alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc., 

Complainant, 

v. FAA Docket No. 16~14~05 

Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is continuing its review of Docket No. 16-14-05. At this 

time, FAA has determined that additional time is necessary to ensure a fair and complete hearing of 

the matter before the agency. 

Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition of airport-related 

complaints. [See, Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, Final 

Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (October 16, 1996).] The rule provides that an extension of time may be 

necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration of matters before the agency. See 14 

CFR § 16.ll(a). 

An extension of time is reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, pursuant to 14 CFR § 

16.11 (a), the Director does hereby extend the date that the Director's initial determination will be 

rendered in the above referenced case. The Director's Determination in this matter will be rendered 

on or about October 16, 2015. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

iJ._ 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September a. 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class, 

postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy of the foregoing Order addressed to: 

Counsel for Respondent 

David Y. Bannard, Esq. 

Jeffrey R. Blease, Esq. 

Jaclyn V. Pilch, Esq. 

Foley and Lardner LLP 

111 Huntington A venue 

Boston, MA 02199 

Counsel for Complainant 

Robert G. Eastman 

Eastman & Associates, LLC 

P.O. Box 180 

Charleston, SC 29402 

Hand-Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

WD 

Office of Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis
#### Driggs v. Morely.

1. Equity — uaktnekship.—M. & W. were partners; D. purchased W.’s interest in the business, and after D. & M. had transacted business for a time, D. filed a bill for the dissolution of an alleged partnership between him and M., and for a sale of the partnership property, etc., and also an accounting as to all matters growing out of the partnership of W. *&*M., in which he was interested by purchase; the proof failing to show a partnership between D. & M., *held,*that it was error to dismiss the bill, as D. was entitled to an accounting by virtue of such purchase, in relation to the business of the partnership of W. & M.

(2 *Ohand.*59.)

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Dodge*County.

The opinion of the court furnishes a sufficient statement of the case in the court below, for all the purposes of understanding the point determined op the appeal.

*404*A. L. Williams,*for appellant.

*JR. P. Eaton,*for appellee.

Larrabee, J.

The bill of complaint in this cause alleges a partnership, prays that it be dissolved, and that the partnership property, consisting of certain real estate and personal property, be sold; it also prays an accounting as to all matters growing out of the partnership, and also of certain unsettled accounts between the defendant and one Wheeler, his former partner, whose interest, in the property *Driggs*purchased, subsequent to his death. The decree at the circuit dismissed the bill, on the ground that the proofs did not sustain a partnership between *Driggs*and *Marely.*But, as it appears that there are certain unsettled accounts growing out of the business connection of Wheeler and *Marely,*and as *Driggs*has an interest in these by virtue of his purchase, he has a right to an accounting as to these, at least. For this reason the decree of the circuit court must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. We do not deem it necessary to decide the question of partnership, as the complainant has the right, independent of this, to have the accounts of the former parnership referred.

Decree reversed.
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 Quarterly Report of iVoice, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify, pursuant  to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





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.








Date: April 4, 2011


By:  /s/ Jerome R Mahoney


Jerome R Mahoney


President, Chief Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer
Motion Granted; Order filed June 7, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00805-CR

____________

EDWARD BEALEFIELD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1464575

ORDER

Appellant Edward Bealefield was convicted by a jury of “continuous sexual 

abuse of a young child.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02.The trial court’s judgment 

erroneously listed the offense as aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years 

of age. On February 29, 2016, appellant’s counsel filed a brief with a single issue: 

the judgment should be modified to reflect that appellant was convicted of 

continuous sexual abuse of a child. The State filed a brief in which it agrees that the 

judgment contains an erroneous recitation and should be modified.
Appellant filed a pro se motion in which he asks this court to strike appellant’s 

brief and order counsel to file a brief addressing his conviction. The motion is 

granted.

Counsel has not raised issues addressing appellant’s conviction yet has not 

followed the procedures of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 742–44 (1967). We 

strike appellant’s brief filed February 29, 2016, and ORDER that appellant’s 

counsel, David L. Garza, file a brief in this court on or before July 7, 2016, in 

compliance with the appellate rules. Should counsel determine there are no legal 

points arguable on their merits, then counsel must file a brief in accordance with the 

Anders procedure.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices McCally and Brown.
##### 



Exhibit 4.5
 Date: November 16, 2005
 SCOR VIE
 As Client
 And
 DEUTSCHE BANK AG, Paris Branch
 As Bank
 
 AMENDMENT AGREEMENT
TO
A STAND-BY LETTER OF CREDIT FACILITY
DATED OCTOBER 11, 2004




---



##### 



This Amendment Agreement is made between:
 (1)
    
    SCOR VIE, a French société anonyme, with a share capital of EUR 250,040,000.00, whose
registered office is located at 1 avenue du Général de Gaulle, 92800 Puteaux, registered with
the trade and companies registry (Registre du Commerce et des Sociétés) of Nanterre under
number 433 935 558, duly represented by Mr. François de Varenne (the Client);
 (2)
    
    DEUTSCHE BANK AG,a German Aktiengesellschaft, with a share capital of EUR 1,392,266,869.76,
whose head office is located at Taunusanlage 12, Frankfurt am Main (Germany), registered with
RC / HRB Frankfurt N° 30.000, acting through its Paris Branch, 3 avenue de Friedland, 75008
Paris, registered with the trade and companies registry (Registre du Commerce et des
Sociétés) of Paris under number 310 327 481, duly represented by Mrs. Brigitte Marsac-Martin
and by Mr. Geoffroy de Bretagne (the Bank);
 Parties Party
 WHEREAS
 SBLC Facility Facility
   bona fide
  IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:




---



##### 



1 DEFINITIONS
 1.1
  1.2
  2   CONSTRUCTION
  3   TERM OF FACILITY
  bona fide
 4   REIMBURSEMENT
   5   FEES
   6   PRIME RATE




---



##### 



7   EVENTS OF DEFAULT
  mandat ad hoc règlement
amiable Code de Commerce sauvegarde conciliation Livre Sixième des difficultés des entreprises Code de commerce
 8   AMENDMENT
  9   NO NOVATION
  10   MISCELLANEOUS
  11   GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION
 Tribunal de Commerce de Paris
 This Amendment Agreement has been entered into in two (2) original copies on the date stated at the
beginning of this Amendment Agreement
 SCOR VIE
    
    DEUTSCHE BANK AG, Paris Branch/s/ François de Varenne
    
    /s/ Brigitte Marsac-MartinFrançois de Varenne
    
    Brigitte MARSAC-MARTINTitle: Directeur de la Gestion dActifs
    
    Title: Directoret du Corporate Finance/s/ Geoffroy de BretagneGeoffroy de BRETAGNETitle: Director
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3603 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3603

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 10, 2009

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
               To rename the Ocmulgee National Monument.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Ocmulgee National Monument in Macon, Georgia, shall be known 
and redesignated as the ``Ocmulgee Mounds National Monument''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Ocmulgee National Monument shall be 
deemed to be a reference to the ``Ocmulgee Mounds National Monument''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 9, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 18864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08036]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLCOF00000 L19900000.PO0000]


Notice of Meetings, Rio Grande Natural Area Commission

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rio Grande 
Natural Area Commission will host public meetings regarding the Draft 
Management Plan as indicated below.

DATES: The Rio Grande Natural Area Commission scheduled public meetings 
for May 12, 13 and 14. Each meeting will begin at 6 p.m. and adjourn at 
approximately 8 p.m. A phone call to plan the public meetings will be 
held on May 6 from 12 to 2 p.m.

ADDRESS:  The May 12 meeting will be held at the San Luis Valley Water 
Conservancy District Office, 623 Fourth St., Alamosa, CO 81101. The May 
13 meeting will be held at the Costilla County Public Health Agency, 
233 Main St., Suite C, San Luis, CO 81152. The May 14 meeting will be 
held in Antonito, Colorado at the Antonito Senior Center, 701 Main St., 
Antonito, CO 81120. To participate in the planning call, please contact 
Kyle Sullivan at the number listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle Sullivan, Public Affairs 
Specialist, Royal Gorge Field Office, 3028 E. Main St., Ca[ntilde]on 
City, CO 81212; (719) 269-8553. Persons who use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during 
normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days 
a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You 
will receive a reply during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Rio Grande Natural Area Commission was 
established in the Rio Grande Natural Area Act (16 U.S.C. 460rrr-2). 
The nine-member Commission advises the Secretary of the Interior, 
through the BLM, concerning the preparation and implementation of a 
management plan for non-Federal land in the Rio Grande Natural Area, as 
directed by law. The public is invited to review, comment on and ask 
questions about the Commission's draft management plan. The draft 
management plan and minutes from previous meetings are available for 
public inspection at: www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/slvfo.html.

Ruth Welch,
BLM Colorado State Director.
[FR Doc. 2015-08036 Filed 4-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350



(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Holdings Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nick J. Caruso, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                                                                    
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ NICK J. CARUSO                                                 
|                      |  |     |  | Nick J. Caruso Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3593 

To amend the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 to 

extend by one year the operation of Radio Free Asia, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 

Mr. ROYCE (for himself and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the United States International Broadcasting Act 

of 1994 to extend by one year the operation of Radio 

Free Asia, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF OPERATION OF 

4 RADIO FREE ASIA. 

5 Section 309(f) of the United States International 

6 Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6208(f)) is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘2009’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
11

- i CHAPTER 11

. COMMERCIAL CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 METHODOLOGY

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11

- 111

- 1 CHAPTER 11. COMMERCIAL CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

11.1 METHODOLOGY

The commercial consumer subgroup analysis evaluates impacts on any identifiable
groups or commercial consumers who may be di sproportionately affected by a national energy conservation standard. DOE will conduct this analysis as one of the analyses for the notice of proposed rule making

. DOE will accomplish this, in part, by analyzing the life

- cycle costs ( LCC s) and payback periods (PBPs) for those commercial consumer s that fall into any identifiable groups. DOE plans to evaluate variation s in regional energy prices, variations in
energy use , and variations in installation costs that might affect the net present value of a standard to commercial consumer subpopulations. To the extent possible, DOE will obtain estimates of each input parameter’s variability and will consider this var iability in its calculation of commercial consumer impacts.

DOE will determine the impact on commercial consumer subgroups using the LCC Spreadsheet Model, which allows for different data inputs. The standard LCC analysis (described in c hapter 8) focuses on the commercial consumer s that use commercial packaged boilers

. DOE can use the LCC Spreadsheet Model to analyze the LCC for any subgroup by sampling only that subgroup. (Chapter 8 explains in detail the inputs to the model used in determining LCC and PB Ps.)
null

248.26622
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 Quarterly Report of iVoice, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify, pursuant  to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





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.








Date: April 4, 2011




By: /s/ Jerome R Mahoney


Jerome R Mahoney


President, Chief Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

**Chief Executive Officer Certification pursuant to**

**Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Ricardo A. Verdaguer, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of IMPSAT Fiber Networks, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto 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 report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, 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 report is being prepared,

 

(b) [omitted pursuant to the guidance ofRelease No. 33-8238 (June 5, 2003)], 

 

(c)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation, and 

 

(d)disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

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

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlsover financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

 

March 31,2006
GLD-395 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-2108

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RODNEY GUY GREENE, 

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 88-cr-00358-001)

District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

August 22, 2013

Before: FUENTES, FISHER and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 4, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Rodney Guy Greene appeals the District Court’s order denying his “Nunc Pro

Tunc Petition to Correct an Illegal Sentence.” For the reasons below, we will summarily 

affirm the District Court’s order.
2

In 1988, Greene pleaded guilty to bank fraud, possession of stolen mail, and 

uttering a forged check. He was sentenced to seven years in prison and five years of 

probation. His many attempts to challenge his conviction and sentence have been 

unsuccessful. In October 1993, after Greene was arrested on state charges of forgery in 

Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the District Court revoked his probation and sentenced 

Greene to five years in prison to be served consecutively to any other term of 

imprisonment or parole violation sentence previously imposed. Greene appealed, and we 

determined that the sentence was lawful. See C.A. No. 93-1998. In April 2013, Greene 

filed his Nunc Pro Tunc petition pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). The District Court 

denied the petition without comment, and Greene filed a notice of appeal.

Greene contends that Article III(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act 

mandated a concurrent sentence for his probation violation. However, the language he 

quotes permits a concurrent sentence but does not mandate one: “[n]othing in this 

paragraph shall prevent the imposition of a concurrent sentence if otherwise permitted by 

law.” Greene’s motion is meritless.

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the 

appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, we will summarily affirm 

the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.