alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 23 , 2015

Mr. Josh Cremer

Owner

Josh Cremer Photo & Video

1317 West Eastman Street

Boise, ID 83702

Dear Mr. Cremer :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your December 31 , 2014 exemption request on behalf of the Josh Cremer Photo

& Video into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0003 ) , but we are unable to process your

request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). Fo r us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of

the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• 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.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. 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 No t 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

- 9521

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### Russell Hampton PULLIAM, Appellant, v. E. W. CURD et al., d/b/a Mayfair Bar, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 4, 1955.

J. A. Edge, Lexington, for appellant.

Frank S. Ginocchio, Lexington, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

This case was practiced under the former Civil Code and the record reflects that the amount in controversy is $2,400. The appellant was granted an appeal by the circuit court and no motion for an appeal has been made in this Court.

In Shely v. Votaw, Ky., 272 S.W.2d 462, we held that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal granted by the circuit court, under the former Civil Code, where the amount in controversy is more than $200 but less than $2,500, unless a motion for an appeal has been made in this Court.

Therefore, the appeal granted by the trial court is dismissed.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 16-BG-1204

IN RE: PATRICK J. CHRISTMAS, JR.,

 Respondent.

Bar Registration No. 85985 DDN: 376-16

BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Associate Judge, and Pryor and Farrell, Senior 

Judges. 

ORDER

(Filed – January 26, 2017)

On consideration of the certified order changing respondent’s status to 

practice law in the state of Maryland to inactive by consent, this court’s December 

22, 2016, order suspending respondent and directing him to show cause why he 

should not be indefinitely suspended pursuant to a disability suspension under D.C. 

Bar R. XI § 13, and the statement of respondent wherein he consents to the 

imposition of an indefinite suspension due to disability, it is 

ORDERED that Patrick J. Christmas is hereby indefinitely suspended from 

the practice of law in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 13. It 

is 

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s attention is directed to the 

requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI § 13 (g) for reinstatement, as well as D.C. Bar R. 

XI § 14 relating to suspended attorneys and to the provisions of Rule XI § 16 (c) 

dealing with the timing of eligibility for reinstatement as related to compliance 

with D.C. Bar R. XI § 14, including the filing of the required affidavit. 

PER CURIAM

1/26/17
#### Coy MATTOX, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27432.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 16, 1955.

*490No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for the felony offense of driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 6 months in jail and a fine of $250.

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.
Exhibit 99.2





CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Dinesh C. Jain, Chief Financial Officer of each of Insight Midwest, L.P. and Insight Capital, Inc. (together, the
Registrants), hereby certify that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Registrants for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2002 (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrants.








/s/Name: Dinesh C. JainTitle: Chief Financial Officer











Subscribed
and sworn to


before me on


August 8, 2002.











/s/Notary Public
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 13, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00052

- CV

Billy C. WHITFIELD and Carolyn Whitfield,

Appellant s

v.

Charles Thomas ONDREJ , et al.,

Appellee s

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 10

- 00231

- CVK Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presi ding



### O R D E R

Appellant s seek to appeal a summary judgment order signed on January 8, 2015

. After appellan ts filed their brief, appellees filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing

that the summary judgment order is a non

- appealable interlocutory order because it did not resolve appellees’ claims for attorneys’ fees. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191,

200 , 205 (Tex. 2001) (summary judgment that does not dispose of all parties a nd causes of action is not final and appealable). Appellants filed a response to the motion to dismiss in which they argued that the trial court intended to and did d ispose of all causes of action by the order. Appellees alternatively request that the ap peal be abated to permit the trial court to clarify its intention. Appellants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction reiterating that the summary judgment order did not address appellees’ counterclaims and requests for attorneys’ fees.

After reviewing the record, it appears that the summary judgment is interlocutory because it does not dispose of th e appellees’ claim s for attorney s ’ fees, and no severance order appears in

the clerk’s record. See McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195, 195 (Tex. 2001) ( summary judgment that does not dispose of attorneys ’ fees i s not a final, appealable order); Lehmann, 39

S.W.3d at 200 , 205. Accordingly, i t is ORDERED that this appeal is ABATED for a period of

45 days to permit the trial court to either: (1) hear and dispose of the appellees’ pending claim s for attorne y s ’ fees and enter a final judgment; or (2) enter an orde r severing the pending

attorney s ’ fees claim s in order to render the January 8, 2015 summary ju dgment order final and appealable.The appellant s are further ORDERED to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the

trial court’s final judgment or severance order, and a supplemental reporter’s record if applicable, in this court within 30 days after expiration of the abatement period. Further, within 30 days after the expiration of the abatement period, appellants must file either: (1) a letter informing the court that they are relying on their original brief, or (2) an amended brief. Appellee s’ brief is due within 30 days of the appellants filing either a letter informing the court that they are relying on their original brief, or appellants’ amended brief. All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of the court.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the se al of the said

court on this 13th day of November, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions Rulemaking

MEMORANDUM TO RECORD SUBJECT: Meeting with Environmental Group Representatives DATE: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 TIME: 4:00 – 5:00 PM Participants: EPA – Sara Hisel-McCoy, Grace Robiou, Shari Barash, Manjali Vlcan, Janita Aguirre, Heather Goss Environmental Group Representatives – Albert Ettinger, Merritt Frey, Judy Peterson, Brad Kline, Betsy Lauten, Kris Sigford Summary of Meeting: Participants provided input and reactions on the contents of the proposed rule.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 30107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12652]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 9146]

International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) Meeting Notice; 
Closed Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App Sec.  10(a)(2), the Department of State 
announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) 
to take place on June 24, 2015, at the Department of State, Washington, 
DC.
    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. 10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that this 
Board meeting will be closed to the public because the Board will be 
reviewing and discussing matters properly classified in accordance with 
Executive Order 13526. The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the 
Department with a continuing source of independent advice on all 
aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, political-
military affairs, international security, and related aspects of public 
diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting will include classified 
discussions related to the Board's studies on current U.S. policy and 
issues regarding arms control, international security, nuclear 
proliferation, and diplomacy.
    For more information, contact Christopher Herrick, Acting Executive 
Director of the International Security Advisory Board, U.S. Department 
of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 647-9683.

    Dated: May 8, 2015.
Christopher Herrick,
Acting Executive Director, International Security Advisory Board, U.S. 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-12652 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0117

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

VERNON ARVID LEPPINK,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion to voluntarily dismiss 

appeal and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s appeal in the above 

matter is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 4 2020

03/04/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0117
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Genaissance Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter endedJune 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Ben Kaplan, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that:

 

(1)  the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |                 |   |   | /s/  Ben Kaplan          |   |
|--------|----------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
| Date:  | August 9,  2005 |   |   | Ben  Kaplan              |
|   |                 |   |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1799 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1799

  To prohibit the disposal of Department of Veterans Affairs land and 
                   improvements at St. Albans campus.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 2011

    Mr. Meeks (for himself and Mr. King of New York) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the disposal of Department of Veterans Affairs land and 
                   improvements at St. Albans campus.

    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 ``St. Albans VA Veteran Cares Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISPOSAL OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS LAND 
              AND IMPROVEMENTS AT ST. ALBANS CAMPUS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may not declare 
as excess to the needs of the Department of Veterans Affairs or 
otherwise take any action to exchange, trade, auction, transfer, or 
otherwise dispose of, or reduce the acreage of, Federal land and 
improvements at the St. Albans campus, consisting of approximately 55 
acres of land, with borders near Linden Boulevard on the northwest, 
115th Avenue on the west, the Long Island Railroad on the northeast, 
and Baisley Boulevard on the southeast.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 8162(c)(1) of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting ``, section 2(a) of the St. Albans 
VA Veteran Cares Act of 2011,'' after ``section 421(b)(2) of the 
Veterans' Benefits and Services Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-322; 102 
Stat. 553)''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,383
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         166,104
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,595
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     56,976
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        135,716
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 217,095
<DEPOSITS>                                     195,653
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,394
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,722
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,718
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 217,095
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  9,117
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,929
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   145
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,191
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,381
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,496
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,695
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      275
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   6
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,416
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    907
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         907
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       672
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.45
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.36
<LOANS-NON>                                        559
<LOANS-PAST>                                         1
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    32
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,368
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      202
<RECOVERIES>                                       102
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,696
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,114
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            582


</TABLE>
ex_139088.htm


Exhibit 10.34


 


 


AMENDMENT No. 11 TO PROMISSORY NOTE


 


This Amendment No. 11 to the Promissory Note, originally dated September 1, 2010 (the “Note”), previously amended February 11, 2011, May 31, 2011, July 29, 2011, November 7, 2011, March 27, 2012, July 31, 2012, November 1, 2012, January 9, 2013, May 8, 2013, and March 21, 2014 (the “Amendments”), is entered into as of the 17th day of March, 2015, by and between CMS Acquisition, LLC (“CMS”) and CleanTech Biofuels, Inc. (“CTB”), collectively the “Parties.”


 


WHEREAS, the Note is secured by the CTB owned U.S. Patent No. 6,306,248 pursuant to a Security Agreement dated as of September 1, 2010, between CMS and CTB (the “Security Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, a payment of $25,000 was made on February 11, 2011 for interest to date and principal, by CTB on the Note;


 


WHEREAS, as of May 16, 2011, the rate to accrue interest increased to 10.0% per annum (from 9.0% per annum);


 


WHEREAS, as of November 7, 2011, Warrant (A1) issued with the original Note on September 1, 2010 was re-dated to November 7, 2011;


 


WHEREAS, as of May 8, 2013, CTB issued an additional warrant (A2) for 150,000 shares of CTB’s common stock, par value $0.001 (“common stock”), with an exercise price of $0.05 and an expiration date of May 8, 2018, and re-dated the original warrant (A1) to May 8, 2013; and


 


WHEREAS, as of March 21, 2014, CTB issued an additional warrant (A3) for 150,000 shares of common stock, with an exercise price of $0.05 and an expiration date of March 21, 2019, and re-dated the original warrant (A1) and an additional warrant (A2) to March 21, 2014; and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the terms of the Note as set forth below.


 


NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows:


 


	
			1.

				
			The Maturity Date, as defined in the Amendments, shall be changed to September 17, 2016 from March 1, 2015.

			



 


	
			2.

				
			All previously issued warrants, the original warrant (A1) and both additional warrants (A2 and A3), are re-dated to March 17, 2015.

			



 


	
			3.

				
			An additional Warrant (A4) will be issued as of March 17, 2015 for 150,000 shares of common stock with an exercise price of $0.10 and an expiration date of March 17, 2020.

			



 


	
			4.

				
			CMS assigning the Note to the WL Meyer Legacy Trust (with any additional assignments requiring consent by CTB).

			



 


	
			5.

				
			All remaining terms and conditions of the Note, Security Agreement and Warrants A1, A2, and A3 shall continue in full force and effect.

			



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CTB and CMS have caused this Amendment No. 11 to the Note to be executed and delivered by their duly authorized officers as of the day and year set forth above.


	
			 


			 


			CLEANTECH BIOFUELS, INC.:

				
			 


			 


			By:                                                            


			Name: Edward P. Hennessey


			Title: CEO

			
	
			 


			CMS Acquisition, LLC:

				
			 


			By:                                                           


			Name:


			Title:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6168

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY CHESTNUT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-2821; CR-02-272) Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: August 31, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Larry Chestnut seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chestnut has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)