alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ScorrP. LEWIS slewis@andersonkreiger.com T: 617-621-6560 F: 617-621-6660 June 1, 2016 

# ANDERSON 

# KREIGER

BY EMAIL AND US MAIL (9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov) FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket AGC-600 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 

### Re: MarkSmith, et al. v. City of SantaMonica, California, DocketNo. 16-16-02 Dear Sir orMadam: I have enclosed for filing a signed original and three copies ofRESPONDENT'S ASSENTED-To MOTION TO EXTEND TIME. One ofthe copies ofthis document is unbound, as specified inthe Notice ofDocketing and 14 C.F.R. 

### § 16.13.



### K. Simon (by email and US mail)

---------- ----------------- ANDERSON & KREIGER LLP ONE CANAL PARK, SUITE 200, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02141 617.621.6500BEFORE THE FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

MARK SMITH ET AL. Complainants,


### v. DocketNo. 16-16-02 CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

RESPONDENT'S ASSENTED-TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME The Respondent, the City ofSantaMonica (the "City"), moves to extend the time to
answer the Complaintunder 14 C.F.R. § 16.26 by eighteen days, from Monday, June 13, 2016 to Friday, July 1, 2016. In support ofits motion, the City states as follows: 1. OnApril 11, 2016, the City filed a Motionto Dismiss Part IV ofthe Complaint. OnApril 22, the Complainants filed anAnswerto Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. The FAA has not yet issued a decision onthe Motion to Dismiss. 2. Accordingly, under 14 C.F.R. §§ 16.26(4) and (5) the City's Answerto the Complaint is currently due on June 13, 2016. 3. The City needs the additional time it now seeks to prepare its answer to the Complaint, and the Complainants will notbe prejudicedby the proposed extension oftime. 4. Complainants' counsel has consented to this proposed extension oftime.

### For these reasons, the City respectfully moves that the time to answer the Complaint be extendedto July 1, 2016.

Assented to by: MARK SMITH ET AL.


### Ric?!a~onK-.

# ~~ 1700 Decker School Lane Malibu, CA 90265 310-503-7286 rsimon3@verizon.net
June 1, 2016 slewis@andersonkreiger.com Marsha Moutrie City Attorney CITY OF SANTA MONICA 

### 1685 Main Street, Room 310 SantaMonica, CA 90401 Marsha.moutrie@smgov.net

2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify in accordance with 14 CFR 

### § 16.IS(a) that I have onthis day served the foregoing Respondent's Assented-to Motion to Extend Time onthe following persons at the fo11owing addresses by email and first-class mail: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20591 9-A WA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov

3 Richard 

### K. Simon 1700 Decker School Lane Malibu, CA 90265 310-503-7286 rsimon3@verizon.net
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 
Commission Monthly Case Activity for June 2016 
 
 
  
 
1. 
 Cases Pending Beginning of Month  
 30 
 
 
  
 
  
 
2. 
 Cases Added to Docket  
 
Tower Maintenance Corp. 
No. 13-0777 
Directed for Review on June 15, 2016 
 
Science Applications International Corp., d/b/a SAIC 
No. 14-1688 
Directed for Review on June 23, 2016 
 
Clean Fuels of Indiana, Inc. 
No. 15-1121 
Directed for Review on June 30, 2016 
 
 
 3 
 
 
3. 
 Cases Subtracted From Docket 
 
Richard Kaposy d/b/a Treeman Landscaping 
No. 10-2333 
Decision on June 16, 2016 
 
 
 -1 
 
4. 
 Total Cases Pending End of Month 
 32
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-20-00209-CR 

 

JOHNNY FLORES, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 106th District Court 

 Lynn County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 17,3232, Honorable Carter T. Schildknecht, Presiding 

September 22, 2021 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Johnny Flores appeals his conviction for causing serious bodily injury to an elderly 

person, his father. The sole issue before us concerns whether the evidence was legally 

sufficient to support the conviction. Flores does not contest that he assaulted his father 

and caused him bodily injury. Rather, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to 

prove beyond reasonable doubt that his victim suffered serious bodily injury. We affirm.

The opinion in Hammack v. State, 622 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021),

discusses the pertinent standard of review. We apply it here.
2

Next, one commits the offense in question when he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly 

causes serious bodily injury to an elderly individual by act or omission. TEX. PENAL CODE 

ANN. § 22.04(a)(1). Furthermore, “serious bodily injury” means bodily injury creating a 

substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or 

protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. Id.

§ 1.07(a)(46). 

Here, the record contains evidence that the beating appellant inflicted upon his 

father left the 69-year-old man with bleeding from his mouth, bruising, a hematoma on 

the right part of his head, bruising to his right eye and right jaw, bruising under his left 

eye, and a brain hemorrhage or bleeding within the brain. When the state’s medical 

expert was asked, “by definition, is a bleed inside the brain a serious bodily injury,” the 

physician answered, “yes.” That the hemorrhage may be small did not affect the 

seriousness the injury posed, as explained by the doctor. They have to be taken seriously 

because “you could have a small petechial bleed that becomes devastating that kills 

somebody,” according to the medical professional. 

The physician’s categorization of a brain hemorrhage as “serious bodily injury,” the 

risk of death posed by even a small intercranial bleed, and the other evidence alluded 

above comprises some evidence upon which a rational juror could conclude, beyond 

reasonable doubt, that appellant caused his father serious bodily injury as a result of 

beating him. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s issue and affirm the judgment of the 

trial court.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

December 29, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with PACCAR

FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on Friday, December 10, 2010 between PACCAR,

EPA, and NHTSA. The attendees included:

PACCAR: Dan Kieffer

EPA: Byron Bunker, Cle Jackson, Jay Smith, Arvon Mitcham, and Angela Cullen 

NHTSA: Maurice Hicks

The discussion focused primarily on vehicle families.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 24, 2011

t1017 

# Order

October 24, 2011

143359

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143359 COA: 295267 Gogebic CC: 09-000074-FC JOHN ANTHONY DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 17, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Willis C.Moore III, certify that:

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Polymer Group, Inc.;

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)                Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)                Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)                Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a)                All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)                Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: May 17, 2004 |   | /s/ Willis C. Moore, III                       |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                    |   | Willis C.  Moore, III  Chief Financial 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 report of Consolidated
Water Co. Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frederick W. McTaggart, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 result of operations of the Company.



|Date: November 9, 2012 | By: | /s/ Frederick W. McTaggart   
|---------------------- | --- | -----------------------------
|                       |     | Frederick W. McTaggart       
|                       |     | Chief Executive Officer      
|                       |     | (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULE S

904 AND 907 OF THE

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF

APPELLATE PROCEDURE :

:

:

:

:

:

: NO. 291

APPELLATE PROCEDURAL RULES

DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2 2 nd day of October, 2020 , upon the recommendation of the

Appel late Court Procedural Rules Committee ; the proposal having been published for

public comment at 49 Pa.B. 2712 (June 1, 2019) :

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania

that Rule 904 and 907 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure are amended

in the attached form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall

be effective January 1, 2021

.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletion s from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
# Official Journal L 50/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 50 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6525 February 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 50

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6525 February 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6445** 

ARNETT COBB , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. ISAAC FULWOOD, JR., Chair; U
. S
. PAROLE COMMISSION; SCOTT KUBIK, Hearing Examiner, U.S. Parole Commission; WARDEN, FCI Gilme r , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling
. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 5:10

- cv - 00066

- FPS

- JES )

Submitted : August 29, 2011 Decided: Sep tember 20, 2011

Before MOTZ , SHEDD , and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Arnett Cobb, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpubl ished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Arnett Cobb , a District of Columbia Code offender , seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241 ( West 200 6 & Supp. 2011 ) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showin g of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that th e dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cobb has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decision al process.

DISMISSED
# Official Journal C 15/2018

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 15 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6117 January 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 15

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6117 January 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 15/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2018/C 15/02 | Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)
   (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2018/C 15/03 | Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)
   (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2018/C 15/04 | New national side of euro coins intended for circulation | 4 |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2018/C 15/05 | Special Report No 2/2018 — ‘The operational efficiency of the ECB’s crisis management for banks’ | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 15/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2018/C 15/02

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)
   (
  1
  )

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)

1

2

2018/C 15/03

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)
   (
  1
  )

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)

1

3

2018/C 15/04

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

4

Court of Auditors

2018/C 15/05

Special Report No 2/2018 — ‘The operational efficiency of the ECB’s crisis management for banks’

5

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 18 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 18

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             February 7 (legislative day, February 6), 2017

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part 
   of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the 
                               Holocaust.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR HOLOCAUST DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE CEREMONY.

    The rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on April 25, 
2017, for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of 
remembrance of victims of the

              

Holocaust. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out 
in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may 
prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 6, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 2386** 

BARRY J. BLUEFELD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

BARRY S. COHEN; JOEL S. MEISEL; DAVID COHEN , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Paula Xinis , District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv
02857

- PX )

Submitted : February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Barry J. Bluefeld , Appellant Pro Se. Matthew D. Matkov, SALTZ MATKOV PC, Wayne, Pennsylvania; Albert Sanford Nalibotsky , SALTZ MATKOV, PC , Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee s .

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Barry J. Bluefeld seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over fi nal
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

-
46 (1949). The order Bluefeld seeks to appeal is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer
                     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                     As Adopted Pursuant to
                     Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Mattson Technology, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), William Turner, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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) 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 result 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 9, 2008 | /s/ WILLIAM TURNER
                     William TurnerChief Financial Officer
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---