alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0624 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 07 1 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
# COGNIGEN
NETWORKS, INC.

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Cognigen Networks, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Gary L. Cook, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

| | /s/
Gary L. CookGary L. CookChief Financial OfficerAugust 30, 2005
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1316 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1316

To direct the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to modify the approval of 
any drug containing controlled-release oxycodone hydrochloride to limit 
such approval to use for the relief of severe-only instead of moderate-
                to-severe pain, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2011

  Mrs. Bono Mack (for herself, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Lynch, Mr. 
Wolf, Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Mack) introduced the following bill; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to modify the approval of 
any drug containing controlled-release oxycodone hydrochloride to limit 
such approval to use for the relief of severe-only instead of moderate-
                to-severe pain, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Oxy Abuse Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. LIMITING APPROVAL OF DRUGS CONTAINING CONTROLLED-RELEASE 
              OXYCODONE HYDROCHLORIDE TO USE FOR RELIEF OF SEVERE-ONLY 
              PAIN.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall take 
such actions as may be necessary--
            (1) to modify the approval of any drug containing 
        controlled-release oxycodone hydrochloride under section 505 of 
        the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) to 
        limit such approval to use for the relief of severe-only 
        instead of moderate-to-severe pain; and
            (2) to limit any subsequent approval of a drug containing 
        controlled-release oxycodone hydrochloride under such section 
        to use for the relief of severe-only pain.
    (b) Applicability.--Any modification required by subsection (a)(1) 
shall apply to drugs introduced or delivered for introduction into 
interstate commerce on or after the date that is 180 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
|EXHIBIT 32.1
|------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Belmar Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

|(a) | the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                        
|   



|Date: May 9, 2008
|-----------------



| | /s/Thomas E. Faust Jr.
Thomas E. Faust Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Gerald Lau, President and Chief Executive
Officer, and Sean Webster, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of
Biopack Environmental Solutions Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Biopack
      Environmental Solutions Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the
      "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Biopack Environmental Solutions Inc.                                                                 



Dated: May 15, 2009



/s/ Gerald Lau Gerald Lau,
President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)



/s/ Sean Webster Sean Webster
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer (Principal Financial
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Biopack
Environmental Solutions Inc. and will be retained by Biopack Environmental
Solutions Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

---
FOUNDERS INDUSTRIES, INC.


Corporate Offices

1026 West Main Street Suite 104

Lewisville, TX 75067

Telephone 972 353-0175

Facsimile 972-219-1832

Bryan L. Walker

Chairman


acctg@airmail.net



January 1, 2004

Effective Date

First Class Mail 


DENNIS ODOM 

9421 Pebble Beach NE 

Albuquerque, NM  87111

 Dennis: 

The purpose of this writing is to confirm the amended terms of the repayment on that certain Renewal And Extension Agreement note due you by Founders Industries, Inc., dated April 8, 2003, in the original principal amount of $200,000.00
USD.  

The effective date of the below-listed changes is 1/1/04.  


              
1.  There will be a one-year moratorium on payments of principal and interest.  The next payment will be in January, 2005. 

              
2.  Interest will continue to accrue at the stated interest rate.  This interest will be added to the end of the note's amortization period.  


There being nothing further, I remain 

Sincerely,

________________________________

Bryan L. Walker, 

President & Chief Executive Officer 

________________________________

Dennis Odom
#### Joe John OWENS et ux., Relators, v. Hon. Ernest COKER, District Judge, et al., Respondents.

No. 6651.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

May 30, 1963.

*960J. Robert Liles, Houston, for relator.

W. C. McClain, Conroe, William S. Clarke, Houston, for respondent.

McNEILL, Justice.

Respondents say this court erred in holding the injunction granted was a permanent one. Though the question is not free from doubt, we believe the decision made was correct. The following additional authorities are cited on the question: Riggins v. Thompson, 96 Tex. 154, 71 S.W. 14, holds that the class into which an injunction falls is determined by the judge’s fiat; Ft. Worth Imp. Dist. No. 1 v. City of Ft. Worth, 106 Tex. 148, 158 S.W. 164, 48 L.R.A.,N.S., 994, holds that a judgment granting an injunction is final when it leaves nothing to be further litigated in the case. See also 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § 207, p. 935.

 However, since we have held that the injunction granted in No. 6650, Owens v. Texaco Inc., et al., 368 S.W.2d 780 in an opinion this day announced should be modified so that it will be a temporary injunction as urged by relators therein, and, since it is the policy of the law not to grant supersedeas from an order issuing temporary injunction [see Rule 385, Sec. (d)], our former order provisionally issuing mandamus made herein is withdrawn and mandamus is denied. For the reasons explained in this paragraph, the motion for rehearing is granted. Costs of this proceeding are taxed against respondents Texaco Inc., Pitts and Cleveland Realty & Investment Company.

Relators’ contention in their answer *to*respondents’ motion for rehearing that the matters complained of are now moot, is overruled. The trial court’s approval o-f supersedeas bond in this case since our original opinion herein does not make the question moot. This conclusion constitutes authority to trial court to expunge from the record approval of the supersedeas bond.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11

                              CERPROBE CORPORATION

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Year Ended December 31,
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                         1999            1998
                                                     ------------    ----------
<S>                                                  <C>             <C>
Net loss                                             $(12,580,672)   $ (495,908)
                                                     ============    ==========
Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding                                           7,884,628     7,963,747

Common equivalent shares representing shares
  issuable upon exercise of stock options                  62,768       287,626

Convertible preferred stock                                    --            --

Subtraction of common equivalent shares due to
  antidilutive nature                                     (62,768)           --
                                                     ------------    ----------
Dilutive adjusted weighted average shares
  and assumed conversions                               7,884,628     8,251,373
                                                     ============     =========
Basic net loss per share                             $      (1.60)    $   (0.06)
                                                     ============     =========
Diluted net loss per share                           $      (1.60)    $   (0.06)
                                                     ============     =========
</TABLE>
AAM-10-260-E May 20, 2010 Exemption No. 10067 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0461

Mr. Matt Rupe Director of Operations Vertical Advantage Helicopters, Inc.

2460 Greentree Road Lebanon, OH 45036

Dear Mr. Rupe:

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 13, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Vertical Advantage Helicopters, Inc. (Vertical Advantage), for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulati ons (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Vertical Advantage, which is opera ting under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one 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 Vertical Advantage.

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 that2

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.

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

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant of exemption;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption 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 Vertical Advantage Helicopter, Inc., an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Vertical Advantage, 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 Vertical Advantage 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 Vertical Advantage part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7748

DARRYL WILLIAM COLEMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JUDY BRANDON, Administrator, Caswell Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-00131-RJC)

Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 22, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl William Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darryl William Coleman seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Coleman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1
                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         Each of the undersigned  hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer
of InMedica Development  Corporation (the Company) that the Annual Report of the
Company on Form 10KSB for the year ended  December 31, 2004 fully  complies with
the  requirements  of Section 13(a) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information  contained in such report fairly presents,  in all material
respects,  the financial condition of the Company at the end of such periods and
the results of operations of the Company for such periods.


/s/ Ralph Henson
Ralph Henson,
 Chief Executive Officer
DATE:  March 29, 2006



/s/ Richard Bruggeman
Richard Bruggeman,
 Chief Financial Officer
DATE:   March 28, 2006















30
#### Bobby James KEPLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29730.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 9, 1958.

Juliet M. Sedberry, Fort Worth, W. C. Boyd, Jr., Denton, for appellant. .

*828Leor>. B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, two years.

The evidence offered by the State was to the effect that officers saw a .22 bolt action rifle thrown from an automobile driven by appellant; recovered the rifle, which was identified by Clint Adcock as one he had owned for twenty years and which he hung on a gun rack in a room of his house after using it to shoot birds the previous Sunday. He had not missed the rifle before he saw it in the possession of the officers.

Our able State’s Attorney agrees with appellant’s contention that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for burglary.

Mr. Adcock testified that there was a screen door and another door in the opening to the room of his home where the 'rifle was hanging on the gun rack, and that the screen door was necessarily closed, it having a spring that pulled it closed.

We find no evidence in the record which would support the conclusion that the opening with the closed screen door was the only door by which entry could have been made into the house or the room from which the circumstantial evidence shows the rifle was taken.

If there were other openings there is no evidence that they were closed or that the house could not be entered without force or breaking through such openings, and there is no evidence that entry was made by opening the screen door or by any other breaking.

The case of Thomas v. State, 131 Tex. Cr.R. 269, 97 S.W.2d 955, is directly in point.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.