alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the matter of

20 I 0 U.S.-Haneda Combination

Services Allocation Proceeding

Docket DOT-OST-20 I 0-00 1 8

)

)

)

)

)

REPLY OF' HA\ryAIIAN AIRLINES. INC.

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., to the extent necessary, requests permission to file this

short Reply to the Answer of American Airlines, Inc. ("American") filed Tuesday, June

14,2071.

In its response to the request of Delta Air Lines, Inc. to waive the dormancy

requirements of Order 2010-7-2, American sought extra-bilateral relief with respect to the

timing of departures at Haneda Airport. Hawaiian also is concerned about several

bilateral issues relating to operations at Haneda that would be associated with earlier

departures, including, among other things, the allowance of earlier arrivals at Haneda.

If the Department decides to raise the issues American has presented with the

Govemment of Japan, it should also raise Hawaiian's concems.

J. Parker Erkmann

Counsel for Hawaiian Airlines, lnc.

June27,2011

ectfully
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on June27,20Il,I served a copy of the foregoing Reply of

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. via electronic mail upon the following persons:

carl.nelson@aa.com

sascha. vanderbellen@delta.com

i effre)¡. manl e)'@united. com

annalei. avancena@united. com

howard-kass@usairways. com

eskraft@iamhoff.com

dpdean@jamhoff.com

esta.rosenberg@dot. gov

paul.eretch@dot.gov

keith.slatz@dot.eov

urskr@state.gov

fbavent@ airlineinfo. com
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF MICHAEL A. STEIN PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of ICOS Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael A. Stein, certify, 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.


March 5, 2003

/s/ Michael A. Stein
------------------------------
Michael A. Stein
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



                                       ii
CORRECTED COPY

The FAA is reissuing the letter dated July 2nd. A correction was made to add the “What You 

Should Do” section. Below is the letter that includes the change. We made the correction in 

our records as of July 6, 2015.

July 2, 2015

Mr. Seth Johnson

224 Ferro Road

Oxford, AR 72565

Dear Mr. Johnson:

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

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 30, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0834), 

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 specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.
2

What You Should Do

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

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,827
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              43
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     53,884
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         62,563
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,984
<DEPOSITS>                                     108,185
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,595
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                816
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,511
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 124,984
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,909
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,765
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    70
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,744
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,072
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,080
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,664
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  11
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,795
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,126
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         907
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       907
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.81
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.46
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,115
<LOANS-PAST>                                         3
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,333
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      155
<RECOVERIES>                                        99
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,277
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               846
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            431


</TABLE>
*OPINION ISSUED DECEMBER 12, 2008*

#### INFOPRINT SOLUTIONS COMPANY VS. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

(CC-08-0414)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

James A. Kirby III, General Counsel, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted to the Court for decision upon a Stipulation entered into by claimant and respondent wherein certain facts and circumstances of the claim were agreed to as follows:

1. Via Purchase Order No. ISC 76067 entered into with the Office of Technology, formerly Department of Administration IS&C, IBM was to provide, among other things, printer hardware maintenance services to the State of West Virginia.

2. In June of2007, IBM and Ricoh Systems formed ajoint venture under which the former IBM Printer Division was transferred to InfoPrint Solutions Company.

3. When invoicing for printer hardware maintenance began on June 2007, InfoPrint Solutions Company was not a current State of West Virginia vendor, nor did it have a valid contract against which to pay. Consequently, the Office of Technology was unable to pay the maintenance invoices.

4. The Office of Technology assisted InfoPrint Solutions in filing the appropriate paperwork and forms so that InfoPrint could become an authorized vendor of the State.

5. InfoPrint Solutions continued to maintain the printers in good faith during this period.

*1916. A new contract for fiscal year 2009 is currently in place.

7. The outstanding invoices which the Office of Technology has been unable to pay total One Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Three and Fourteen Cents ($187,763.14).

8. The Office of Technology agrees that InfoPrint provided all services for which it has invoiced.

Based on the abovementioned stipulated facts, the parties agree that the State of West Virginia has a moral obligation to reimburse InfoPrint Solutions Company in the amount of One Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Three and Fourteen Cents ($187,763.14) from special revenue for services rendered in good faith.

The Court has reviewed the facts of the claim and finds that the amount agreed to by the parties is fair and reasonable.

Award of $187,763.14.
EXHIBIT 32.1

       GUARDIAN TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. 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  the  Annual  Report  of  Guardian   Technologies
International,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31,  2003,  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael W. Trudnak, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer,
and  Secretary  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 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.

Date: April 14, 2004                      Signed: /s/ Michael W. Trudnak
Name: Michael W. Trudnak                         ------------------------------
                                                 Title: Chief Executive Officer
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 the Quarterly Report of EP MedSystems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 operation of the Company
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                                                                        
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2006 |  | /s/ David A. Jenkins                                                                                   
|                      |  | David A. Jenkins                                                                                       
|                      |  | Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Operating Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
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 the  Quarterly  Report  of EP  MedSystems,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  June 30,  2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  each of the undersigned,  in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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
               operation of the Company


Date:  August 11, 2005            /s/ REINHARD SCHMIDT
                                Reinhard Schmidt
                                  President and Chief Executive Officer
                                  (Principal Executive Officer)
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 190 

To provide for consideration of the extension under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of nonapplication of No-Load Mode energy efficiency 

standards to certain security or life safety alarms or surveillance systems, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23, 2017 

Mr. GARDNER (for himself and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for consideration of the extension under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of nonapplication of 

No-Load Mode energy efficiency standards to certain 

security or life safety alarms or surveillance systems, 

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 ‘‘Power And Security 

5 Systems (PASS) Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 190 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NONAPPLICATION OF NO-LOAD 

2 MODE ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARD TO 

3 CERTAIN SECURITY OR LIFE SAFETY ALARM 

4 OR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS. 

5 (a) Section 325(u)(3)(D)(ii) of the Energy Policy and 

6 Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii)) is amend7 ed— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘2015’’ each place it appears 

9 and inserting ‘‘2021’’; and 

10 (2) by striking ‘‘2017’’ and inserting ‘‘2023’’. 

11 (b) Section 325(u)(3)(E) of the Energy Policy and 

12 Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)) is amend13 ed— 

14 (1) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘July 1, 2017,’’ 

15 and inserting ‘‘the effective date of the amendment 

16 under subparagraph (D)(ii)’’; and 

17 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

18 ‘‘(iv) TREATMENT IN RULE.—In the 

19 rule under subparagraph (D)(ii) and sub20 sequent amendments the Secretary may 

21 treat some or all external power supplies 

22 designed to be connected to a security or 

23 life safety alarm or surveillance system as 

24 a separate product class or may extend the 

25 nonapplication under clause (ii).’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alfred Neal, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John A. K. Bradley, J.), rendered December 7, 1988, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The sole argument raised on appeal is that defendant’s guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial evidence showed that defendant and an accomplice sold crack cocaine to an undercover police officer in the lobby of an apartment building and were arrested within minutes based on accurate descriptions radioed by the undercover officer to the backup officers. The undercover officer confirmed defendant’s identity *304both in a drive-by viewing at the scene and subsequently at the precinct approximately one hour later.

Defendant argues that no member of the backup team saw the undercover officer enter the premises, and that the charges were fabricated so that the undercover officer could finish her shift with a respectable number of arrests. These issues of credibility were properly submitted to the jury, which found otherwise. Concur—Ross, J. P., Carro, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000661 15-JAN-2020 08:13 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND STATEMENTS OF CASH
FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          18,949
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      389
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,375
<PP&E>                                              51
<DEPRECIATION>                                       9
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,427
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              483
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,944
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,427
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,265
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,519)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,519)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,519)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.71)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2269 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2269

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
  To reauthorize the Global Food Security Act of 2016 for 5 additional 
                                 years.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Global Food Security Reauthorization 
Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
    (a) Assistance To Implement the Global Food Security Strategy.--
Section 6(b) of the Global Food Security Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 
9305(b)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 2017 and 2018'' and 
inserting ``fiscal years 2017 through 2023''.
    (b) Emergency Food Security Program.--Section 492(a) of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2292a(a)) is amended by striking 
``fiscal years 2017 and 2018'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2017 
through 2023''.
SEC. 3. GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS.
    Section 8(a) of the Global Food Security Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 
9307(a)) is amended--
        (1) by striking ``Not later than 1 year and 2 years'' and 
    inserting ``During each of the first 7 years''; and
        (2) by striking ``for 2017 and 2018'' and inserting ``at the 
    end of the reporting period''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```