alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 18, 2015

Mr. Jeremiah Terhark

Webspec Design, LLC

5907 Meredith Drive

Urbandale, IA 50322

Dear Mr. Terhark:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

§ § 45.23(b), 61.3, 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a)

and (b), 91.205(b), 91.215, 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a) and (b), and part

21 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regul ations (14 CFR). 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 received your June 6, 2015, exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2703 , but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t 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.

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

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

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 exemptio n.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 209 (Friday, October 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27672]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds--Terminations; 
Reliance Insurance Company, Reliance Insurance Company of Illinois, 
Reliance National Indemnity Company, Reliance Surety Company, United 
Pacific Insurance Company

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 2 to the Treasury Department Circular 
570; 2000 Revision, published June 30, 2000, at 65 FR 40868.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Certificates 
of Authority issued by the Treasury to the above named Companies, under 
the United States Code, Title 31, Sections 9304-9308, to qualify as 
acceptable sureties on Federal bonds are terminated effective 
immediately.
    The Companies were last listed as acceptable sureties on Federal 
bonds at 65 FR 40896, 40897, and 40903, June 30, 2000.
    With respect to any bonds, including continuous bonds, currently in 
force with above listed Companies, bond-approving officers should 
secure new bonds with acceptable sureties in those instances where a 
significant amount of liability remains outstanding. In addition, bonds 
that are continuous in nature should not be renewed.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at 
http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html. A hard copy may be purchased 
from the Government Printing Office (GPO), Subscription Service, 
Washington, DC, telephone (202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular 
from GPO, use the following stock number: 048-000-00536-5.
    Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial 
Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West 
Highway, Room 6A04, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

    Dated: October 16, 2000.
Judith R. Tillman,
Assistant Commissioner, Financial Operations, Financial Management 
Service.
[FR Doc. 00-27672 Filed 10-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 30, 2013

h0923 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2013

146892(64)

EDWARD KARAUS, d/b/a GREAT LAKES

SEA WALLS,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146892

COA: 307842

Allegan CC: 10

- 047317

- CH

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Defendant/

Cross

- Plaintiff

- Appellant,

and

PNC BANK, f/k/a NATIONAL CITY BANK,

SHELDON CAREF, and NELLY CAREF, a/k/a

NELLY NAVARRETE,

Defendants/Cross

- Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 30, 2013

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*WAYNE SMITH

*Robert J. McKay,*in support of the petition.

*James M. Ralls,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided May 26, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 906 (AC 17142), is denied.
#### SCOTT v. STATE.

No. 24585.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 23, 1949.

None on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is possession of whiskey in a dry area for the purpose of sale. The punishment assessed is a fine of $200 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of six months.

Upon his trial appellant waived a jury and entered a plea of guilty to the court who found him guilty and assessed his punishment as above stated. The record in this case is before us without any bills of exceptions or a statement of facts. 'Consequently, there is nothing presented for review.

*713In his motion for a new trial, appellant claims that the whiskey in question belonged to his wife, Ruby Scott; that when he entered the plea of guilty he was under the impression that he was entering a plea of guilty for 'her who was sick at home. This motion was contested by the state, but the evidence, if any, adduced upon the hearing of the motion is not brought forward in the record.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court,
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3258 

Making continuing appropriations for all departments and agencies of the 

Federal Government, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 5, 2013 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

Making continuing appropriations for all departments and 

agencies of the Federal Government, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fiscal Sanity Act for 

5 Appropriations’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS. 

7 There is hereby appropriated for 365 days after the 

8 date of enactment of this Act— 

9 (1) for each project or activity for which budget 

10 authority was provided in the Consolidated and FurVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:55 Oct 06, 2013 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3258.IH H3258

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3258 IH

1 ther Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public 

2 Law 113–6), an amount equal to the budget author3 ity provided in such Act, as reduced pursuant to the 

4 Presidential sequestration order dated March 1, 

5 2013, to remain available for a comparable period of 

6 availability; and 

7 (2) for entitlements and other mandatory pay8 ments whose budget authority was provided in ap9 propriations Acts for fiscal year 2013, and for activi10 ties under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, such 

11 amounts as may be necessary to maintain program 

12 levels as they existed on September 30, 2013. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements(Form S-3 Nos. 333-105550 and 333-110966) and in the related Prospectuses andalso in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-60207 and 333-101673) ofUnited Defense Industries, Inc. of our report dated February 13, 2004, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of United DefenseIndustries, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2003.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
McLean, Virginia
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2952

EVA F. CHAMBERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KERSHAW COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-94-1109-3-19BD)

Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 16, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eva F. Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Lendren Childs, CHILDS

& DUFF, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Geoffrey Ross Bonham,

GOODSTEIN & GOODSTEIN, Summerville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Eva F. Chambers appeals the district court's order dismissing

her civil rights action. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant

that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to

the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 31.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Colin L. Slade, certify that:

         (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tektronix,
Inc., for the fiscal quarter ending August 30, 2003;

         (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

         (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         (4) The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

                  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

                  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

                  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

         (5) The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

                  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

                  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Dated:      October 14, 2003


/s/  COLIN L. SLADE
--------------------------------------------
Colin L. Slade
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 96-11521

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LOUIS DEE YOUNG, JR,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CV-3135-R)

January 14, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louis Dee Young, Jr. appeals the district court’s denial of

his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Young argues that Lopez v. United States, 514

U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), has invalidated
-2-

his conviction, that federal jurisdiction was lacking because he

was not arrested on federally-owned land, that the indictment

against him was defective, that the trial court delivered improper

jury instructions, and that counsel was ineffective at trial and on

appeal.

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs. We find

no reversible error.

AFFIRMED.
#### RENEAU v. STATE.

No. 24785.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1950.

Rehearing Denied June 14, 1950.

Bowen C. Tatum, Dallas, David W. Howell, Dallas, for appellant.

Will R. Wilson, Jr., Cr. Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Fred M. Bruner, Asst. Dist. Atty., Harold W. McCracken, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for burglary with a sentence of five years.

Appellant was charged with the nighttime burglary of a private residence. No question is raised about the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

We find one bill of exception complaining of the failure of the court to direct the court reporter to make a copy of the record of the case in question and answer form. This contention is based on the provisions of Article 760(6), Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

Without discussing the construction to be given to Paragraph 6 of said Article, it is sufficient to say that it does not apply in the case now before us, because the court was not required by the laws of Texas to appoint counsel for appellant.

No other question is raised by the record. We find no reversible error and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 11480-001 Alaska]

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for an original license for Haida Corporation's proposed Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Project, and has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA). The project would be located about 10 miles east of Hydaburg, Alaska on Prince of Wales Island.

On September 9, 1999, the Commission staff issued a draft environmental assessment (DEA) for the project and requested that comments be filed with the Commission within 45 days. Comments on the DEA were filed by the Alaska Power & Telephone Company, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination, Haida Corporation, and Natural Heritage Institute and are addressed in the FEA.

The FEA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

Copies of the FEA are available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room, Room 2A, at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, and on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm [please call (202 208-222 for assistance].

David P. Boergers

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27769 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5998-5999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2779]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 77

[Docket No. 99-063-2]


Tuberculosis in Cattle and Bison; State Designations; California, 
Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim 
rule that amended the tuberculosis regulations concerning the 
interstate

[[Page 5999]]

movement of cattle and bison by raising the designations of California, 
Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico from modified accredited States to 
accredited-free States. We have determined that California, 
Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico meet the criteria for designation as 
accredited-free States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The interim rule became effective on October 14, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Joseph VanTiem, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, National Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River 
Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In an interim rule effective October 14, 1999, and published in the 
Federal Register on October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56399-56400, Docket No. 99-
063-1), we amended the tuberculosis regulations in 9 CFR part 77 by 
removing California, Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico from the list of 
modified accredited States in Sec. 77.1 and adding them to the list of 
accredited-free States in that section.
    Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or 
before December 20, 1999. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, 
for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim 
rule as a final rule.
    This action also affirms the information contained in the interim 
rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has 
waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 77

    Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Tuberculosis.

PART 77--TUBERCULOSIS

    Accordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the 
interim rule that amended 9 CFR part 77 and that was published at 64 FR 
56399-56400 on October 20, 1999.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111, 114, 114a, 115-117, 120, 121, 134b, 
and 134f; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of February 2000.
Bobby R. Acord,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 00-2779 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-U