alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 2, 2015

Mr. William A. Wilburn

Martin Instrument Inc.

12077 Starcrest Dr ive

San Antonio, TX 78247

Dear Mr. Wilburn :

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

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

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

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your June 8, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Martin Instrument Inc. filed

in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2799 , but we are unable to process your request any further. Your

petition does no t comply with the requiremen ts of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

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

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

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

benefit the public as a whole.

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

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

seek an exemption.

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

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemptio n.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/ s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1334 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1334

     To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to require U.S. 
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement, upon the request of a law 
  enforcement official, to make a prompt determination of whether to 
 issue a detainer in the case of an alien arrested for a violation of 
                     Federal, State, or local law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2017

 Mr. Carter of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Brooks of 
   Alabama, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Harris, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. 
 Rohrabacher, Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Bishop of Michigan, Mr. 
 Rouzer, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Olson, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. King 
  of Iowa, Mr. Babin, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. Yoho, and Mr. 
 Smith of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to require U.S. 
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement, upon the request of a law 
  enforcement official, to make a prompt determination of whether to 
 issue a detainer in the case of an alien arrested for a violation of 
                     Federal, State, or local law.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Assuring Law Enforcement Requests 
Are Timely Evaluated by the Department of Homeland Security Act of 
2017'' or the ``ALERTED Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF ISSUANCE OF DETAINER.

    Section 287(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1357(d)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
``relating to controlled substances''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersignedcertifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Advent Software, Inc.

 

 
| August 6, 2010 | /s/  Stephanie G. DiMarco |
|---------------------|---------------------------|
|                | Stephanie  G. DiMarco     |
|                | Chief  Executive Officer  |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Advent Software, Inc. and will be retained by Advent Software, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27576]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Revocation of Market-Based Rate Authority and 
Termination of Electric Market-Based Rate Tariff

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Quarterly Reports.............  ER02-2001-020
Astral Energy LLC......................  ER14-519-000
Clear Green Energy LLC.................  ER23-946-000
GP Energy Management LLC...............  ER15-230-000
Mega Energy Holdings LLC...............  ER13-1298-001
Planet Energy (Maryland) Corp..........  ER11-2168-001
Planet Energy (New York) Corp..........  ER11-2179-001
Planet Energy (Pennsylvania) Corp......  ER11-2167-001
Planet Energy (USA) Corp...............  ER11-2166-001
Power Supply Services LLC..............  ER12-862-000
Relief Energy LLC......................  ER23-945-000
The Valence Group, LLC.................  ER22-549-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 23, 2024, the Commission issued an order announcing its 
intent to revoke the market-based rate authority of several public 
utilities that had failed to file their required Electric Quarterly 
Reports.\1\ The Commission directed those public utilities to file the 
required Electric Quarterly Reports within 15 days of the date of 
issuance of the order or face revocation of their authority to sell 
power at market-based rates and termination of their electric market-
based rate tariffs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Electric Quarterly Reports, 189 FERC ] 61,050 (2024) 
(October 23 Order).
    \2\ Id. at Ordering Paragraph A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The time period for compliance with the October 23 Order has 
elapsed. The above-captioned companies failed to file their delinquent 
Electric Quarterly Reports. The Commission hereby revokes, effective as 
of the date of issuance of this notice, the market-based rate authority 
and terminates the electric market-based rate tariff of each of the 
companies who are named in the caption of this order.

    Dated: November 19, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-27576 Filed 11-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
(September 20, 1995)

#### People v Jose Colon.

[632 NYS2d 959]

Upon the Court’s own motion, the unpublished decision and order of this Court entered on September 19, 1995 (Appeal No. 55494) is recalled and vacated. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 93571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27779]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2322-069]

Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC; Notice of Reasonable Period of 
Time for Water Quality Certification Application

    On November 8, 2024, Maine Department of Environmental Protection 
(Maine DEP) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean Water Act 
section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 
121.5, from Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, in conjunction with the 
above captioned project on October 21, 2024. Pursuant to section 
5.23(b) of the Commission's regulations,\1\ we hereby notify Maine DEP 
of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 5.23(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: October 21, 2024.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: 
October 21, 2025.
    If Maine DEP fails or refuses to act on the water quality 
certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying 
authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean 
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: November 20, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-27779 Filed 11-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 8034** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. PAUL SCINTO, SR., a/k/a Chemist , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville
. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. ( 4:01

- cr - 00059

- H

- 1 )

Submitted : March 27, 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014

Before MOTZ , Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Paul Scinto, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, Nort h Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Paul Scinto, Sr., appeals the district court ’ s order s denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and denying his motion for reconsideration
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Scinto , No. 4:01

- cr - 00059

- H

- 1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 15 & 30, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the fac ts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Republic of Korea Chairman Meet, Discuss Stronger Alliance, Military Readiness

By Col. Patrick S. RyderSpokesperson for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of  Staff

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00490-CR

WARREN TEEL APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

On November 24, 2010, this court affirmed Appellant Warrant Teel’s

conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.

2 Appellant 

subsequently filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, seeking permission to 

file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review, and the trial court 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2See Teel v. State, No. 02-09-00150-CR, 2010 WL 4812994, at *1–2 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth Nov. 24, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication).
2

recommended that relief be granted.3 On October 14, 2011, Appellant filed with 

the trial court a ―Request for a Free Copy of Clerk’s and Reporter’s Records,‖ 

which the trial court denied on October 20, 2011. Appellant then filed notice of 

this attempted appeal.

On November 15, 2011, we notified Appellant of our concern that we 

lacked jurisdiction over this appeal, and we informed him that the appeal would 

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue 

the appeal filed with the court a response showing grounds for continuing the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). Appellant filed a response, but it does not 

present grounds for continuing this appeal.

An intermediate court of appeals is not vested with jurisdiction to consider 

an appeal from an order denying a request for a free copy of the trial proceedings 

when such request is not presented in conjunction with the direct appeal of the 

underlying case. See Self v. State, 122 S.W.3d 294, 294–95 (Tex. App.—

Eastland 2003, no pet.); Everett v. State, 91 S.W.3d 386, 386 (Tex. App.—Waco 

2002, no pet.); see also Wheeler v. State, No. 02-06-00008-CR, 2006 WL 

496015, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 2, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication); Binder v. State, No. 02-03-00300-CR, 2003 WL 

22430174, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 23, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

 

3See Ex parte Teel, No. AP-76685, 2011 WL 5437560, at *1 (Tex. Crim. 

App. Nov. 9, 2011) (not designated for publication). The court of criminal 

appeals agreed with the trial court and granted Appellant’s request for permission 

to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review. Id.
3

designated for publication). Here, although Appellant has been granted 

permission to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review, the court of 

criminal appeals has held that ―nothing in the United States Constitution, the 

Texas Constitution, or any statute or rule requires the convicting county to 

provide a free copy of the trial record to an appellant for purposes of filing a pro 

se petition of discretionary review.‖ Ex parte Trainer, 181 S.W.3d 358, 359 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2005) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for 

want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 22, 2011
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60864

Summary Calendar

 

QUINTON MOORE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN J. CALLAHAN, Acting Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:95-CV-150

- - - - - - - - - -

July 21, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Quinton Moore appeals from the affirmance of the denial of

disability and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits by the

Commissioner of Social Security. Moore contends that the

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) posed an improper hypothetical

question to the vocational expert (VE); that the ALJ did not give

proper weight to the VE’s testimony; that he was deprived of his

right to an individualized determination whether he was entitled

to benefits because the ALJ based his opinion on the way jobs
No. 96-60864

- 2 -

traditionally are performed without regard to Moore’s inability

to perform them; that there is no substantial evidence in the

record to support the ALJ’s finding that he retained the residual

functional capacity to perform light work; that the ALJ failed to

consider his subjective complaints of pain or the evidence

supporting those complaints; and that the ALJ’s decision is

contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Moore’s contention that the hypothetical question posed to

the VE lacked an evidentiary basis is without merit; Moore’s own

testimony provided an evidentiary basis for the question. The

ALJ discussed in detail the VE’s response to the hypothetical

question incorporating the circumstances found applicable to

Moore. The ALJ gave the VE’s testimony proper consideration. 

See Scott v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 33, 35 (5th Cir. 1994).

Moore offers no factual arguments regarding his contentions

that he was deprived of his right to an individualized

determination of his eligibility for benefits; that the ALJ’s

finding regarding his residual functional capacity is not

supported by substantial evidence; that the ALJ failed to

consider his subjective complaints of pain; and that the ALJ’s

decision is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. 

He has failed to brief those contentions for appeal. Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

Moore’s apparent contention that an ALJ must find that a

claimant has committed perjury to find his testimony not credible
No. 96-60864

- 3 -

is without merit. The ALJ determines issues of weight and

credibility. Chaparro v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1008, 1011 (5th Cir.

1987).

AFFIRMED.
Date: Tue Nov 17 15:16:26 EST 2015

From: Leavy.Jacqueline@epamail.epa.gov

To: CMS.OEX@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: FW: Letter from SaskPower President and CEO

_________________________________________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----

From: Mike Marsh [mailto:mmarsh@saskpower.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 1:55 PM

To: Mccarthy, Gina <McCarthy.Gina@epa.gov>

Cc: Rhonda Smysniuk <rsmysniuk@saskpower.com>

Subject: Letter from SaskPower President and CEO

Please find attached a letter regarding SaskPower's carbon capture and storage project. Thank-you.

M.J. (Mike) Marsh

President and Chief Executive Officer

This email including attachments is confidential and proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient, any redistribution or copying of this

message is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us by return email, and delete this email.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Marc Walther, certify that:

1. 	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of AmeriChip International 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 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 (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the registrant and we have:

a) 	designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its 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 date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) 	presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. 	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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 or not 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.

Dated this 23rd day of March, 2004.



| | /s/ Marc Walther
Marc Walther
Principal Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------





---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Advent Software, Inc.



|                 |  |                                      
|---------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|November 9, 2004 |  | /s/ Stephanie G. DiMarco             
|                 |  | Stephanie G. DiMarco                 
|                 |  | Chief Executive Officer and President



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