alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 15, 2012

Mr. William Zeffiro

Air Ventures Hawaii

P.O. Box 3350 Lihue, HI 96766

Dear Mr. Zeffiro:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulati ons (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 1, 2012, exemption request on behalf of Air Ventures Hawaii into the public docket (No. FAA-2012-0239), but we are unabl e to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you m ust send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ida M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3

Project No.: AAM-12-256-E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM-105:TTHOMAS:03/05/12Doc#33813

ARM-1/100/105:AAM-800

MR WILLIAM ZEFFIRO

AIR VENTURES HAWAII

PO BOX 3350

LIHUE HI 96766
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7152

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM DANIELS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-130-BO, CA-97-227-5-BO) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William Daniels appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Although the district court failed to provide Daniels notice of the Government’s motion for summary judgment and a warning that failure to file opposing affidavits could result in summary judgment for the moving party, as required under Roseboro v. Garrison , 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975), we find that, under the circumstances,such error was harmless. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Dennis JOHNSON et al., Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 23, 1956.

Rehearing Denied May *18,*1956.

Harry M. Caudill, Whitesburg, for appellants.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., John B. Browning, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

CAMMACK, Judge.

The appellants, Raymond, Dennis and Nathan Johnson, who are brothers, were convicted of grand larceny and sentenced to one year in prison. The Johnsons were charged with the theft of certain tools of the approximate value of $100 belonging to the Carbon Glow Coal Company. They contend the judgments should be reversed 'because there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of guilt.

It is undisputed that the tools were stolen. Rankin Blair, a witness for the Commonwealth, testified that the three appellants and Maxwell Oliver, a juvenile, drove to his service station in a car owned by the appellants. One of the appellants asked Blair if he wanted to buy some tools. Although he stated, at first, that he did not need them, Blair offered $5.00 for the tools. One of the appellants then said the tools were sold. Oliver gave the tools to Blair, who handed the $5.00 to Oliver.

The appellants testified that they did not know the tools were stolen. They said Oliver’s father had bought the tools from James Adams, and a person unidentified at the trial, with $8.00 which he had borrowed from the appellants’ father. According to their story, Oliver’s father gave the tools to him and told him to sell them if he could find a buyer. The appellants refused to buy the tools, but took Oliver to Blair’s service station where the sale was made.

We think the evidence was sufficient to establish that the appellants had possession of the stolen goods. We have held consistently that possession of stolen *737property is prima facie evidence of guilt of larceny, and upon proof of possession the burden shifts to the defendant to explain how he came into possession of the. property. Dawes v. Commonwealth, Ky., 281 S.W.2d 901; Warren v. Commonwealth, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 368; Walker v. Commonwealth, 309 .Ky. 217, 217. S.W.2d 213; Buchanan v. Commonwealth, 304 Ky. 225, 200 S.W.2d 459. See also Martin v. Commonwealth, Ky., 276 S.W.2d 19, a case involving the sufficiency of proof oñ a charge of “knowingly receiving stolen goods.” In the Buchanan case it was held that it .waá for the jury to determine whether the offered explanation should be accepted or rejected. We think the issue of the' appellants’ guilt in the case before us, was a question'for the jury. ,

The judgment is affirmed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Global Casinos, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Todd Huss, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Todd Huss Todd Huss Chief Financial Officer October 10, 2006
EXHIBIT 32

Certification of Periodic Financial Report by the Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial
Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Entravision Communications Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, based on our
knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |  |  |                                             
|------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: May 11, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ WALTER F. ULLOA                         
|                   |  |  |  | Walter F. Ulloa Chief Executive Officer     
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 11, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ CHRISTOPHER T. YOUNG                    
|                   |  |  |  | Christopher T. Young Chief Financial Officer
H. R. 1308 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven 

An Act 

To amend the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act to extend the termination 

date for the Commission, 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. RONALD REAGAN CENTENNIAL COMMISSION ACT AMENDMENTS. 

(a) FINAL REPORT DUE DATE.—Section 7(c) of the Ronald 

Reagan Centennial Commission Act (Public Law 111–25; 36 U.S.C. 

101 note prec.) is amended by striking ‘‘April 30, 2011’’ and inserting 

‘‘November 30, 2011’’. 

(b) TERMINATION.—Section 8 of the Ronald Reagan Centennial 

Commission Act (Public Law 111–25; 36 U.S.C. 101 note prec.) 

is amended by striking ‘‘May 30, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘December 

31, 2011’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DANIELLE S. WILLIAMSON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-3481

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

 )

Opinion filed September 18, 2020.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte 

County; George Richards, Judge.

Robert David Malove of The Law Office of 

Robert David Malove, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, 

for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Danielle Williamson appeals from the sentence imposed following the 

revocation of her probation. We affirm in all respects without comment. With regard to 
- 2 -

Williamson's claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, our affirmance is 

without prejudice to Williamson raising that issue in a timely filed Florida Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. See McClough v. State, 74 So. 3d 158, 160 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 2011). 

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
**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





In  connection  with  the  Quarterly
      report of Lion Capital Holdings, Inc.
      (the
      "Company")  on  Form 10-QSB for the period ended  March
      31, 2007 as
      filed with 
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission
      on the
      date
      hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy T. Page,  Chief  Executive Officer  and
      Chairman  of the Board of
      Directors  of  the  Company,


certify,  pursuant
      to  18 U.S.C. Section 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)
      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.





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





/s/
      Timothy T. Page


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


Timothy
      T. Page


Chief
      Executive Officer and Chairman of the


Board
      of Directors


Date:
      May 14, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the quarterly report of OnScreen Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB of the quarter ended March 31, 2006, I hereby certify
solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

OnScreen Technologies, Inc.


By:  /s/ Mark R. Chandler                  Dated this 15th day of May 2006
     --------------------------------------
         Mark R. Chandler
     Chief Financial Officer




                                       25
#### Fred HAMMERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28038.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 8, 1956.

No appearance for appellant

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

*627PER CURIAM.

The unlawful sale of whisky in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $200 and thirty days’ confinement in jail.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 29, 2015

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-850

Lower Tribunal No. 11-40524

________________



### Kendall Commercial Associates, LLC, etc.

,

Appellant,

vs.



### Drakes, LLC, et. al.

, Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gladys Perez

, Judge.

McDonald Hopkins and Alan M. Burger and Mary F. April (West Palm

Beach), for appellant.

Erik D. Diener (Plantation); Richard A. Sherman, Sr. and James W.

Sherman (Fort Lauderdale); Wolpe, Leibowitz & Fernandez

, LLP, and Joel R.

Wolpe, for appellees.

Before SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J.

Kendall Commercial Associates, LLC, etc., appeals the trial court’s order

entering summary judgment in favor of Drake’s, LLC and seven individualguarantors on all counts of Kendall’s amended counterclaim in the underlying

landlord-tenant action. We reverse because the trial court granted relief that was

neither sought in the summary judgment motion nor noticed for hearing.

The order on appeal granted summary judgment on the amended

counterclaim in favor of the tenant, Drake’s, LLC, and in favor of seven

guarantors/third-party defendants. However, the motion for summary judgment

filed by Drake’s, LLC only sought relief on behalf of Drake’s, LLC. Because there

was no notice to Kendall, the landlord, that relief was being sought on behalf of the

guarantors, and the trial court granted relief not pled or sought in Drake’s, LLC’s

motion, we reverse the order granting summary judgment as to the guarantors. See

Hotel 71 Mezz Lender, LLC v. Tutt

, 66 So. 3d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

We additionally dismiss the remainder of this appeal for lack of jurisdiction,

as the remaining portion of the order on appeal is not an appealable partial final

judgment under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k).

Reversed in part and remanded; appeal dismissed in part.

2
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 39639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14287]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2016-0196; FRL-9947-79-ORD]

Updates to the Demographic and Spatial Allocation Models To 
Produce Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios (ICLUS) Version 2; 
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public comment period; correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 30-day public comment period for the draft 
document titled, ``Updates to the Demographic and Spatial Allocation 
Models to Produce Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios (ICLUS) 
Version 2'' (EPA/600/R-14/324). EPA is also announcing that Versar, 
Inc., an EPA contractor for external scientific peer review, will 
select four independent experts from a pool of eight to conduct a 
letter peer review of the same draft document. The document was 
prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment within 
EPA's Office of Research and Development. This document describes the 
development of version 2 of Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios 
(ICLUS), including updates to data sets and the demographic and spatial 
allocation models.
    EPA intends to forward the public comments that are submitted in 
accordance with this document to the external peer reviewers for their 
consideration during the letter peer review. When finalizing the draft 
documents, EPA intends to consider any public comments received in 
response to this document. EPA is releasing this draft document for the 
purposes of public comment and peer review. This draft document is not 
final as described in EPA's information quality guidelines and does not 
represent and should not be construed to represent Agency policy or 
views.
    The draft document is available via the Internet on EPA's Risk Web 
page under the Recent Additions at http://www.epa.gov/risk.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of April 29, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-09860, 
on page 25666, in the second column correct the DATES section to read:

DATES: The 7-day public comment period begins June 17, 2016, and ends 
June 24, 2016. Comments must be received on or before June 24, 2016.

    Dated: June 8, 2016.
Mary A. Ross,
Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2016-14287 Filed 6-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 99.1




                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


        G. THOMAS BOWERS, Chief Executive Officer of Savings Bank of the Finger
Lakes (the "Company") certifies in his capacity as an officer of the Company
that he has reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002 and that to the best of his knowledge:

          (1)  the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
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.

Date:  November 14, 2002                             /s/  G. Thomas Bowers
                                                    -------------------------
                                                    G. Thomas Bowers
                                                    Chief Executive Officer




                                      -21-
**Exhibit 10.23**

 

**PUBLIC MEDIA WORKS, INC.**

 

**PROMISSORY NOTE**

 

This PROMISSORY NOTE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) ismade as of the 15th day of August, 2004 by and among **PUBLIC MEDIA WORKS, INC**., aDelaware corporation (the “Company”), and F. James McCarl (“Mr. McCarl”.)

 

THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

 

1.   PROMISSORYNOTE.

 

Mr. McCarl agrees tocontribute as debt under the terms of this Promissory Note the amount of OneHundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) for a period of six (6) months.  This Promissory Note shall accrue interestat a rate of six percent per annum (6%) which shall be added to the principalinvestment amount at the end of the term.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of thedate first above written.

 

 
|   | PUBLIC MEDIA WORKS,  INC. |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   |                      |
|   |                      |
|   | By:                       | /s/ Thomas A. Szabo |   |
|   | Name:                     | Thomas A. Szabo |   |
|   | Title:                    | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |                      |
|   |                      |
|   | F. James McCarl           |
|   |                      |
|   |                      |
|   | /s/ F. James McCarl       |   |
|   | F. James McCarl           |   |
|        |                           |  |  |  |  |

 

1

----
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Granite Construction Company ) ASBCA No. 62437

)

Under Contract No. W912PL-15-C-0027 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Jordy L. Murray, Esq.

 Counsel

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

John F. Bazan, Esq.

Brian M. Choc, Esq.

 Engineer Trial Attorneys

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE THRASHER

The parties have resolved their dispute and request that the Board enter judgment 

in favor of appellant.

It is the Board’s decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and the 

parties’ stipulation and agreement, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a consent 

judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of $144,583.90. 

This amount is inclusive of Contract Disputes Act interest. No further interest shall be 

paid.

Dated: May 24, 2022

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

(Signatures continued)
2

I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur

OWEN C. WILSON

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62437, Appeal of Granite 

Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: May 25, 2022

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
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





In
connection with the quarterly report of Waytronx, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form
10-Q of the quarter ended September 30, 2009, I hereby certify solely for the
purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:





(1)
              The
      quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company





Waytronx,
Inc.





By:
                /s/
      William J. Clough
                
                Dated
      this 13th day of November 2009.William
      J. Clough,Chief
      Executive Officer/President