alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### O'toole, Catherine (OST}
From: O'toole, Catherine (OST) 

### Sent: To: Wednesday, November

### 07, 2012 11:08 AM 'Shaun Christian'; plchristian@gmail.com 

### Cc: Subject: Brehm, Thomas P <FAA>; Robert Christian; Alma Canlas RE: Docket DOT-OST- 

### 2010-0235

HiShaun Thanks forthe information you have provided! However, it is not 

### 100% complete. Before we can make you effective there are several itemsthat we will need to review. Ifyou can provide those as soon as possible, that would be great.
1. Current Resume for new chief pilotJames Messapeso 

### 2. The letterfrom Emerald Coast Consulting Services is insufficient information. Please provide Star's most recent bank statement(s) indicatingthat it has the required amount of money to support 

### 3 months ofoperations as forecast in yourapplication and documented in the Show Cause order. 

### 3. Insurance form 

### 6410 should be revised to indicate Star is now aCommuter Air Carrier and that its policy meets commuter liability requirements.**Thanks~** Katy



### From: Shaun Christian [mailto:schristian@starmarianasair.com] 

### Sent: Wednesday, November 

### 07, 2012 5:12 AM 

### To: O'toole, Catherine (OST); plchristian@gmail.com 

### Cc: Brehm, Thomas 

### P <FAA>; Robert Christian; Alma Canlas 

### Subject: RE: Docket DOT-OST- 

### 2010-0235 Hi Katy,
Attached to this email, you should find the packet prepared to comply with paragraph 1 ofthe terms, conditions, and limitations portion ofthe final order notification. I have also attached a copy ofthe upload confirmation showingthat it has been uploaded to the docket. Peryour email below, we would like to request awaiver ofthe six day hold. Please be sure to let me know ifyou have any trouble opening the attachments or ifyou have any questions. We lookforward to receiving your response confirming receipt ofthis email and to bringing this project to a conclusion. Sincerely, Shaun 

### RChristian Executive Vice President/ChiefOperating Officer Star Marianas Air, Inc. SMA Hangar- Tinian International Airport Tinian, MP 

### 96952 Tel: 

### +1-670-433-9989 Fax: 

### +1-670-433-9990 http://www.starmarianasair.com

1
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128812 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128812 

 COA: 260684 

Washtenaw CC: 03-002032-FH;

 04-000575-FH 

DOUGLAS ALAN WREN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 20, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CLINTRIALS RESEARCH INC. FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          28,275
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,725
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,148
<PP&E>                                          47,797
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,025
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 144,979
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,507
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           182
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,596
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   144,979
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,990
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,117
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  28
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,202)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,806)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,396)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,396)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)


</TABLE>
# Gazzetta ufficiale C 42A/9 fe

| | ISSN 1977-0944 |
| --- | --- |
| Gazzetta ufficiale
  dell’Unione europea | C 42A |
| | |
| Edizione in lingua italiana | Comunicazioni e informazioni | 60° anno9 febbraio 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0944

Gazzetta ufficiale

dell’Unione europea

C 42A

Edizione in lingua italiana

Comunicazioni e informazioni

60° anno9 febbraio 2017

---

| Numero d'informazione | Sommario | pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avvisi |
| | PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI |
| | Eurojust |
| 2017/C 42 A/01 | Comunicazione di vacanza del posto di direttore amministrativo di Eurojust (livello AD 14) — L’Aja (Paesi Bassi) — 17/EJ/01 | 1 |

Numero d'informazione

Sommario

pagina

V   Avvisi

PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI

Eurojust

2017/C 42 A/01

Comunicazione di vacanza del posto di direttore amministrativo di Eurojust (livello AD 14) — L’Aja (Paesi Bassi) — 17/EJ/01

1

---

| IT | |
| --- | --- |

IT

---

V Avvisi

PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI

Eurojust

| 9.2.2017 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea | CA 42/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2017

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea

CA 42/1

---

Comunicazione di vacanza del posto di direttore amministrativo di Eurojust (livello AD 14) — L’Aja (Paesi Bassi) — 17/EJ/01

(2017/C 042 A/01)

Eurojust ricerca candidature per il posto di direttore amministrativo. Eurojust è stata istituita nel 2002 con l’obiettivo di supportare le competenti autorità nazionali degli Stati membri dell’UE nella lotta contro le forme gravi di criminalità transnazionale e di criminalità organizzata. Eurojust è composta da un Collegio di magistrati (giudici o pubblici ministeri) o ufficiali di polizia che sono responsabili della sua organizzazione e della sua attività. Il direttore amministrativo, sotto la supervisione del presidente del Collegio, è responsabile della quotidiana amministrazione di Eurojust e della gestione dello staff. La descrizione dettagliata della posizione e le procedure di presentazione della candidatura sono disponibili sul nostro sito Internet al seguente indirizzo:

http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/careers/vacancies/Pages/Vacancies.aspx

La data di scadenza per l’invio delle candidature è fissata per le ore 24:00 del 17 marzo 2017.

---
Modeling files for Arizona Regional Haze FIP, 2012-07-12
These are supplemental, and were not relied on for NPRM

See additional notes in AZ_NPRM_zip_file_notes.txt
	e.g. naming convention

-------------------------------------------------------
Modeling for Coronado visibility impacts at Bosque del Apache
	Coronado_base_q_NPRM.zipx

Modeling for LNB-only Coronado visibility impacts at all areas
	Coronado_bosq_NPRM.zipx

-------------------------------------------------------
Except for the CALPOST.LST outputs, the "bosq" files use a 
different naming convention than the rest:

CALPUFF and POSTUTIL
	xx_Coronado_MODSCEN_AREA_YYYY.inp
	where xx = cf for CALPUFF, pu for POSTUTIL
CALPOST
	ct_coronado_MODSCEN_AREA_VISM_BGND_YYYY.inp
	srp_az_unit1-2_MODSCEN_pu_YYYY_calpost_AREA_VISM_BGND.lst
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATIONS





I, Brian Bronson, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Radisys Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014; and





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.





RADISYS CORPORATIONDate: April 28, 2015By:/s/ Brian BronsonBrian BronsonChief Executive Officer, President, and Director(Principal Executive Officer)
#### MORELAND v. STATE.

No. 16082.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 7, 1933.

Rehearing Denied June 21, 1933.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for child desertion; punishment being a fine of $150 and confinement in the county jail for six months.

The indictment properly charges the offense. The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
*

Appellants propose the All Writs Act as a basis for subject

matter jurisdiction for the first time on appeal. Appellants

never raised this issue at trial and are foreclosed from raising

it now. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 119-121, 96 S.Ct.

2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v.

Verex Assurance, Inc., 3 F.3d 391, 395 (11th Cir.1993). 

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 95-2138.

In re INFANT FORMULA ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL 878; Fleming

Companies, Inc.; State of Louisiana, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant-Appellee.

Dec. 20, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Florida. No. 91-MDL-878), Maurice Mitchell Paul, Chief

Judge.

Before EDMONDSON, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by class plaintiffs ("Appellants") of an

order denying their motion for a preliminary and permanent

injunction against Locator of Missing Heirs, Inc. ("Appellee"), a

non-party to the pending Antitrust action brought by Appellants

against several manufacturers of infant formula. The district

court denied Appellants' motion for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. We affirm.

 Appellants say the district court has subject matter

jurisdiction over this matter involving a non-party under either

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) or the All Writs Act, 28

U.S.C. § 1651. * The district court's conclusion that it lacked

subject matter is a question of law reviewed de novo. Sea Vessel,
Inc. v. Reyes, 23 F.3d 345 (11th Cir.1994).

 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not create federal

jurisdiction, see Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S.

365, 368-370 & n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2400 & n. 7, 57 L.Ed.2d 274

(1978). Rule 23(d) is only a procedural law; it is not a grant of

subject matter jurisdiction. The district court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction over this matter.

AFFIRMED.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 
<NAME> DIATIDE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,698,034
<SECURITIES>                                 7,778,202
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,765,397
<PP&E>                                       2,514,395
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,528,064
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,762,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,778,231
<BONDS>                                         11,455
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,520
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,962,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,762,511
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               530,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,081,427
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (452)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,369,456)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,369,456)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,369,456)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7037

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ALEXANDER QUINTON HORST , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. ( 2:15

- cr - 00046

- MSD

- DEM

- 3 ; 2:16

- cv 00221

- MSD )

Submitted : February 18, 2022 Decided: March 10, 2022

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Alexander Quinton Horst , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7037 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/10/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Alexander Quinton Horst seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion

. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appea lability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B )

. See generally United
States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015) . 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate b oth that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have i ndependently reviewed the record and conclude that Horst has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7037 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/10/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.2


CERTIFICATIONS





I, Jonathan Wilson, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Radisys Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014; and





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.








RADISYS CORPORATIONDate: April 28, 2015By:/s/ Jonathan WilsonJonathan WilsonChief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Digene Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Charles M. Fleischman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 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, as amended; and

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



| | /s/ Charles M. Fleischman
Charles M. Fleischman
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### McPHERSON v. STATE.

No. 20895.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 6, 1940.

T. B. Sisco, of McKinney, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the county jail for five days and a fine of $50.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. The appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged and waived a jury upon the trial.

No error having been shown by thq record before us, the judgment is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trimol Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

 

No purchaser or seller of securities or any other person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

 

|   | /s/ Boris Birshtein |
|--------|---------------------|

|   | Boris Birshtein |
|--------|-----------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | TRIMOL GROUP, INC. |
|--------|--------------------|

 

 

 

May 19, 2009

 

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

 

35
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 117 

To prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory commuter tax on 

nonresidents, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory 

commuter tax on nonresidents, 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. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSING DISCRIMINATORY 

4 COMMUTER TAX ON NONRESIDENTS. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—A State may not impose a tax on 

6 the income earned in the State by nonresidents unless the 

7 tax is of substantial equality of treatment for the citizens 

8 of the State and the nonresidents so commuting. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 117 IH

1 (b) STATE.—For purposes of subsection (a), the term 

2 ‘‘State’’ includes the District of Columbia and any political 

3 subdivision of a State. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 5 

Attachment 5 

Figures 

Figure 5-1 – Cooling Water Intake Structure – Unit 2 Plan View 

Figure 5-2 – Cooling Water Intake Structure – Unit 2 Section View 

Figure 5-3 – Cooling Water Intake Structure – Unit 3 Plan View 

Figure 5-4 – Cooling Water Intake Structure – Unit 3 Section View 

Figure 5-5 – Circulating Water Flow Diagram – Unit 2 

Figure 5-6 – Service Water Flow Diagram – Unit 2 

Figure 5-7 – Circulating Water Flow Diagram – Unit 3 

Figure 5-8 – Service Water Flow Diagram – Unit 3 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 5 

Page 2 of 9 

Figure 5-1 Cooling Water Intake Structure – Unit 2 Plan View
 ALTERNATIVE INTA

AT INDIAN 

Page 3 of 9 

Figure 5-2 Cooling Water Intake Structure – Unit 2 Section View
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 5 

Page 4 of 9 

Figure 5-3 Cooling Water Intake Structure – Unit 3 Plan View
 ALTERNATIVE INTA

AT INDIAN 

Page 5 of 9 

Figure 5-4 Cooling Water Intake Structure – Unit 3 Section View 
 ALTERNATIVE INTA

AT INDIAN 

Page 6 of 9 

Figure 5-5 Circulating Water Flow Diagram – Unit 2 
 ALTERNATIVE INTA

AT INDIAN 

Page 7 of 9 

Figure 5-6 – Service Water Flow Diagram – Unit 2 
 ALTERNATIVE INTA

AT INDIAN 

Page 8 of 9 

Figure 5-7 – Circulating Water Flow Diagram – Unit 3 
 ALTERNATIVE INTA

AT INDIAN 

Page 9 of 9 

Figure 5-8 – Service Water Flow Diagram – Unit 3