alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: MARCH 17, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

PHILIP PUTTER 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-0210 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013EA110075) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Philip Putter, Respondent 

75 Westlake Dr. 

Thornwood, NY 10594 

TEL: 917-903-7575 

ONE COPY 

Lawrence R. DiGiansante, Respondent Counsel 

984 Morris Park A venue 

Bronx, NY 10462 

TEL: 718-822-0707 

Judith L. Vaughan, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3255 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0210 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED   CONDENSED   CONSOLIDATED   FINANCIAL   STATEMENTS  INCLUDED  IN  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001012270
<NAME>                        CollaGenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         11,296
<SECURITIES>                                   3,984
<RECEIVABLES>                                  80
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               15,860
<PP&E>                                         186
<DEPRECIATION>                                 77
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 15,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,379
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       86
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   15,982
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               408
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,215)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,215)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,215)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.96)
        

</TABLE>
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 06/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of EP MedSystems, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, based on his knowledge, 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: May 13, 2008 |  | /s/ James J. Caruso                                  
|                   |  | James J. Caruso                                      
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)



27
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,Donald L. Drakeman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Annual Report of Medarex, Inc. on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information containedin such Annual Report of Medarex, Inc. on Form 10-K fairlypresents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Medarex, Inc.

| Date: March 15, 2006 |       | By:        |   | /s/ DONALD L. DRAKEMAN                |
|---------------------------|------------|------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
| ** **                | ** ** | **Name:**  |   | **Donald  L. Drakeman**                    |
| ** **                | ** ** | **Title:** |   | **President  and Chief Executive Officer** |

 

Signed originals of these written statements requiredby Section 906, or other documents authenticating, acknowledging orotherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within theelectronic version of these written statements required by Section 906,have been provided to Medarex, Inc. and will be retained by Medarex, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

This Certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 15(d) andshall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act(15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. ThisCertification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that Medarex,Inc. specifically incorporates it by reference.

----
#### STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. NATIONAL MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION et al., Appellees.

No. 7721.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

April 20, 1932.

James Ar. Allred, Atty. Gen., and Everett L. Looney, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Simmons & Arnold, of Houston, for appel-lees.

McClendon, c. j.

This cause is companion to No. 7720, State v. Texas Mutual Life Insurance Company of *416Texas et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 51 S.W.(2d) 405, this day decided. Appellee association was chartered September 1, 1905, and the certificates isshed by it are in only one denomination, f5,000. Each certificate holder is required to pay annually $5.50 for operating expenses, and $5.50 “for a contingent allotment fund.” Additionally, $1 of each death, old-age, and permanent disability assessment may be used for operating expenses. Attached to the agreed statement of facts is the certificate of a certified public accountant to an audit covering the period “1, 1930 to September 30, 1930.” This audit, however, is limited to -receipts and disbursements “on account of the Death Assessment Fund.” It shows total receipts $143,077.15, deductions for expenses “as per policy conditions” $12,030.95, “Legal and other Expenses, etc., on Death Claims” $2,180.50, death claims paid $132,755.82; thus leaving a deficit (disbursements over receipts) of $3,890.12. It is manifest that this audit only shows the total amount of expenses collected from this one.source of income (death assessments) during this brief period. There is no showing as to what these “Expenses” consisted in, nor is there any showing as to how the large sums collected from other above-named sources were disbursed. Except as above stated, there is no essential difference between the record in this cause and that in cause No. 7720, and the holdings in our opinion in that cause are controlling here.

The trial court’s judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
# REGISTRATION

86277-3______________________________________________________________

Page is not included in this copy.

Pages 359 through 362 are not included in this copy.

___________________________________________________ ______________

The material not included contains the following type of

information:

____ _ Identity of product inert ingredients.

__ __ Identity of product impurities.

__ _ _ Description of the product manufacturing process.

__ __ Description of quali ty control procedures.

__ __ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

__ X __ The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending regi stration action.

__ __ FIFRA registration data.

__ __ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _

.

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

__ __ Internal deliberative information.

__ __ Privileged a ttorney

- c lient communication

.

__ __ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the

Agency.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NING HE,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72826

Agency No. A205

- 540

- 281

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 15, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Ning He, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ or der dismissing her appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 72826

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evid ence the agency’s factual findings,

applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the

REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We

deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence support s the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on an inconsistenc y between He’s testimony and the divorce decree as to the

custody status of her son

, a s well as an inconsistency between He’s testimony and

her visa application concerning her employment history. See id . at 1048 (adverse

credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances)

. Substantial

evidence also supports the agency’s finding that He ’s corroborative evidence did

not rehabilitate her testimon y

. See G arcia v. Holder , 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.

2014)

. He ’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS

,

204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony,

in this case, H e ’s asylum and withholding of rem oval claims fail. See Farah v.

Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

He ’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the

agency found not credible, and He does not point to any other evidence in the

record that compels the con clusion that it is more likely than not she would be3 18

- 72826

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

China. See id . at 1156

- 57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-03-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-03-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          10,484
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,016
<ALLOWANCES>                                       491
<INVENTORY>                                    261,370
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               294,645
<PP&E>                                         220,371
<DEPRECIATION>                                  87,610
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 437,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          133,808
<BONDS>                                         46,942
<COMMON>                                       109,450
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     141,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   437,010
<SALES>                                        954,308
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               954,308
<CGS>                                          599,460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  599,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   294
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,328
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,267
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,549
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,718
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,718
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .68
        

</TABLE>
#### Ex parte BURNS.

No. 16958.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 23, 1934.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Application is for writ of prohibition.

The application shows that Bums is under indictment in Harrison county for the offense of robbery by the use of firearms. On habeas corpus hearing he was granted bail in the sum of $10,000 on the 11th day of May, 1934. He excepted to the amount of bail, claiming it .'was excessive, and gave notice of appeal to this court. The application was sworn to on the 15th day of May, and filed here on the 16th day of May. It is further averred in the application that the trial court has set the case down for trial on the 17th day of May, and this court is asked to issue a writ of prohibition preventing the trial court from trying the case until the question of bail has been here determined on appellant’s appeal from the action of the trial court in fixing bail at $10,000.

The jurisdiction of this court is fixed by section 5, art 5, of the state Constitution, and the Act of the 40th Legislature, Reg. Sess., p. 54, c. 38 (Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. art. 53 a). Thereunder it would seem doubtful if this court under any circumstances has authority to issue such a writ as is here prayed for. It is unnecessary to go into a discussion of that question at this time, for even did such authority exist there is no sufficient showing made that appellant is entitled to the writ requested. No facts are presented indicating that the amount of bail allowed by the court was excessive under the facts before the court upon the hearing at which bail was fixed, nor that appellant has made any effort to furnish bail in the amount demanded.

Without any purpose to commit this court on the question of authority to issue the writ in a proper case, the writ here requested is denied.
#### BROWN v. STATE.

No. 17437.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 20, 1935.

B. W. Baker, of Carthage, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is murder; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for three years.

The indictment is regular and charges John Brown with the murder of Bert Anderson by shooting him with a gun.

The evidence heard in the trial court is not brought up for review. In the absence of the facts we are unable to appraise the charge of the court. Nothing irregular has been perceived in connection with the charge or the other procedure' during the trial.

At the request of the appellant, the issue of a suspended sentence was submitted to "the jury.

We find no bills of exception, hut in the motion for new trial are certain criticisms of the procedure. None of the matters of which complaint is made are such as can be given consideration by this court, especially when the complaint is made for the first time, in the motion for new trial. The law contemplates that rulings of the court contrary to the views of the appellant or his counsel should be called to the attention of the trial judge- to the end that correction may be made. The record failing to show- that appellant made exception to the ridings of which he now complains, his criticism of them in the motion for new trial cannot be considered on appeal. Such we understand to be the purpose and interpretation of articles 666 and 667, C. O. P. 1925.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1999
<CASH>                                            4309
<SECURITIES>                                       497
<RECEIVABLES>                                      573
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        487
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6076
<PP&E>                                            1433
<DEPRECIATION>                                     875
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              303
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                        6384
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6634
<SALES>                                           3930
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3930
<CGS>                                             2302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   607
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1239
<INCOME-TAX>                                       489
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                750
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       750
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .97


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 333-86595, 333-65721, 333-40697, 333-34677, 33-65412, 33-97512, 33-65414,
and 33-88114, of Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report
dated March 8, 2002, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pacific
Sunwear of California, Inc. for the year ended February 2, 2002.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
March 27, 2002
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 20153.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 1, 1939.

J. D. Todd, Jr., of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

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

*380GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of murder, and assessed a penalty of twenty-five years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without any statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment appears to be in proper and legal form, and the judgment follows the verdict of the jury. The court’s charge was not objected to, and appears to have properly charged the law relative to the offense charged.

We see no error in the record presented, and the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1



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 on Form 10-Q of Boston Communications Group, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, E.Y. Snowden, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                  
|------------------
|Date: May 15, 2003
|