alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**From:** Rochon, Everette (FAA)

**Sent:** Thursday, March 26, 2015 12:49 PM **To:** 'Mike502B@aol.com' **Subject:** Al's Aerial Spraying, LLC 

### Dear Mr. Schiffer I’m sure you understand that the FAA has strict guidelines about pre

- decisional discussions with petitioners due to ex
- parte communication rules. An ex parte contact is any communication between the FAA and a party outside the government related to a sp ecific rulemaking (or exemption) proceeding, before that particular proceeding is finalized. Please know that we are working diligently to provide an answer to your petition as quickly as possible. If you have further questions on the status of your peti tion, please contact the FAA Office of Rulemaking. Thank you. Mr. Everette Rochon Acting Manager, Commercial Operations Branch (AFS

- 820) Flight Standards Service, General Aviation and Commercial Division Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC 20 2
- 267
- 1142



### ____________________ **From:** Mike502B@aol.com [ mailto:Mike502B@aol.com ] **Sent:** Tuesday, March 24, 2015 4:48 PM **To:** Hemler, Joseph K Jr (FAA) **Subject:** Al's Aerial Spraying, LLC Mr. Hemler, Federal, State, and County Contracts have been prepared and awarded. Weare in the midst of preparing Congested Area Plans for ten FSDO's. I hope our request for exemption demonstrates that the level of safety is improved above that required through the use of our exemption. If you are close to a decision on our request could you provide some guidance concerning timing or a direction so we can finish preparing and submit additional congested area plans for this season? T hank you for your consideration and time. Michael Schiffer Al's Aerial Spraying, LLC 989
- 834
- 5067
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000728391
<NAME> IPALCO ENTERPRISES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,792,007
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    114,587
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         162,894
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       161,709
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,231,197
<COMMON>                                       385,032
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            436,408
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 822,803
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     51,898
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           698,600
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              69,122
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   17,500
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 571,274
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,231,197
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      709,206
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            53,975
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     507,119
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     561,094
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        148,112
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,169
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 149,281
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        50,503
<NET-INCOME>                                    98,778
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      3,182
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   98,778
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        81,289
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       46,170
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         208,874
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.74
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1


                       Wings & Things, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of Wings & Things, Inc. (the "Company")
certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

a.    the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
      March 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b.    the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


                                      /s/ Linda L. Perry
Date: May 10, 2006                    ___________________________________
                                      Linda L. Perry
                                      Principal Executive officer
                                      Principal Financial Officer
#### J. E. HODGE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27847.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 23, 1955.

No appearance for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is rape; the punishment, 5 years in the penitentiary.

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.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2011

- NM

- 204

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### Mrs. Charles WOOLEY et al., Petitioners, v. W. B. ARDERY, Judge of the 14th Judicial District of Kentucky, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 14, 1956.

Ben B. Fowler, Dailey & Fowler, Frankfort, for Marion County School Board.

Jesse K. Lewis, John C. Anggelis, Lexington, for petitioners.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

This proceeding is an outgrowth of our .decision in Wooley v. Spalding, etc., Ky., 293 S.W.2d 563. The petitioners seek an order from this Court directing the respondent, as judge of the Fourteenth Judicial District, to enforce our opinion and mandate in the above cited case by entering a judgment in conformity therewith.

In reversing the judgment of the circuit court, we said:

> “ * * * The circuit court may consider all problems that may arise in effectuating good faith compliance with the court’s order. During this period of transition, the circuit court will retain jurisdiction of the case.”

Hence, our opinion permits the respondent to follow a procedure to effectuate the order of this Court. The record before us reveals that respondent has entered an order which directs the Board of Education of Marion County to submit, within 60 days, a specific plan to carry out the decision of this Court. The trial court undoubtedly intended this order as vacating the previous judgment which was reversed. We so regard it.

The respondent, according to directions of this Court, is requiring the Board of Education of Marion 'County to proceed with deliberate speed to formulate a plan to re-establish, as soon as practicable, a high school system that will afford all children in Marion County equal educational opportunities.

However, in order to resolve any further doubt concerning the character of the judgment that should be entered, we say that neither the opinion nor the mandate of this Court specifically directs the reestablishment of the high school at Brad-fordville as the only solution of this problem.

Inasmuch as it appears that respondent is proceeding to execute the opinion and man*696date in question, we conclude that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought.

Wherefore, an order of mandamus is denied.
Order entered April 20, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 19
- 01457
- CV ODUS OGLESBY, Appellant

V. RICHLAND TRACE OWNER S ASSOCIATION, INC. TEXAS A/K/A

RICHLAND T RACE CONDOMINIUMS, Appellee On Appeal from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 19
- 06925

ORDER Before the Court is appellant’s April 16, 2020 opposed second motion to extend time to file his opening brief

. Appellant see ks a sixty

- day extension.
We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s opening brief be filed no later than June 28, 2020. Because the brief was first due February 28, 2020, we caution that further extension requests will be disfavored.
/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
06/01/201 0 15:1 8 816329410 6 SA D PAG E 02/0 2 

# O U S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n Fedsra l Avlolto n Administratio n Smal l Airplan e Directorat e 90 1 Locus t Kansa s City , Missour i 6410 6

MA Y 2 7 201 0 Mr . Car l Dietric h CEO/CT O Teirafugia , Inc . 5 Crane s Court Wobum , M A 0180 1 Dea r Mr . Dietrich ; W e ar e enclosin g apartia l gran t o f you r petitio n submitte do n Novembe r 12 , 2009 , o n behal f o f Terrafiigia , Inc . (Terrafugia ) for a n exemptio n fro

m§ 21.190(c)(2 ) o f

Title 14 , Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s (1 4 CFR) . W e arc grantin g exemptio n fro m§ 21.190(c)(2 ) i n lie u o f § 1.1 , a s originall y requested . Thi s wil l allo w Terrafugi at o continu e developmen t and raarketing o f

aroadabl e light-sport

aircraf t (LSA ) vvit

h foldin g wings , but

with amaximu m takeof f weigh t (MTOW ) o f

1,43 0 pound s (65 0 kg) , instea do f th e 1,320 pound s (60 0 kg ) cuiTently i n th e rule . W e chos e 1,43 0 pound s instea do f th e 1,47 4 pound s requeste dbecaus e th e legal preceden t

ha s alread y l>ee

n se t for thi s weigh t

fo r light-sport

aircraf t intende dfo

r operatio n o n water . Lik e th e aircraf t intende dfo

r operatio n on water , Terrafugi aals o ha s uniqu e desig n characteri-stic s tha t provid e justificatio n fo r

allowin g th e increase dMTOW . Thi s partia l gran t

o f exemptio n onl y provide s fo r th e certificatio n o f

th e aircraf

t unde r 1 4 CFR§ 21.19 0 for

th e issuanc e o f

aspecia l airworthines s certificat e fo r alight-sport

category aircraf t (SLSA) . I t

doe s not addres s sport

pilo t issue s potentiall y associate dwith th e roadabl e vehicle . I f yo u hav e an y questions , yo u ma y cal l Mr . Terry Chasteen , Light-Spor t Aircraf t Program Manage r at th e FA A Smal l Airplan e Directorate , (816 ) 329-4147 . Sincerely , Ki mSmith , Manage r Smal l Airplane Directorat e Aircraf t Certificatio n Servic e
** **

** **

**Exhibit 32.1**

****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the AnnualReport of Parkway Properties, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K forthe annual period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven G.Rogers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

(1)       The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

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

|  | /s/ Steven G. Rogers                            |
|--|-------------------------------------------------|
|  | Steven G. Rogers (*)                            |
|  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
|  | March 5, 2010                                   |

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ParkwayProperties, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We have issued our report dated March 4, 2005, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule of The Coast
Distribution System, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the Company) included in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of that report in the Companys
Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-10769, 33-15322, 33-18696, 33-64582, 333-55933, 333-55941 and 333-52876).



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
|San Jose, California  
|March 4, 2005
**Exhibit 23.2**

** **

** **

** **

**Consent of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm**

** **

** **

** **

The Partners ofParkway Properties Office Fund, LP:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registrationstatements (Nos. 333-92957 and 333-108786) on Form S-3, the registrationstatements (Nos. 333-100565, 333-115286 and 333-134069) on Form S-8, and theregistration statements (Nos. 333-88861 and 333-00311) on Form S-8 on Form S-3of Parkway Properties, Inc. of our report on Parkway Properties Office Fund, LP(the Partnership) dated February 26, 2008, with respect to the consolidatedhistorical-cost balance sheets of the Partnership as of December 31, 2007 and2006, and the related consolidated historical-cost statements of operations,changes in partners' capital, and cash flows for the years then ended, notincluded herein, as well as the supplemental consolidated current-value balancesheets of the Partnership as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the relatedsupplemental consolidated current-value statements of operations and changes inpartners' capital for the years then ended, not included herein, which reportappears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of ParkwayProperties, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Jackson,MississippiFebruary 26, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1619 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1619

    To amend chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code, to require 
commemorative works in the District of Columbia and its environs to be 
 constructed of materials that are grown, produced, or manufactured in 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2011

Mr. Kildee (for himself, Mr. Kissell, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and Mr. 
  Lipinski) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code, to require 
commemorative works in the District of Columbia and its environs to be 
 constructed of materials that are grown, produced, or manufactured in 
                           the United States.

    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 ``Monuments Assembled and Domestically 
Engineered Act'' or the ``MADE Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR USE OF AMERICAN MATERIALS IN CONSTRUCTION OF 
              CERTAIN COMMEMORATIVE WORKS.

    (a) Requirement.--
            (1) Decision criteria.--Section 8905(b) of title 40, United 
        States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(8) American materials.--A commemorative work shall be 
        constructed using material--
                    ``(A) that, in the case of unmanufactured material, 
                is mined or produced in the United States; and
                    ``(B) that, in the case of manufactured material, 
                is manufactured in the United States substantially all 
                from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, 
                or manufactured, as the case may be, in the United 
                States.''.
            (2) Criteria for issuance of construction permit.--Section 
        8906(3) of such title is amended by inserting before the 
        semicolon the following: ``, and such contract documents 
        demonstrate that the material to be used in the construction of 
        the commemorative work complies with the criteria described in 
        section 8905(b)(8) of this title, as determined in accordance 
        with regulations implementing chapter 83 of title 41, United 
        States Code (popularly referred to as the `Buy American 
        Act')''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to commemorative works for which construction permits are issued 
under section 8906 of title 40, United States Code, on or after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

                             CERTIFICATE 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  VerticalBuyer, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 31, 2001 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Leslie
Kent,  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.

      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.

Date:  June 30, 2004

                                              /s/Leslie  Kent
                                              -------------------------
                                              Leslie  Kent
                                              Chief  Financial  Officer


                                       11
<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1788 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1788

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow reimbursement from 
        flexible spending accounts for certain dental products.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2011

  Mr. Pascrell (for himself and Mr. Davis of Kentucky) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow reimbursement from 
        flexible spending accounts for certain dental products.

    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 ``Dental Health Promotion Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENT FROM FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNTS FOR CERTAIN 
              DENTAL PRODUCTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 106 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to contributions by employer to accident and health plans) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Dental Care Products Under Flexible Spending Arrangement.--An 
arrangement shall not fail to be treated as a health flexible spending 
arrangement under this section or section 105 merely because such 
arrangement provides reimbursement for products used to diagnose, cure, 
mitigate, treat, or prevent the onset of tooth decay (caries), 
periodontal diseases, and conditions ailing the teeth, gums, and mouth, 
or affecting the proper function thereof, for which reimbursement 
without regard to this subsection would not otherwise be allowable.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to plan years beginning after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3271

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Elmer Hernandez-Figueroa, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 1, 2011

Filed: February 8, 2011

___________

Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Elmer Hernandez-Figueroa pleaded guilty to being found in the United States

after having been removed subsequent to attaining felony convictions, in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). The district court1

 sentenced him to 57 months in prison

(the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range), and he appeals. His counsel has

moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing that the sentence was unreasonable and that the court should have varied
-2-

downward. Hernandez-Figueroa has filed a pro se supplemental brief asserting that

his family circumstances warranted a lower sentence.

We conclude that the district court took into account all the relevant sentencing

factors, committed no procedural error, and imposed a substantively reasonable

sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (in reviewing sentence,

appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural

error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under

abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.

2005) (describing abuse of discretion). 

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find

no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we

affirm.

______________________________