20-0000104. Although the notices of appeal were not identical, they unambiguously were from the same circuit court order in the same underlying case. Slavick is cautioned not to file similar documents to different courts that result in overlapping and duplicative actions by this court. 

### 2