alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**From the 2011 Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code**  **Radio Control Section, #5:**  RC model aircraft will not operate within three (3) miles of any pre
-existing flying site without a frequency
management agreement. A frequency
- ma nagem ent agreem ent m ay be an allocation of frequencies for each site, a day- use agreem ent between sites, or testing which determines that no interference exists. A frequency
managem ent agreem ent may exist between two or m ore AMA chartered cl ubs, AMA clubs and individual AMA m em bers, or individual AMA m em bers. Frequency- ma nagem ent agreem ents, including an interference test report if the agreem ent indicates no interference exists, will be signed by all parties and copies provided to AMA Headquarters Variations for AMA Frequency Managem ent Agreem ents: 1 st Party 2 nd Party AMA chartered club AMA chartered club AMA chartered club Club not affiliated with AMA AMA chartered club Individual AMA me mber Individual AMA me mber Individual AMA me mb er Individual AMA me mber Individual not affiliated with AMA There can be m ore than 2 parties involved in a Frequency Managem ent Agreem ent. Be sure to assign the designated frequencies to all parties and inform all involved m em bers (i.e. post the assignm ents at the flying site). Please note, that only officers of the chartered club can sign the Frequency Managem ent Agreem ents on behalf of the club. Note: Once a Frequency Managem ent Agreement is in place it does not have to be renewed on a yearly basis. It is valid until one or both parties (if AMA chartered club) disband, relocate, or sell the property. The agreem ent is only valid for the specific parties nam ed, which m eans if a club disbands and another AMA chartered club/individual m em ber uses the flying site, a new Frequency Managem ent Agreem ent will have to be created, signed by all parties involved, and copies sent to AMA HQ. Participants in the Frequency Managem ent Agreem ent are responsible for inform ing any guest flying at the site about the agreement and enforcing that only frequencies assigned for that particular site are used! **Important:** The Frequency Management Agreem ent requirem ent is waived on a provisional basis for club(s) operating exclusively on 2.4 GHz. However, the club will have to subm it a 2.4 GHz agreem ent to AMA.

 Individual AMA member means that the individual is using the specific property for RC Flying unrelated to any club affiliation he or she might have, within proximity of another party. Q: \ Special Services \Documents \ FORMS \ #923 Frequency ManagementAgreement. doc 12/2009 ISM
<PAGE>

                          CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP

                                  EXHIBIT 23.2

<PAGE>
                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Wilmington Trust Corporation, and the related prospectuses, of our
report dated January 26, 2001, with respect to the consolidated statements of
income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows of Wilmington Trust
Corporation and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2000 incorporated
by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Wilmington Trust Corporation
for the year ended December 31, 2002:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


Registration Statement
        Number                               Form                             Description
<S>                                         <C>                   <C>
       33-43675                             Form S-8              1991 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1991
                                                                  Long-Term Incentive Stock Option Plan, 1988
                                                                  Long-Term Incentive Stock Option Plan, 1983
                                                                  Employee Stock Option Plan, Thrift Savings
                                                                  Plan, and Employee Stock Ownership Plan
      333-04042                             Form S-8              1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1996
                                                                  Long-Term Incentive Plan
      333-49019                             Form S-3              Subordinated Debt
      333-69479                             Form S-8              Thrift Savings Plan
      333-80009                             Form S-8              1999 Long Term Incentive Plan and Executive
                                                                  Incentive Plan
      333-69453                             Form S-3              Resale Prospectus and Stock Offering to
                                                                  Public
      333-37928                             Form S-8              2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
      333-61096                             Form S-8              2001 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan
      333-76332                             Form S-3              Resale Prospectus and Stock Offering to
                                                                  Public
      333-86748                             Form S-8              2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan
</TABLE>



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 25, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SIX MONTHS
ENDED 9/26/97 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1997
<CASH>                                          18,112
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                       723
<INVENTORY>                                     42,798
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,583
<PP&E>                                          24,752
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,423 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 106,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,768
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,255
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   106,074
<SALES>                                        107,791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               107,791
<CGS>                                           63,631
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,690
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,764
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (171)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,225
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,890
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,335
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,335
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0256

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LEA ALEX YATES II,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 13, 2021 within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 7 2021

09/07/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0256
# I Ka 'Ohana

# 0Kala

### up~ Board ofDirectors 

# I Clarence "Boogie" Kahilihiwa 1 President 

# ! Pauline Ahulau Chow Vice President
Pauline Ka'iulani Puahala Hess Treasurer
MakiaMalo

Director
Gloria Marks

Director 

# I Mark Ellis Director
Glenn Harada

Director
Sol Kaho'ohalahala Director 

# I Colette Machado Director i Charmaine Woodward 

## I Director 

# l l Sister Davilyn Ah Chick, OSF 

# I l 

# I I i 

### ' Director
Patrick Boland

Director
Valerie Monson Coordinator and Secretary ... To Honor and To Perpetuate"
October 28, 2013 Kevin D. Schlemn:ler, Chief Essential Air Service & Domestic Analysis Division U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseys Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Order 2013-10-3, servicing Kalaupapa, Hawaii Sentvia email and US Mail Aloha Chief Schlemmer, .:**~..** , .....

Ka 'Ohana 0 Kalaupapa is a 501-c-3 nonprofit organization made up ofKalaupapa residents, family members, descendants and longtime friends of the community. Our mission is to advocate for the needs of residents, develop educational programs for the public, help descendants learn about their ancestors at Kalaupapa and workin collaboration for the preservation of this importanthistory. I am writing onbehalf of the 'Ohana Board ofDirectors regarding Order2013-10-3, servicing Kalaupapa, Hawaii, to respectfully ask that Makani Kai Airlinesbe granted the Essential Air Service contract to continue offering air service to Kalaupapa. For the past two years, Makani Kai has provided exceptional service to the Kalaupapa community, their family members who wish to visit them and others who wantto travel to this remote peninsula thathas played such a large partin the history of Hawaii. Airfares are affordable, the service providedby the pilots and staffis outstanding and the administration works closely with the Kalaupapa community to make sure the schedule meets the needs of residents. Dependable and affordable air travel is essential for those ofus atKalaupapa where we live in a peninsula accessible onlyby a horse trail down a steep, 3-mile clifforby small airplanes. We rely on air travel for medical appointments, personal business trips, family visits and general shopping. During the pasttwoyears, I can'tremember a single complaint about Makani Kai Airlines- an amazing accomplishmentin the air industry. Please grant the Essential Air Service for Kalaupapa commencingJanuary 1, 2014, to Makani Kai Airlines to enable themto continue providing this important service to the Kalaupapa community and those who wish to visit. Respectfully,

## V~.e;~ 

## {tJr Clarence Kahilihiwa President

P.O. Box 1111 Kalaupapa, Hawai'i 96742 www.kalaupapaohana.org
<PAGE>

                                                            EXHIBIT NO. 21

         SUBSIDIARIES OF WISCONSIN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                       Jurisdiction of      Name Under Which
            Subsidiary                 Incorporation          Does Business
            ----------                 -------------          -------------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>

Wisconsin Central Ltd.                   Illinois     Wisconsin Central Ltd.

WCL Railcars, Inc.                       Illinois     WCL Railcars, Inc.

Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company          Michigan     Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company

Fox Valley & Western Ltd.                Illinois     Fox Valley & Western Ltd.

Wisconsin Central International, Inc.    Delaware     Wisconsin Central International, Inc.

WC Canada Holdings, Inc.                 Canada       WC Canada Holdings, Inc.

Algoma Central Railway Inc.              Canada       Algoma Central Railway Inc.

Wisconsin Central International, B.V.    Netherlands  Wisconsin Central International, B.V.

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Michael G. Moore, Chief Financial Officer of Gulfport
Energy Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                         |  |                                         
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|                      |  |  |  | 
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: March 14, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    MICHAEL G. MOORE
|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                         |  | Michael G. Moore Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1






                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant







<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          JURISDICTION OF         NAMES UNDER WHICH
           NAME OF SUBSIDIARY              INCORPORATION       SUBSIDIARY DOES BUSINESS
           ------------------             ---------------      ------------------------      
<S>                                       <C>              <C>
1. American Dental Laser GmbH                 Germany        American Dental Laser GmbH

2. American Dental Laser-Japan, Inc.        United States    American Dental Laser-Japan, Inc.
                                                             
3. ADT Merger Corp. (changed on             United States    ADT Merger Corp. and
   July 31, 1996 to Texas Airsonics, Inc.)                   Texas Airsonics, Inc.
</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.1

                            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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of  Technoprises  Ltd.
(the  "Company")  for the  year  ended  December  31,  2003 as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  Prosper  Abitbol,  Chairman  of the board of  directors  and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to sec. 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, 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.

Date: August 15, 2004                   /s/ Prosper Abitbol
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Prosper Abitbol
                                        Chairman of the Board and
                                        Chief Executive Officer
#### Bob O. DAILY v. STATE.

No. 20060.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 21, 1938.

Mays & Mays, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for passing a forged instrument, punishment being assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

The instrument alleged 'to have been passed by appellant is in all respects the same as that described in cause No. 20,061 against the same appellant, opinion of this date. 122 S.W.2d 628. In the present case motion to quash the indictment wa.S overruled, said motion being based upon the same contention discussed in cause No. 20,-061.

We see no good reason for writing further. The same conclusion here follows as was reached in the other cause mentioned.

The judgment is affirmed.
P. 1


# OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 223 ) IV-E-9 7 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/20082:42:59PM

Sheet 223 of 242

# A-&7- M P. 2

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON , D.C
. 20460

DE C 2 3 \99 \ OFFIC E O F GEN E RA L COUNSE L MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Memorandu mt o Docke t r e Decembe r 10 , 199 1 Meetin g Concerning Onboar d Refueling Rulemaking FROM : John Hannon , Attorne y

Ai r Divisio n TO : Ai r Docke t No . A-87-1 1 

## jM^l^^y)

O n Decembe r 10 , 199 1 a meeting wa s hel d wit hperson s representing th e following intereste d parties , a t thei r request : Moto r Vehicl e Manufacturer s Association , Ford Moto r Company , an d Chrysle r Moto r Company . Representing th e Agenc ya t thi s meetin g wer e Raymond Ludwiszewski , Acting Genera l Counsel , Ala nEckert , Associat e Genera l Counsel , JohnHannon , attorney , an d Michae l Horowitz , attorney . i Th e representative s fro mth e moto r vehicl e industry explaine d an

d discusse d thei r position , a s expresse d i nthei r comments , o n th e prope r lega l interpretatio no f section s 202(a)(6 ) an

d 202(a)(4 ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t wit hrespec t t o th e issu e o f safet yo f onboar d refueling controls .

Primed on Recycled

Paper
#### NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY CO. v. PUGH.

No. 1782-6275.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

June 30, 1934.

*95Painter & Alpha, of Houston, for plaintiff in error.

Grindstaff, Zellers & Hutcheson, of Weather-ford, for defendant in error.

CRITZ, Commissioner.

This case was tried in the district court of Nueces county, Tex., and judgment rendered in favor of defendant in error. Plaintiff in error filed its motion for a new trial, which was overruled on December 18, 1931. Plaintiff in error perfected its appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals by in due time filing its appeal 'and supersedeas bonds. Plaintiff in error presented the transcript to the Court of Civil Appeals on February 24,1932, which was more than sixty days after its motion for new trial was overruled by the district court. At the same time the transcript was presented to the Court of Civil Appeals plaintiff filed in said court a motion to file the transcript. This motion purports to show good cause for failing to file the transcript within the sixty days prescribed by article 1839, as amended by Acts 42d Legislature (1931) p. 100, c. 66, § 1. The motion, however, was filed after the sixty days had expired. The Court of Civil Appeals duly heard the above motion and overruled same on authority of Reasonover v. Reasonover (Tex. Civ. App.) 46 S.W.(2d) 382. Plaintiff in error has attempted to prosecute writ of error to the Supreme Court from the order of the Court of Civil Appeals overruling its motion to file the transcript in that court.

Article 1739, R. C. S. 1925, provides: “Art. 1739. The Supreme Court may review final judgments of Courts of Civil Appeals upon writ of error, when good cause therefor be shown by application for such writ, as hereinafter required, the sufficiency of such cause to be determined as herein provided.”

The order overruling motion to file the transcript above described is not a final judgment. It follows that this writ of error was improvidently granted.

Also, since the granting of this writ the law question here involved has been settled adversely to plaintiff in error in Hunter v. Moore, 122 Tex. 583, 62 S.W.(2d) 97 (Com. App. opinion adopted) and Red v. Bounds, 122 Tex. 614, 63 S.W.(2d) 544 (Com. App. opinion adopted).

The writ of error is dismissed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2317 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for additional flexibility 

with respect to medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 17, 2018 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Ms. HASSAN, and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for additional flexibility with respect to medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders, 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 ‘‘Addiction Treatment 

5 Access Improvement Act of 2018’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2317 IS

1 SEC. 2. ALLOWING FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY WITH RESPECT 

2 TO MEDICATION-ASSISTED TREATMENT FOR 

3 OPIOID USE DISORDERS. 

4 (a) CONFORMING APPLICABLE NUMBER.—Subclause 

5 (II) of section 303(g)(2)(B)(iii) of the Controlled Sub6 stances Act (21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(B)(iii)) is amended to 

7 read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(II) The applicable number is— 

9 ‘‘(aa) 100 if, not sooner than 1 year after 

10 the date on which the practitioner submitted 

11 the initial notification, the practitioner submits 

12 a second notification to the Secretary of the 

13 need and intent of the practitioner to treat up 

14 to 100 patients; or 

15 ‘‘(bb) 275 if the practitioner meets the re16 quirements specified in section 8.610 of title 

17 42, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor 

18 regulations).’’. 

19 (b) ELIMINATING ANY TIME LIMITATION FOR NURSE

20 PRACTITIONERS, CLINICAL NURSE SPECIALISTS, CER21 TIFIED REGISTERED NURSE ANESTHETISTS, CERTIFIED

22 NURSE MIDWIVES, AND PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS TO BE23 COME QUALIFYING PRACTITIONERS.—Section 

24 303(g)(2)(G)(iii)(II) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

25 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(G)(iii)(II)) is amended by striking ‘‘dur26 ing the period beginning on the date of enactment of the 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2317 IS

1 Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 and 

2 ending on October 1, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘beginning on 

3 the date of enactment of the Comprehensive Addiction and 

4 Recovery Act of 2016’’. 

5 (c) DEFINITION OF QUALIFYING OTHER PRACTI6 TIONER.—Clause (iv) of section 303(g)(2)(G) of the Con7 trolled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(G)) is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘nurse practitioner or physician as9 sistant’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘nurse practi10 tioner, clinical nurse specialist, certified registered nurse 

11 anesthetist, certified nurse midwife, or physician assist12 ant’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Record of Ex Parte Contacts

Docket No. FAA-2011-1415 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-145-AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? (You might need to submit a separate 

record to the Rules Docket. The AD Manual defines “Ex Parte Contacts.”)

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE

ATA Mike Bianchi 6/17/2011 Concur.

(202) 626-4228 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other/Additional Information: