alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 24, 2014 

Mr. Brian Burkett 

5430 Lauby Road 

C/O McKinley Air FBO 

North Canton, OH 44720 

Dear Mr. Burkett: 

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

§ 135.152 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not 

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

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your October 14, 2014, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2014-

0853), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements 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. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. 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 

exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Michelle Ferritto 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure 
3 

Project No.: AXX-xx-xxx-E 

Project Officer: _______________ 

ARM-104:TAdams:xx/xx/xx:Doc#xxxx 

ARM-1/100/104:Program Office [or specific OPR routing symbol] 

[Insert Stylewriter Score Here] 

[INSERT ENVELOPE ADDRESS HERE]
#### Limbach, Respondent, vs. Schmalz, imp., Appellant.

*May 10*

June *20, 1932.*

*398The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Sawyer & Gehl*of Hartford, and for the respondent on that of *O’Meara & O’Meara*of West Bend.

Fairchild, J.

One under contract to render services must look to his employer for compensation unless in a proper case he has availed himself of the auxiliary remedy of a laborer’s or mechanic’s lien, secured a valid written promise of another to pay the employer’s debt, or a novation has been made and a new debtor substituted. It appears from the evidence that respondent and his co-laborer Wick were uneasy because of their employer’s (Schreck’s) failure to pay them their wages due on this and other jobs. Respondent testified: “My testimony now is that I told Schmalz that I had some money coming from Schreck and asked him to take care of me. He said he would take care of me.” There is testimony of a similar character by Wick concerning a conversation in which he, Eschweiler, and Schmalz took part while respondent was present. The situation is fairly disclosed by the statement of facts and the evidence just referred to; and the proposition to be dealt with is, under this evidence, has the appellant become responsible for payment of wages due from Schreck to Schreck’s employees, the respondent and Wick.

There was no contractual relation between Schreck and Schmalz; Schreck would have no direct claim against Schmalz. In the absence of a proper lien Schreck would be confined to his remedy against Eschweiler. Schmalz’s contract was with Eschweiler. Eschweiler had sublet the mason work to Schreck, who hired respondent and Wick *399to work for him. The jury did find that Schmalz “agreed to keep back money enough to pay” respondent and Wick. The agreement developed by this evidence at most was collateral and recognized the primary liability of Schreck. When the conversations are viewed in the light most favorable to the respondent’s contention, there is nothing more than an agreement to answer for the debt or default of another, not in writing and therefore void. Sec. 241.02, Stats., provides that every such promise “shall be void unless such agreement or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, be in writing and subscribed by the party charged therewith.” *Commercial Nat. Bank v. Smith,*107 Wis. 574, 83 N. W. 766; *State Bank v. Rawson,*182 Wis. 422, 433, 196 N. W. 779; *Iowa County Bank v. Graber,*189 Wis. 277, 284, 206 N. W. 835; *Breuer v. Arenz,*202 Wis. 453, 460, 233 N. W. 76.

The respondent having failed to avail himself of the opportunity offered by the mechanic’s lien statute and there being no existing valid promise binding appellant to pay the debt of Schreck to respondent or his assignor, no cause of action exists in his. favor against appellant.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to enter judgment in appellant’s favor dismissing the complaint.
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2008 to 12/31/2008Page 55 of 22605/29/2009 10:01:12

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Diablo Canyon 2 Docket (050- 00323)

Human-System Interface & Environmnt / IR170 - HSI or information availability / quality LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 

170 - HSI or information availability / quality LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 170 - HSI or information availability / quality LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 

314

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Procedures & Reference Document / IR111 - Procedure / reference document technical content G - Engineering G - Design 

113 - Procedure / reference document development and maintenance LT A - Administrative Support A - Administrative 

29

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Problem Identification & Resolution / IR140 - Problem not completely or accurately identified O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 

141 - Problem not properly classified or prioritized M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 143 - Tracking / trending LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 143 - Tracking / trending LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 147 - Individual corrective action LTA D - Emergency Planning Q - Fire Protection 147 - Individual corrective action LTA O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 148 - Action not yet started or untimely H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 150 - Programmatic deficiency H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 150 - Programmatic deficiency M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 

941

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Work Planning & Practices / IR185 - Procedural adherence LTA G - Engineering G - Design 

185 - Procedural adherence LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements D - Emergency Planning Q - Fire Protection 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2008 to 12/31/2008Page 56 of 22605/29/2009 10:01:12

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Diablo Canyon 2 Docket (050- 00323)

Work Planning & Practices / IR189 - Recognition of adverse condition / questioning attitude LTA O - Control Room Ops 

O - Operations

836

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Total Items for this Docket: 22
[641 NYS2d 885]

#### Jenae Schwartz, Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

Second Department,

May 1, 1996

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Michael E. Pressman,*New York City *(Steven H. Cohen*of counsel), for appellant.

*48OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

This ease is governed by the holding of this Court in *Shorten v City of White Plains*(216 AD2d 344) in which the order appealed from merely denied a motion by the defendant City for summary judgment and did not contain a directive that the case proceed to trial. The trial in *Shorten,*although a natural consequence of the order denying summary judgment, was not directed by that order and thus was not automatically stayed pursuant to CPLR 5519 (a) (1) by the service of the City’s notice of appeal *(see also, Baker v Board of Educ.,*152 AD2d 1014; *Walker v Delaware & Hudson R. R. Co.,*120 AD2d 919; *Young v State of New York,*213 AD2d 1084).

The alternative branch of the instant motion, which seeks a stay of all proceedings in the Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 5519 (c) and 2201, misapprehends those sections. CPLR 5519 (c) permits this Court, *inter alia,*to grant a discretionary stay of proceedings to enforce the order or judgment appealed from, or to vacate, limit or modify any automatic stay obtained pursuant to CPLR 5519 (a) or (b). The scope of the stay authorized by subdivision (c) is thus coextensive with the stay authorized by subdivision (a), namely, a stay of enforcement proceedings only, not a stay of acts or proceedings other than those commanded by the order or judgment appealed from *(cf., Baker v Board of Educ.,*152 AD2d 1014, *supra).*

CPLR 2201 provides that "[e]xcept where otherwise prescribed by law, the court *in which an action [or proceeding] is pending*may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, upon such terms as may be just” (emphasis added). It is our view that this section authorizes only courts exercising original civil jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction to grant a general stay of proceedings *(see, Rhodes v Mosher,*115 AD2d 351). There is, however, another broad source of authority for this Court, in the exercise of its appellate rather than original jurisdiction, to grant such a general stay of proceedings in an appropriate case.

We treat the alternative branch of the present motion as one addressed to this Court’s inherent power to grant a stay of acts or proceedings, which, although not commanded or forbidden by the order appealed from, will disturb the status quo and tend to defeat or impair our appellate jurisdiction *(see, Matter of Schneider v Aulisi,*307 NY 376, 383-384; *Matter of Pokoik v Department of Health Servs.,*220 AD2d 13 [decided herewith]). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise *49our inherent power to grant such a stay and accordingly the motion is denied.

Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the motion is denied.
<PAGE>   1
 

<TABLE>
                                               Exhibit 11.1

                           Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

                                     Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
<CAPTION>



                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED                 SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                     JUNE 30,                           JUNE 30,
                                              1997             1996              1997             1996
                                          ---------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                       <C>              <C>              <C>               <C>         
Average common stock outstanding           28,764,467       18,231,808        27,663,696       12,644,635
Assumed conversion of Convertible
  Preferred Stock                                   -        4,036,574                 -        8,073,147
Common stock equivalents                            -                -                 -                -
                                          ---------------------------------------------------------------
     Total                                 28,764,467       22,268,382        27,663,696       20,717,782
                                          ===============================================================

Net loss                                  $(9,477,000)     $(4,129,000)     $(96,896,000)     $(4,271,000)
                                          ===============================================================

Net loss per share                        $     (0.33)     $     (0.19)     $      (3.50)     $     (0.21)
                                          ===============================================================
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PhytoMedical Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Amit S. Dang, President, Chief Executive Officer, and 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: 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----
### SCPW-14-0000887
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

LIVIA SCOTTO, Petitioner,

vs. HAWAI # I PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY, STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n , J J . )



### Upon consideration of the documents filed by Petitioner Livia Scotto, on June 13, 2014, which we review as a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the record, it appears that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that she has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief, and she can raise her eviction-related concerns before the Hawai # i Public Housing Authority’s eviction board and in any subsequent judicial review process. See Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 356D-93, 356D-94, 356D-96, and 356D-97. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-14-0000887 18-JUN-2014 10:19 AM

### issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable

right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action); Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai # i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 18, 2014. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 94779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27900]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 29, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 469 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-444, K2025-441.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27900 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 21

- 3527

_____________________________
N IDIA C RUZ , Appellant,

v.

A

ARON S AMUEL K OCH , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County

. Daniel F. Wilensky , Judge

. September 16, 2022

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
K ELSEY , J AY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Nidia Cruz, pro se
, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.
#### State, Respondent, vs. Bliven, Appellant.

*September 20*

October *14, 1930.*

*324The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Edward H. Ryan*of Janesville, and for the respondent on that of *George S. Geffs*of Janesville, special assistant district attorney of Rock county, the *Attorney General,*and /. *E. Messerschmidt,*assistant attorney general.

Fritz, J.

There was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding that at the time stated in the information, officers, lawfully proceeding under a search warrant, found in defendant’s private dwelling a quart bottle of distilled liquor containing seventy per cent, ethyl alcohol; and it was admitted that defendant had no permit to handle or traffic in intoxicating liquor. Defendant’s possession of that liquor constituted a violation of sec. 165.35 (4), Stats. 1927, if it was privately manufactured.

There is no evidence in the record that the liquor was of illicit manufacture unless it be the officer’s statement to that effect in the following portion of his official return and certificate, indorsed by him upon, and duly filed with, the search warrant, to wit:

> “I hereby certify that in pursuance of the within warrant, I searched for the goods therein described at the place mentioned, and found the following goods, to wit:

> 6 gal. mash.

> 1 gal. illicit liquor.

> 1 qt. illicit liquor.

> 1 case home brew.”

That warrant, with the official certificate and return, which the officer was authorized by law to make, was re*325ceived in evidence at the instigation of defendant’s counsel, without any limitation a.s to the extent or purpose of its reception in evidence, and with the opportunity on the- part of defendant to cross-examine the officer, who was a witness on the trial, as to. his description of the liquor as “illicit liquor.” That certificate was presumptive evidence of the facts therein stated, in view of sec. 327.10, Stats., which, so far as here material, provides:

> “When a public officer is required or authorized by law to make a certificate or affidavit touching an act performed by him or to a fact ascertained by him in the course of his official duty and to file or deposit it in a public office such certificate or affidavit' when so filed or deposited shall be received as presumptive evidence of the facts therein stated unless its effect is declared by some special provision of law.”

Under the circumstances, the officer’s characterization of the liquor as “illicit” constitutes part of the competent evidence duly received, and, being before the court and jury without objection or limitation, should be given its full and proper effect in connection with the other proof. *Ott v. Cream City Sand Co.*166 Wis. 228, 233, 164 N. W. 1005. Standing as it does, unchallenged and uncontradicted, it establishes, at least *prima facie,*that the liquor was of illicit manufacture.

As there is no occasion for any doubt in any other respect, and as we find no error in the record, the judgment of conviction must stand and be enforced.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE PUBLIC COMPANY
ACCOUNTING REFORM AND INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED)
  1.
    
    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2006, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the
Annual Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end
of the period covered by the Annual Report and results of operations
of the Company for the period covered by the Annual Report.
  /s/ Christian Itin

Christian Itin
Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    /s/ Christopher P. Schnittker

Christopher P. Schnittker
Chief Financial Officer
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 29, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 15, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 743 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-429, K2025-426.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27904 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P