alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
25883 NPark Avenue, Elkhart, Indiana 46514

VIAFIRST CLASS MAIL (CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED)
Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-43 FederalAviation Administration Wilber Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC, 20591 Re: Request for a Hearing File No. 2014GL700263 Dear Sir/Madam: f

# I 18 2015 DOCKET

February 9, 2015

In accordance with Section 13.16 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, Viabox hereby requests a hearing inthe above referenced matter. The Federal Aviation Administration issued its Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty on January 26,2015. We request that the hearing be conducting in Washington DC and believe that hearing will require one day. Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration and courtesies. Sincerely yours,

Armelina Elhassani, Principal Viabox

cc: Kate Barber, Esq Office ofthe Regional Counsel (AGL-7) FederalAviationAdministration 2300 East Devon Avenue Des Plaines, Illinois 60018
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A2258. NIX v. THE STATE.

This appeal was docketed in this Court on July 29, 2015. After an extension

of time for filing was granted by this Court, the Appellant’s enumeration of errors and

brief were due to be filed no later than September 8, 2015. Appellant did not timely

file enumeration of errors or a brief. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. Court

of Appeals Rule 23 (a).

The Clerk of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order directly to the

Appellant, Heather Nicole Nix. The Clerk shall also send a copy of this order to Ms.

Nix’s appellate counsel, Travis A. Williams. Mr. Williams is directed to forward an

additional copy of this order to Ms. Nix.

In light of appellate counsel’s failure to timely file enumeration of errors and

a brief on behalf of Ms. Nix, the following information is provided to Ms. Nix and

appellate counsel:

Ms. Nix, your appeal has been DISMISSED because your appellate counsel

failed to timely file enumeration of errors and a brief on your behalf. If you have

decided you do not want to appeal, you do not need to take any further action. If,

however, you still want to appeal, you may have the right to an OUT-OF-TIME

APPEAL - BUT YOU MUST TAKE ACTION to exercise that right by moving for

an out-of-time appeal in the trial court, the Superior Court of Hall County. If your

motion for an out-of-time appeal is granted, the trial court should appoint another

appellate counsel to represent you, if you want appellate counsel and cannot afford

to pay for appellate counsel. If your motion for an out-of-time appeal is denied by the

trial court, you may appeal that denial to this Court within 30 days of the trial court’s

November 06, 2015
order denying an out-of-time appeal. Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 874-876 (452

SE2d 756) (1995); Reese v. State, 216 Ga. App. 773 (456 SE2d 271) (1995).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/06/2015
Fi-om: Tokyo To : Washington 19 November 1941 

(Jl9) 

Circular #2353 

REF,~ Jp~:-~4 8 7 4 7 7 l~~bl tL lj 

TRANSLATION REVISED 26 Sept. 44. 

Office Oh1et•s Code. 

I do not know but what, as a result or the terrible 

strain in our operations, we ha.'1Te at length come to stand a.mid the 

ultimate evil c1roumsta.nces, and if this be so, our communications 

with the country (1es) we are dealing with will be cut. And in 

the event that ow fol1e1gn rela·tions fringe on catastrophe, then 

in the middle and at the end or our universal broadcasts;~the form of 

veather predictions, we will repeat and broadcast twice each the 

rollow1ng: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

In the caae o.r Ja.pa.nese-Amer:tcan relations 

(HIGASHI NO K~ZEAME) • 

In the oaee of Japa.nese-Sov1et relations 

(KITO NO KAZEKUMORI) • 

In the case of Japanese-British relations 

(including their 1mp11cations 1n Thai along with Ma.lira. and the Netherlands East Indies), 

(NISHI NO ltlZEHARE). 

Hence you will know that you are suitably to destroy codes documents, etc. 

You will please guard this 1n strictest secrecy. 

1Declass1fied and approved for release by NSA on 11-08-2013 __ pursuant to E.O. 1352§
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM H. ARNOLD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

MICHAEL REDDING,

Plaintiff,

v.

WATERFIELD MORTGAGE COMPANY,

INCORPORATED,

No. 96-1701

Defendant-Appellee,

and

UNION FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK;

ALVIN E. FRIEDMAN; KENNETH J.

MACFADYEN; JAMES J. LOFTUS;

DANIEL MENCHEL, Substitute

Trustees,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.

(CA-95-2626-S)

Argued: May 6, 1997

Decided: June 17, 1997

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Herbert Arthur Terrell, Bel Air, Maryland, for Appellant.

Michael Thomas Cantrell, FRIEDMAN & MACFADYEN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Allan J. Culver, Jr., Bel

Air, Maryland, for Appellant. Kenneth J. MacFadyen, FRIEDMAN &

MACFADYEN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William H. Arnold appeals an order of the district court granting

summary judgment against him on his action to rescind a loan under

the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (TILA). We

affirm.

In 1989 Arnold obtained a loan from Defendant Union Federal

Savings Bank. The loan was evidenced by an adjustable rate note and

secured by a mortgage against Arnold's home. In 1995, six years after

signing the loan documents, Arnold brought this action in district

court to rescind the loan. The TILA imposes a three-year statute of

limitations on actions to rescind. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) ("An obligor's right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property,

whichever occurs first . . ."). Arnold admits that more than three years

have elapsed since the loan transaction closed.

Arnold's principal contention on appeal is that the three-year limitations period starts anew each time a rate adjustment is made to a

variable rate mortgage. We disagree. A rate adjustment is not a "transaction" within the meaning of § 1635(f). Cf. 12 C.F.R. § 226.20(c)

(explaining that a variable rate adjustment is an event requiring new

 2
disclosures, but not indicating that adjustment triggers a new opportunity to rescind). Therefore, we agree with the district court that the

three-year limitations period bars Arnold's action to rescind.

After consideration of the parties' briefs, the record, and the oral

arguments of counsel, we conclude that the district court correctly

granted summary judgment against Arnold on all of his claims.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Arnold v. Waterfield Mortgage Co., No. S 95-2626 (D. Md. 1996).

AFFIRMED

 3
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


                          Independent Auditors' Consent




The Board of Directors
Baltic Communications Limited:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (no.
333-35139) on Form S-8, in the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-4
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (no. 333-18713), in the registration
statement (no. 333-5396) on Form S-3, and in the registration statement (no.
333-5400) on Form S-3 of PLD Telekom Inc. of our report dated March 30, 1999,
relating to the balance sheets of Baltic Communications Limited as of December
31, 1998 and 1997, and the related statements of operations, shareholder's
equity, and cash flows for the years ended 1998 and 1997, and the nine months
ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form
10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 1998 of PLD Telekom
Inc.

Our report dated March 30, 1999 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company's parent, PLD Telekom Inc. (PLD) does not presently have
sufficient funds on hand to meet its current debt obligations. The Company is a
guarantor of such obligations. PLD's failure to make payment in full when
required could result in a claim being made against the company under its
guaranty and a cross-default under and acceleration of other debt obligations
for which the Company is also a guarantor. These factors raise substantial doubt
about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The financial
statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of
this uncertainty.




                                      KPMG

St. Petersburg, Russia
April 23, 1999
4

a Re
—

SeQ eq
—E

ot ——
© SSS
—
—————
===
Denil
[el
es
—E
_CCiSCS

O



ee ee sa)
- TN ee
: fay
: » ;
4
t .
/ 2g =
: ve: v .
: -~
r al llees

1 oy
'
7 ; , -
i ’

, oh

iy

, v e

Ci
~ ra
| y ~
\ 4 WV
' ox
' Y.
r
|
‘ v bis
: NS

\
a
EXPLANATORY COMMENT - 2016

Act 102 of 2016 (the Act) amended the Divorce Code by reducing the separation 

period required by § 3301(d) from two years to one year for parties separating after the 

Act’s effective date: December 5, 2016. The Act provides that the one-year separation 

period is only applicable to married persons separating after the effective date of the 

Act. However, the current two-year separation period remains applicable to married 

persons that separated prior to the effective date of the Act. As such, the current forms 

could not be amended merely by substituting one-year for two-year on the affidavit and 

counter-affidavit in Pa.R.C.P. No. 1920.72(d) and (e)(2), respectively. Instead, the 

current forms have been amended to delineate when the parties separated vis-à-vis the 

Act’s effective date. Therefore, a party alleging a date of separation prior to December 

5, 2016, should proceed under a two-year separation period. A party alleging a date of 

separation on or after December 5, 2016 should proceed under a one-year separation 

period.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 *Correction: April 24, 2009 

 

2008-5080 

JOHN D. BOYER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

David P. Sheldon, Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for 

plaintiff-appellant. 

Meredyth Cohen Havasy, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. 

With her on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Franklin E. White, Jr., 

Assistant Director. Of counsel was David W. Fink, Litigation Attorney, Office of the Judge 

Advocate General, United States Department of the Navy, of Washington, DC. 

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims 

Judge Lynn J. Bush 

* Correction of lower court Judges name.
NEWS RELEASE


FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rick L. Catt,  President                           FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
  And Chief Executive Officer                         January 5, 2000
First Robinson Financial Corporation
501 East Main Street
Robinson, IL  62454
(618) 544-8621


                    FIRST ROBINSON FINANCIAL CORPORATION REPORTS
                            STOCK REPURCHASE PROGRAM


First Robinson  Financial  Corporation (the "Company") (OTC Electronic  Bulletin
Board:  "FRFC"),  today announced the repurchase of 7.12% (49,300 shares) of the
Company's  common  stock.  At a special  meeting held on December 17, 1999,  the
Board of Directors of the Company approved the stock repurchase  transaction.  A
previous  stock  repurchase  program,  which began on December  20, 1999 for the
purchase of up to 5% (34,574 shares) of the Company's  common stock, is still in
effect  until June 20,  2000.  The  Company now has  642,177  shares  issued and
outstanding.

At September 30, 1999, the Company had assets of $86.9  million,  liabilities of
$76.1 million and  stockholders'  equity of $10.8  million.  Through its banking
subsidiary,  First  Robinson  Savings Bank,  National  Association,  the Company
operates  three  full-service  offices and one  drive-up  facility in  Robinson,
Palestine and Oblong, Illinois.
BOEMRE Calls for Public Comment on Revised Beaufort Sea Exploration Plan (EP) and 

Associated Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan (ODPCP) 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) 

today announced that public comment is invited in connection with an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) it will prepare on a revised Exploration Plan (EP) submitted by Shell 

Offshore, Inc. This revised EP involves shallow water exploratory drilling in the Beaufort 

Sea, and will be completed in accordance with new safety and environmental standards 

implemented since the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. 

An exploration plan describes all exploration activities planned by the operator for a 

specific lease or leases, including the timing of these activities, information concerning 

drilling vessels, the location of each planned well, and other relevant information that is 

needed to meet important safety standards. 

The EP proposes drilling four exploratory wells in water depths of approximately 110-

125 feet, each located 16 to 23 miles off the coast of northern Alaska. Shell's EP was 

deemed submitted today. Consistent with federal regulations, an EP is deemed 

"submitted" once all supporting materials and documentation have been provided, and 

have met regulatory requirements. Once a plan is deemed submitted, BOEMRE has 30 

calendar days to analyze and evaluate it. 

As part of its review, the bureau will prepare an EA specific to the proposed exploration 

activities. Upon completion of the technical and environmental review, BOEMRE must 

decide whether to approve the plan, require modifications, or disapprove the plan. 

There are two separate opportunities to provide comments being announced today. The 

30-day time frame for review includes a 10-day public comment period to allow an 

opportunity to review and comment on the issues that should be considered by BOEMRE 

in preparing the EA for the plan. The deadline to receive these comments is July 15, 

2011. BOEMRE's Alaska region will also accept comments on the revised EP and the 

related Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan (ODPCP) for up to 21 days (until 

July 25, 2011) as part of its government-to-government consultations with tribal 

governments and the State of Alaska. 

The EP and related ODPCP are available for review at: 

http://www.alaska.boemre.gov/ref/ProjectHistory/2012Shell_BF/2012x.HTM

To provide public comment, and to view the comments that have been submitted, go to: 

http://www.boemre.gov/PublicComment.htm and click on "Open Comment Documents" 

for a full listing. 

###
LightPath Technologies, Inc 10-K


Exhibit 23.1
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 LightPath Technologies, Inc.
 Orlando, Florida
 
 We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-23515, 333-23511, 333-41705, 333-92017, 333-121389, 333-121385, 333-96083, 333-50976, 333-50974, 333-155044 and 333-153743) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 333-113814, 333-37443, 333-39641, 333-47905, 333-86185,  333-93179, 333-94303, 333-31104, 333-37622, 333-47992, 333-51474, 333-75528, 333-127053, 333-133772, 333-146550, 333-159603, 333-162342, 333-163416 and 333-166633) on Form S-3 of LightPath Technologies, Inc. of our report dated September 7, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements appearing in this Form 10-K.
 
 
 /s/ Cross, Fernandez & Riley, LLP
 Cross, Fernandez & Riley, LLP
 Certified Public Accountants
 
 Orlando, Florida
 September 7, 2011
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-23-0000464

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

AMBER NAKAMURA, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CR. NO. 1PC151000507)

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISS APPEAL

(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the December 15, 2023 

Stipulation for Dismissal of Appeal (Stipulation) filed by

Defendant-Appellant Amber Nakamura, the papers in support, and

the record, it appears that: (1) the appeal has been docketed;

(2) the parties stipulate to dismiss the appeal, and indicate

that no fees or costs are outstanding; (3) the Stipulation is

dated and signed by counsel for all parties appearing in the

appeal; (4) the Stipulation is supported by a declaration that

reflects a knowing and intelligent understanding of the

consequences of the dismissal of the appeal and that the

withdrawal is made voluntarily; and (5) dismissal is authorized

by Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(b) and (c).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation is

approved and the appeal is dismissed. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, January 4, 2024.

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Presiding Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry

Associate Judge

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-23-0000464

04-JAN-2024

12:10 PM

Dkt. 45 OAWST
1:~~l:i.':1:t 1 :11)11) :: ~(:~\/A:t":' t:l(f,,~;~ ---------

.... 

pproved for Release by NSA on
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-222-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AMERICAN
ELECTROMEDICS CORP. FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998, AND 
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                             256
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,065
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,052
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,137
<PP&E>                                             721
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (411)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,636
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           451
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,654
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,782
<SALES>                                          1,805
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,805
<CGS>                                              821
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   903
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  40
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     66
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (2)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 64
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        64
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
Mr. Wi1dom 

PBRS, ISARC 

REF ID :A63771 · 

.. .. __ . -._,j 

Request tor Orders tor P.i.'Ot'essor 81.wel. s. Wilks 

Mr. li-ie&ru, S/J.BST lO Jan 19~5 K. loxtir:ie 

60493 

l. It 1• requeeted that Proteseor Se.muel s. Wilka (ConauJ.tant) be iesu.ed 

()rd.er• tor 2 ~· 'rDY casnenoing 14 January 1955 tor travel t:rom Princeton, 

Jlev Jeraey, to Washington, n.. C .. and. return. Bo variation in itinerary ia 

expected. 

a. At t.ht :request of General Can.im, Mr. 1riedman contacted Pl'Oteeaor 

Wilk.a to al'l'&Jl&9 for a d1aouaa1on at RSA on a epscial proJeot to be condu.ctea. 

b7 :Proteaaor Wil.klt. 

3. It ia requo1ted that these ordel'a be held in Jou:r office until ~••or WUk'• an-!Y8.l. cm Pr1d&J1 l.4 January 195;. 

• 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 06-19-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352e
Exhibit 10.1

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO
 COMFORT SYSTEMS USA, INC.

AMENDED AND RESTATED 2006 EQUITY

COMPENSATION PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

 

May 16, 2008 Restatement

 

The Comfort Systems USA, Inc. Amended and Restated 2006 Equity Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the “Plan”), established effective as of May 18, 2006, as amended and restated effective as of May 16, 2008, is hereby further amended, effective as of May 17, 2011 as follows:

 

1.             Section 6(a) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

 

6.             Terms and Conditions of Awards

 

(a)  Individual Award Limits.  On the date of each annual meeting, each Non-Employee Director who is continuing in office and each newly elected Non-Employee Director shall be awarded an Award consisting of 10,000 Shares subject to forfeiture conditions and other restrictions as set forth in Section 6(b) (10,000 Shares being the maximum number of shares of Common Stock subject to Awards that may be granted to any Participant under the Plan in the aggregate in any calendar year). For purposes of this paragraph, each Non-Employee Director elected to office by the Board since the then last annual meeting shall be treated as a newly elected Non-Employee Director.

 

2.  In all other respects, the Plan remains in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COMFORT SYSTEMS USA, INC. has caused this document to be executed on its behalf and its corporate seal to be hereunder affixed as of the 17th day of May 2011.

 

 

	
COMFORT SYSTEMS USA, INC.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/   Trent T. McKenna
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Trent   T. McKenna
    	
 
    
	
Its:
    	
Vice   President, General Counsel, & Secretary