alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2015-1008 ☐ These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-SW-064-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: ☒ FRAN ☐ SNPRM

☒ No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? 

If yes, list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the 

previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point 

for guidance. Latest Revision.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: Choose one.

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): Click here to enter text.

What change to the AD action is requested? Click here to enter text.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Click here to enter text.

Do we agree? Yes/No

If YES, we agree because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with Insert text because Insert justification We disagree with

Insert text because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If NO, we don’t agree because Insert our rationale

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: Choose one.

If other, explain: Click here to enter text.

Commenter(s): Click here to enter text.

What change to the AD action is requested? Click here to enter text.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Click here to enter text.

Do we agree? Yes/No 
Page 2 of 3

If YES, we agree because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with Insert text because Insert justification We disagree with 

Insert text because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If NO, we don’t agree because Insert our rationale

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Exhibit 32.1


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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Titanium Metals Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2003 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof  (the  "Quarterly
Report"),  we, J.  Landis  Martin,  Chairman of the Board,  President  and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company,  and Bruce P. Inglis, Vice President - Finance
and Corporate  Controller  of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     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  result  of
          operations of the Company




November 5, 2003


/s/ J. Landis Martin
-------------------------------------------------
J. Landis Martin
Chairman of the Board, President
   and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Bruce P. Inglis
-------------------------------------------------
Bruce P. Inglis
Vice President - Finance and Corporate Controller




Note:The  certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
     "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
     as  amended,  or  otherwise  subject to the  liabilities  of that  Section.
     Registration  Statements or other  documents  filed with the Securities and
     Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference, except
     as otherwise expressly stated in such filing.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 40768 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Santo Leone,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12

- CR

- 962

- 1

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges. **Per Curiam :**  * Santo Leone, federal prisoner # 27152

- 379, was convicted of one charge of conspiring to possess at least 1 , 000 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute and was sentenced, due to his prior felony drug conviction, to serve the enhanced statutory minimum of 240 months in

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 2, 2021 Lyle W. Ca yce Clerk Case: 20-40768 Document: 00516115345 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2021No. 20

- 40768

2 prison an d a 10

- year term of supervised release. Now, he appeals the district court’s denial of his motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Because he presents no arguments related to the district court’s conclusion that he should no t receive § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) relief based on his increased risk for COVID

- 19, he has abandoned any challenges he may have had to this ruling. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993)

. Because the issue whether he exhausted his administr ative rights is
not jurisdictional, we pretermit it. See United States v. Franco , 973 F.3d 465, 46 8 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 920 (2020)

. This court reviews a district court’s decision denying compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is grou nded in a legal error or clearly erroneous facts. Id

. Leone has not met this standard. He shows no legal error in the district court’s conclusions that his various arguments concerning his sentence failed to raise an extraordinary and compelling reason w arranting relief. See id .; see also § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)

. Additionally, because the district
court concluded there were no extraordinary and compelling reasons meriting relief, there was no need for it to consider the § 3553(a) factors. See § 3582(c)(1)(A ). Finally, insofar as he argues that this court should order a full resentencing, this is inappropriate. See United States v. Golding , 742 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir. 1984). Leone ’s motion for appointed counsel is **DENIED** , and the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-40768 Document: 00516115345 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2021
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Appellant

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellee

______________________

2017

- 2502

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016

- 00533.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M ICHAEL J. V ALAIK , Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also repr esented by P ATRICK J OSEPH C OYNE

, M ICHAEL A NDREW
H OLTMAN

, S YDNEY K ESTLE

, J EFFREY C URTISS T OTTEN

, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC ; B ENJAMIN A ARON S AIDMAN , Atlanta, GA.

B RIAN E. F ERGUSON , Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also representedby S TEPHEN B OSCO

, C HRISTOPHER P EPE ; A NISH R. D ESAI

, New York, NY.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (R EYNA

, T ARANTO

, and H UGHES

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

November 9, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
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 this  Quarterly  Report  of  UnionBanCal  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Norimichi Kanari, Chief Executive 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, to my knowledge:

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

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



Dated:  August 14, 2003





                                  By:         /S/ NORIMICHI KANARI
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                                  Norimichi Kanari
                                              Chief Executive Officer
#### Johnnie REED v. STATE.

No. 19782.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1938.

E. T. Adams, of Glen Rose, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for possessing whisky at a place where only beer could legally be sold under a “beer permit,” punishment being a fine of $100.

The statute under which this prosecution proceeded was held inoperative because of repugnant penalties for the same offense in M. M. Moran v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 122 S.W.2d 318, opinion this date.

The same reasons here make it imperative to reverse the judgment and order the dismissal of the present prosecution.
IIA 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 62 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 11, 2009 

Received 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Appointing the day for the convening of the second session 

of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the second regular session of the One Hundred 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HJ 62 RDS 

1 Eleventh Congress shall begin at noon on Tuesday, Janu2 ary 5, 2010. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT
                        --------------------------------

I,  Mair  Faibish,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  Synergy  Brands,  Inc.  ("the
Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         1.   The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended
              December  31,  2006  ("the   Report")   fully  complies  with  the
              requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange
              Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: March 30, 2007

                                             /s/ Mair Faibish
                                             --------------------
                                                 Mair Faibish
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
#### CLIMER v. STATE.

No. 21081.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 22, 1940.

W. C. Dowdy, of McKinney, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is driving an automobile on a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of fifty dollars and confinement in jail for five days.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, David Yntema, CFO of Packeteer, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Packeteer, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors: (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Dated: August 9, 2006 /s/ David Yntema     David Yntema    Chief Financial Officer
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature:

Project No.: 0317.01.005.510 Page 1 of 2

Project Name: DMR2011 CBI?

Yes

No

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Incoming

Outgoing

Date: 12/13/13 Time: 3:26 am

pm

Company Name: SWRCB ERG Staff Name: Julia Kolberg

Contact Name: Gil Vasquez Contact Phone Number: (916) 322-1400

General Subject: 2011 DMR Discharges

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On December 13, 2013 at 3:26 pm, I spoke with Gil Vasquez (916-322-1400). He requested that an e-mail with 

relevant data be sent for him to confirm. I sent the e-mail immediately following our discussion.

On December 30, 2013 at 1:49 pm, Gil Vasquez returned my call, along with two other engineers in his office 

(Armando Martinez and Renan Jauregui). They wanted to preliminarily confirm that the numbers pulled from 

the DMR database were not in the correct units, and that the reading should be in micrograms instead of 

milligrams. They also wanted to confirm how we wanted flow data reported, as the value we currently have is a 

daily value for the 30th of April. I requested that they send the monthly flow rates so we could calculate an 

average value and apply it to the updated concentration. I also requested that they send information for 2012 

and 2013, if it is readily available. They agreed to provide me with the data by the end of the week.
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature:

"Martinez, Armando@Waterboards" Armando.Martinez@waterboards.ca.gov

1/2/2014 7:49:31 AM

Kolberg, Julia

Jauregui, Renan@Waterboards; Vazquez, Gil@Waterboards

RE: CA0005240 C&H Sugar Co. Inc.

Hello Julia,

We added a table with the flow monthly averages from November 2010 through October 2013 for C&H Sugar 

Co. Inc. Also Gil Vazquez will be on vacation until from today until 01/21/2014 so if you have any questions 

regarding C&H Sugar Co or if you have any DMRs needing review please contact me or Renan Jauregui, 

Renan.Jauregui@waterboards.ca.gov.

Thank you and have a great new year!

Armando Martinez

State Water Resources Control Board

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

916-319-9152

Hello Julia,

Thank you for speaking with us and answering questions yesterday. After looking at the values you requested we 

noticed that the information was incorrectly transferred from the DMR paper copy to ICIS. Scientific notation was 

incorrectly entered into ICIS, for example “E.0067” instead of “0.0067E-5”. We have corrected these mistakes in ICIS for 

methyl mercury and are in the process of reviewing/correcting other parameters. 

Per our phone conversation, attached is a spreadsheet with the methyl mercury and flow values from 2011 through 

2013. Please note the units for methyl mercury data are in micro grams per liter (ug/L). The 002-S DMRs do not 

required flow. The flow data we have provided are the averages of the monthly daily max values for each semiannual 

period. Please let us know if you have other facilities or DMRs that need to be reviewed. 

Thank you,

Armando Martinez

State Water Resources Control Board

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

916-319-9152
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-38,195]

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was intitiated on October 10, 2000, in response to a petition which was filed by the company on behalf of workers at Nova Bus, Inc., Roswell, New Mexico.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of November 2000.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-31038  Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.8

               AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO FLORIDA CHOICE BANKSHARES, INC.
                          DIRECTORS' STOCK OPTION PLAN

      THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE FLORIDA CHOICE BANKSHARES, INC. DIRECTORS'
STOCK OPTION PLAN (the "Amendment") is made as of the 25th day of April, 2005.

                                 WITNESSETH THAT:

      WHEREAS, Florida Choice Bankshares, Inc. (the "Company") has a Directors'
Stock Option Plan, as amended (the "Plan"), which the Company assumed in
connection with its acquisition of Florida Choice Bank; and

      WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects.

      NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

      1. Defined Terms. All terms used in this Amendment which are defined in
the Plan shall have the meanings specified in the Plan, unless specifically
defined herein.

      2. Amendment of Section 4.1. Section 4.1 of the Plan shall be amended to
provide that, subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.3 of
the Plan, the number of shares of Stock which may be issued and sold under the
Plan pursuant to Stock Option Agreements shall not exceed Two Hundred Forty
Thousand Nine Hundred Ten (240,910) shares.

      3. Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment,
the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly
executed by its officer thereunto duly authorized, all as of the date first
above written.

                                  FLORIDA CHOICE BANKSHARES, INC.

                                  By: /s/ Kenneth E. LaRoe
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Kenneth E. LaRoe
                                      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer