alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 13, 2014 

A.J. Muldoon 

Transportation Industry Analyst 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 7th Street S.W., Room 6401 

Washington D.C. 20590 

RE: DOT-OST-2000-7068 

Dear Mr. Muldoon, 

AKU!AN COlD SAY NHION lAGOO 

AlEUTIANS EAST 

BOROUGH 

fAlSI PASS KING COVE SAND POINf 

Anchorage Office 

3380 C Street, Suite 205 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Phone: 907-274-7555 

EMAILEDTO: 

albert.muldoon@dot.gov 

The Aleutians East Borough (AEB) is responsible for the transportation of passengers between 

the airport on Akun Island (7 AK) and the community of Akutan through a Co-Sponsorship 

Agreement (CSA) with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 

and the City of Akutan. From the inception of the airport on September 1, 2012 through 

February 15, 2013, the AEB operated a hovercraft as the means of transportation. However, due 

to cost, over $3 million annually, and the low reliability (approx. 60%), AEB issued request for 

proposals from helicopter operators. Based on the proposals, AEB contracted with Maritime 

Helicopters to provide transportation services between 7 AK and Akutan. That service started on 

February 16, 2013 and is the current mode of transportation. The helicopter operation appears to 

be more reliable (approx. 90%), thereby allowing the helicopter operation to match the 

operations of Grant Aviation. However, the movement of mail and freight has become a bigger 

issue with the helicopter. Space is limited on the helicopter. AEB would like to see more of the 

larger mail and freight items be transported to Akutan by boat rather than air. 

Given the above background of AEB's involvement in the operation, we basically support the 

EAS with Grant Aviation. We would like to encourage Grant Aviation to consider a different 

flight schedule providing one flight in the morning and one in the afternoon for two flights a day 

rather than the three flights for three days and one flight for three days. We have found that for 

various reasons, Grant Aviation tends to cancel one of the flights on the three flights per day 

anyway. When AEB operated the hovercraft it was difficult to meet the three flights per day 

schedule and many times went over in the morning and waited till the afternoon flight was 
U.S. Department of Transportation 

DOT -OST -2000-7068 

Page2 

completed. That is not as big an issue with the helicopter, except that if Grant Aviation went to 

two flights per day, it would allow a more even workflow for the helicopter operations. 

We would also like to have some discussion about limiting the size of mail and freight that 

comes by air and would recommend that the postal system consider moving larger pieces of mail 

by boat to Akutan. 

If you have any questions and/or would like to discuss further and/or need additional information 

from AEB, please contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Aleutians East Borough 

Rick Gifford, Administrator 

rgifford@aeboro .org 

cc: Stanley Mack, Mayor
# L_2012328EN.01001801.xml

| 28.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 328/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 328/18

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 20 November 2012

on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the International Jute Study Group regarding the negotiation of new Terms of Reference beyond 2014

(2012/730/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(3) and (4), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | By Council Decision 2002/312/EC (1), the Agreement establishing the Terms of Reference of the International Jute Study Group, 2001 (‘the Agreement’) was approved on behalf of the European Community. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By Council Decision 2002/312/EC (1), the Agreement establishing the Terms of Reference of the International Jute Study Group, 2001 (‘the Agreement’) was approved on behalf of the European Community.

| (2) | The current Terms of Reference expire on 30 April 2014 and the question of opening negotiations for the renewal of these Terms of Reference will be discussed in the 15th session of the International Jute Study Group Council meeting in December 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The current Terms of Reference expire on 30 April 2014 and the question of opening negotiations for the renewal of these Terms of Reference will be discussed in the 15th session of the International Jute Study Group Council meeting in December 2012.

| (3) | Renewal of the Agreement is not in the interest of the Union, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Renewal of the Agreement is not in the interest of the Union,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The position to be taken on behalf of the European Union, represented by the Commission, within the International Jute Study Group shall be to vote against the opening of negotiations for the renewal of the Terms of Reference beyond 2014.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 20 November 2012.

For the Council

The President

A. D. MAVROYIANNIS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 112, 27.4.2002, p. 34.

1

---
#### Etta Wilkins, Appellant, v. W. C. Howell, Executor, Appellee.

APPEAL AND EEROS,: Review — Review of Court Findings. An assignment, on appeal, to tlie effect that, in a trial to the court, the finding ought to have been for appellant, will avail nothing, when the testimony is circumstantial and indefinite.

*655*Appeal from Lee District Court.*— John E. Ceaig, Judge.

OCTOBER 17, 1922.

Claim in probate, filed by plaintiff against tbe defendant, as executor of the estate of Christ Rosenkilde. There was a trial to the court without a jury. The court found the evidence to be insufficient to establish the claim, and disallowed the same. The plaintiff *appeals.*—

Affirmed.

*Hughes &*Dolan, for appellant.

*Boyd & McKinley,*for appellee.

Evans, J.

It will be noted from the foregoing statement that the appellant has little standing ground on which to base error of law. All the errors relied on by appellant for reversal are reducible to the one proposition that the court erred in failing to find for the plaintiff. Appellant’s argument is directed largely to the proposition that there was sufficient competent evidence to sustain a finding in favor of the plaintiff on the facts. If this proposition were conceded, it would not avail the plaintiff. The weight of the evidence was for the trial judge to determine. He took the place of the jury in that regard. If the case had been submitted to a jury, and if an adverse verdict had resulted, it would not avail the plaintiff to find that the evidence was sufficient to have sustained a favorable verdict. Her position upon this record is precisely the same as though the case had been submitted to a jury, and a verdict rendered against her. It is conceivable, of course, that evidence might be of such a conclusive character as to entitle the plaintiff to a favorable finding, as a matter of law. Clearly, this is not such a case. The claim is for $525 for services for washing and mending for the decedent and for cleaning Ms room, extending over a period of five years preceding his death. The evidence offered in support of the claim is circumstantial and indefinite. If the trial judge had allowed the claim thereon, it is very doubtful whether the evidence could have been deemed by us sufficient to sustain such a finding. Needless to say, therefore, it is wholly *656insufficient to sustain an interference with a verdict adverse to the claimant. The judgment below is, *accordingly,*— Affirmed.

Stevens, C. J., ArthuR and Faville, JJ., concur.
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  We the undersigned, Barry J. Lucas, President (Principal Executive Officer) and Michael J. Malbourne, Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer) of Elray Resources, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002that:  (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.  /s/Barry J. Lucas Barry J. Lucas President (Principal Executive Officer)  /s/Michael J. Malbourne Michael J. Malbourne 
Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)  November 15, 2010  A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002has 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.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ISIDRO JONES, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2108 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 12, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender and Jean-Jacques A. Darius, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Final Action on Reconsideration of EPA’s Interpretive Memorandum 

Addressing Pollutants Covered by Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

Permit Program under the Clean Air Act 

 

Key Points Addressed in Document 

 1. Time when PSD permit program will apply to GHGs 

 2. No grandfathering for pending PSD permit applications 

 3. Final position on PSD interpretive issue 

 4. Clarification on approach to Title V permits 

 5. Foreshadowing of additional actions 

Background on the overall issue (if needed) 

Analysis of Proposed and Alternative Interpretations for Subject to Regulation 

1. Actual Control Interpretation 

2. Monitoring and Reporting Interpretation 

3. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Interpretation 

4. Endangerment Finding Interpretation 

5. Section 209 Waiver Interpretation 

Timing of When a Pollutant Becomes Subject to Regulation 

Application of PSD Interpretive Memo to Permitting for GHGs 

1. Date by Which GHGs Will Be “Subject to Regulation” 

2. Implementation Concerns 

3. Interim EPA Policy to Mitigate Concerns Regarding GHG Emissions from 

 Construction or Modification of Large Stationary Sources 

4. Transition for Pending Permit Applications 

Other Issues Which EPA Solicited Comment On 

1. Prospective Codification of Interpretation 

2. Section 821 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

PSD Program Implementation by EPA and States 

Application of the Title V Program to Sources of GHGs
Exhibit 99.2




                          CERTIFICATION



    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of AccessTel, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify, to
such officer's knowledge, that:

    The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 of
the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information
contained in the Form 10-KSB 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request

Date:  May 21, 2003               By:  /s/ Leonard W. Burningham, Esq.
                                           --------------------------
                                           Leonard W. Burningham, Receiver
# L_2012048EN.01000901.xml

| 21.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 48/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 48/9

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 148/2012

of 20 February 2012

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (New Season Comber Potatoes/Comber Earlies (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘New Season Comber Potatoes/Comber Earlies’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘New Season Comber Potatoes/Comber Earlies’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 February 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 144, 14.5.2011, p. 32.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

UNITED KINGDOM

New Season Comber Potatoes/Comber Earlies (PGI)

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3601 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3601

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
           the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   7715 Post Road, North Kingstown, Rhode Island, as the ``Melvoid J. 
                     Benson Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MELVOID J. BENSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 7715 Post Road, North Kingstown, Rhode Island, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Melvoid J. Benson Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Melvoid J. 
Benson Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

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

                      Certification Pursuant to 906 by CFO

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 Surgical Safety Products, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Paul Gray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully compiles with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                     /s/ R. Paul Gray
                                         R. Paul Gray
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         Power 3 Medical Products, Inc.
April 14, 2004
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

# AGENCY:

Department of Justice.

# ACTION:

 Notice of Department of Justice's standing members of the Senior Executive Service and Senior Level Performance Review Boards.

# SUMMARY:

 Pursuant to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the Department of Justice  announces the membership of its 2024 Senior Executive Service (SES) and Senior Level (SL) Standing Performance Review Boards (PRBs). The purpose of the PRB is to provide a fair and impartial review of SES and SL performance appraisals and make recommendations to the appointing authority concerning performance ratings, performance awards, and performance-based pay adjustments.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

F. Michael Sena, Deputy Director, Human Resources, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 532-4594.

Dated: October 9, 2024.

Jolene Ann Lauria,

Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

## 2024 Federal Register

## List of Names (Alphabetical Order)

Bass, Stacie

Baxter, William H

Brewer, Laurence Neil

Campbell, Romona

Collier, Andrew T

DeTineo, Kristen E

Ducot, Gregory Earl

Flentje, August E

Freeman, Mark R

Govindan, Jay

Griffith, L Cristina

Haungs, Michael J

Hoag, Aaron D

Haar, Daniel

King, Damon Alexander

McCarthy, Andrea Wenz

McCarthy, Patricia M

McHenry, James

Merkle, Phillip K

Messersmith, Cynthia

Milusnic, Louis J

Mizer, Benjamin C

Neumann, Jennifer Scheller

Pelletier, Jonathan

Pfister, Mary B

Posner, Morton J

Raish, Anne S

Reich, Mitchell

Ruisanchez, Alberto J

Satten-Lopez, Elena

Shatz, Eileen M

Spriggs, Dwayne Eugene

Tarlov, Yvette F

Thompson, Sonya D

Toledo, Randy

Ugolini, Francesca

Wilkinson, James

Woodard, Karen D

[FR Doc. 2024-23756 Filed 10-11-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-CH-P
```
**CERTIFICATION**

I, Timothy Novak certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10KSB of Power 3 Medical Powers, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
   information included in the this annual 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 annual
   report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
   establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures for the
   registrant and have:
        a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
           material information relating to the registrant, including the
           consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
           entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report
           is being prepared;
        b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
           and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this
           annual report; and
        c. Presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
           effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
           evaluation noted  preceding;
5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
   our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors:
        a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
           controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
           record, process, summarize, and report financial data and have
           identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
           internal controls; and
        b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
           employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
           controls; and
6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
   annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls
   or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
   subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
   corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
   weaknesses.

Date:April 14, 2004
                                                   /s/ Timothy Novak
                                                   By: Timothy Novak
                                                   Title: Chief Executive Officer
```
Record ofDiscussion Docket No. FAA- Oircctorate Identifier:

With whom outside the FAA bas this action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

### Meggitt Contro l John Pryor 3/25/ 2013 Concur. 

### Systems NTSB Joshi Oeepah 5/7/2013 Concur. 

### AOPA 

### Robert Hackman 10 / 8/2 013 No respon se. 

### EAA 

### Sean Elliot 10 / 8/2013 No respon se. 

### Meggitt Control Jim T arter 4/10/2014 Concur. 

### Systems

Other/Additional Inf ormation:



### 9