alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 14, 2015

Mr. Albertico Navarro

Battery Ion, Inc.

P.O. Box 19274

Newbury Park, CA 91319

Dear Mr. Navarro:

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

part 21, Subpart H and §§ 45.23, 61.23(a) and (c), 61.113(a) and (b), 61.133(a), 61.315(c)(2) 

and (3), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2) and (c), 91.109(a), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 

91.319(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and 

what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your May 11, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Battery Ion, Inc. into the 

public docket (No. FAA−2015−1877), 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). 

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 Administration (FAA) requirements 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 exemption. 
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
3
Exhibit 23.2CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K prepared by PetroQuest Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe year ending December 31, 2006, and to the incorporation by referencethereof into the Company’s previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-3(File Nos. 333-131955, 333-124746, 333-42520 and 333-89961) and Form S-8 (FileNos. 333-134161, 333-102758, 333-88846, 333-67578, 333-52700 and 333-65401),of information contained in our reports relating to certain estimatedquantities of the Company’s proved reserves of oil and gas, future net incomeand discounted future net income, effective December 31, 2006. We furtherconsent to references to our firm under the headings “Risk Factors” and “Oiland Gas Reserves.”                                                   /s/       RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.         Houston, Texas
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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 27, 2016

t0919 

# Order

Clerk September 27, 2016

151587

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151587

COA: 324817

Kent CC: 08

- 006820

- FC

CORY LEE SOUDERS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 25, 2015 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of

People v Comer (Docket No. 152713) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the

decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANC E pending the decision in

that case.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1954 

To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to plan, 

design, and construct a central parking facility on National Zoological 

Park property in Washington, D.C. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2017 

Mr. PERDUE (for himself, Mr. BOOZMAN, and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules 

and Administration 

A BILL 

To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to plan, design, and construct a central parking 

facility on National Zoological Park property in Washington, D.C. 

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 ‘‘Smithsonian National 

5 Zoological Park Central Parking Facility Authorization 

6 Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1954 IS

1 SEC. 2. FACILITY FOR IMPROVED VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

2 AND ACCESS AT THE NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL 

3 PARK. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—In order to improve visitor experi5 ence and multi-modal access to the Smithsonian National 

6 Zoological Park, the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 

7 Institution is authorized to plan, design, and construct a 

8 central parking facility on National Zoological Park prop9 erty in Washington, D.C. 

10 (b) CENTRAL PARKING FACILITY.—The facility au11 thorized under this section may include parking, transpor12 tation improvements, visitor amenities including rest13 rooms, a pedestrian bridge to a midpoint entry of the Na14 tional Zoological Park, and ancillary works to accommo15 date alternative uses of the facility. 

16 (c) FUNDING.—Construction of the facility described 

17 in this section shall be conducted with funds from non18 appropriated sources. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 231 (Thursday, November 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71347-71348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30554]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3483]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Beyond the Easel: Decorative Painting by Bonnard, 
Vuillard, Denis, and Roussel, 1890-1930''

DEPARTMENT:  United States Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, I hereby determine that the 
objects to be included in the exhibition ``Beyond the Easel: Decorative 
Painting by Bonnard,

[[Page 71348]]

Vuillard, Denis, and Roussel, 1890-1930,'' imported from abroad for the 
temporary exhibition without profit within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan 
agreement with the foreign lenders. I also determine that the 
exhibition or display of the exhibit objects The Art Institute of 
Chicago, in Chicago, IL from on or about February 28, 2001 to on or 
about May 16, 2001 and The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, NY 
from on or about June 18, 2001 to on or about September 9, 2001 is in 
the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered 
to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/
619-6981). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, S.W., Room 700, Washington, D.C. 20547-0001.

    Dated: November 22, 2000.
William B. Bader,
Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 00-30554 Filed 11-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11




                        PERITUS SOFTWARE SERVICES, INC.


             STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                       Three Months Ended          Nine Months Ended
                                          September 30,               September 30,
                                          -------------               -------------
                                            1999         1998       1999        1998
                                            ----         ----       ----        ----
<S>                                          <C>       <C>         <C>        <C>
Net loss, as reported.....................   $   (71)   $(16,132)   $(2,558)   $(21,329)

Net loss attributable to common
   stockholders...........................   $   (71)   $(16,132)   $(2,558)   $(21,329)
                                             -------    --------    -------    --------
Weighted averages shares outstanding -
Basic.....................................    16,763      16,294     16,496      16,121
Adjustments thereto:
Shares attributable to common stock
   equivalents............................       --          --         --          --
Weighted average shares outstanding -
   Diluted................................   16,763      16,294     16,496      16,121
                                            =======    ========    =======    ========
Net loss per share:
Basic.....................................  $ (0.00)   $  (0.99)   $ (0.16)   $  (1.32)
                                            =======    ========    =======    ========
Diluted...................................  $ (0.00)   $  (0.99)   $ (0.16)   $  (1.32)
                                            =======    ========    =======    ========
</TABLE>
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 20305.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 22, 1939.

John D. Reese, of McKinney, for appellant. >

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

^ KRUEGER, Judge.

■ Conviction is for driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated. Punishment assessed is confinement in the county jail for a period of five days and a fine of $50.

. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exceptions. The indictment is sufficient to charge the offense and all procedural matters appear to be in due order.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from AirNet
Systems, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30,
1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       7,771,103
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,377,710
<ALLOWANCES>                                    65,525
<INVENTORY>                                  5,841,166
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,091,661
<PP&E>                                      98,370,562
<DEPRECIATION>                              45,733,953
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              86,008,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,951,778
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       126,452
<OTHER-SE>                                  77,533,444
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                86,008,736
<SALES>                                        762,642
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            45,297,029
<CGS>                                          575,942
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,255,711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,080,089
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 768
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,960,461
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,364,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,596,461
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,596,461
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52
        

</TABLE>
Order entered May 23, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00028-CV

CYNTHIA PAROSKI D/B/A DFW VIP POOLS, Appellant

V.

STAVICK2, INC. D/B/A TROPIX POOLS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-00206-2011

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s May 19, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file an 

amended brief. Appellant shall file her amended brief on or before June 20, 2013. We caution 

appellant that no further extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Ex parte EASON.

No. 22778.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1944.

L. D. Griffin, of Alice, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSO.N, Judge.

Relator was, on the 15th day of March, 1941, convicted, in the District Court of Jim Wells County, as what is commonly called, an habitual criminal, Art. 63, P.C., and his punishment assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for life. From this judgment he appealed to this court. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court, as is shown in 142 Tex.Cr.R. 294, 152 S.W.2d 757. Relator was; on May 3rd, 1941, received into the penitentiary, to serve the sentence imposed, where he is now and has been continuously incarcerated.

By application for the writ of habeas corpus before the District Court of Jim Wells County, relator sought his discharge from custody, asserting that, by reason of a defective indictment, and because of insufficient evidence to support said indictment, the judgment was void and of no force and effect. The District Court of Jim Wells County heard the application, *948developed the facts, and certified the same to this court for final determination, inasmuch as the attack was upon a final judgment of this court.

Several reasons exist why relator’s contention cannot be sustained. The first and foremost of these reasons is that the sufficiency of an indictment may not be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding. Ex parte Seymour, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 103, 128 S.W.2d 46; Ex parte Pruitt, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 438, 141 S.W.2d 333, and Ex parte Brown, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 39, 165 S.W.2d 718.

As to relator’s contention that the indictment was insufficient in its allegations to support the application of the habitual criminal statute, it will be noted that, in the opinion affirming the judgment, the sufficiency of the indictment was expressly approved. Moreover, every attack which the relator now seeks to make on the judgment of conviction was or could have been presented upon appeal. No matter alleged therein is claimed to have arisen subsequent to his conviction.

The judgment of this court affirming the judgment of the trial court becomes the law of the case and binding upon all parties.

Relator’s application for discharge is denied.

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





RULE
13a – 14(a) / 15d – 14(a)


CERTIFICATION





I, Charles A. Rufai,
certify that:






1.      I
have reviewed the this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009;




2.      Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;





3.      Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;




4.      The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 we 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





a.
            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 and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and 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.





True
      Product ID, Inc.By:  /s/  Charles A.
      Rufai
                Charles
      A. RufaiChief
      Accounting Officer





Date:  May
20, 2009
### TEX A S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00539- CV Boa r d of Re ge nt s o f

th e Te xa s St at e Uni ve r sity Sy st e m, Al an D r e e be n, Kent Adams, Don Flores, Jimmy Hayley, Dora Alc ala, J ohn Du dley, Bernie Francis, Pollyann a Stephens, and Ch ancellor

Charles Mat thews, Appellan ts

v. Lamar Ur banovs ky, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COU NTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. GN502558 , HONO RABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Appellants have asked this Court to abate the appea l for for ty -five da y s while the parties at t em p t to finaliz e a se ttlement agree ment. We will gra nt the reque st and will abate the appea l until J anuar

y 12, 2006. I f by

that time the p ar t i es have not finalized their settlement ag reement and filed a

motion to di smiss wit h this Court, the par ties are asked to file a

repor t inf or min gthi s Co ur

t of the status of

the ne g oti atio ns and

the a pp e a l.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pury ear Filed: De cembe r 2, 2005
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a)

I, David T. Hung, M.D., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Medivation, Inc. (the Company);

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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;

4. The Companys other certifying officer 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 Company 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 Company, 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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent
fiscal quarter (the Companys fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: November 14, 2006



|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|/s/ David T. Hung, M.D.                                               
|Name: David T. Hung, M.D. Title: President
and Chief Executive Officer