alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-14-439-E

September 11, 2014

 Exemption No. 8827D

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2004-19374

Mr. Colin S. Fender

Flight Test Engineering

The Boeing Company

P.O. Box 3707 M/C 17-PM

Seattle, WA 98124-2207

Dear Mr. Fender:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 8827, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated August 12, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of The Boeing Company (Boeing) for an extension of Exemption No. 8827, as 

amended. That exemption from § 91.529(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations permits 

flight engineers, employed by Boeing, to serve as flight engineers on B-707 and B-747 aircraft 

if they have logged a minimum of 20 hours in lieu of the required 50 hours of flight time as 

flight engineers on the particular type aircraft within the preceding 12 months, provided the 

combined flight time in any B-707 or B-747 aircraft, or Level B, C, or D simulator that 

represents any B-707 or B-747 aircraft, is at least 100 hours in the preceding 12 calendar 

months.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Boeing.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8827, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition to allow flight engineers, employed 

by The Boeing Company, to serve as flight engineers on B-707 and B-747 aircraft if they have 

logged a minimum of 20 hours in lieu of the required 50 hours of flight time as flight 

engineers on the particular type aircraft within the preceding 12 months, provided the 

combined flight time in any B-707 or B-747 aircraft, or Level B, C, or D simulator that 

represents any B-707 or B-747 aircraft, is at least 100 hours in the preceding 12 calendar 

months.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8827, as amended, to 

January 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Leslie Smith

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF 18 U.S.C.

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection
with the Annual Report of Cardima, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald E. Bourquin, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to § 1350 of Chapter 63 of 18 U.S.C., as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    RONALD E.
BOURQUIN                                
|                                                         
|Ronald E. Bourquin Chief Financial Officer March 31, 2003



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



This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# C_2016205EN.01001601.xml

| 9.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/16

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS

(2016/C 205/08)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:

| | EPSO/AD/325/16 — DANISH-LANGUAGE (DA) TRANSLATORS (AD 5) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/325/16 — DANISH-LANGUAGE (DA) TRANSLATORS (AD 5)

| | EPSO/AD/326/16 — IRISH-LANGUAGE (GA) TRANSLATORS (AD 5) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/326/16 — IRISH-LANGUAGE (GA) TRANSLATORS (AD 5)

| | EPSO/AD/327/16 — CROATIAN-LANGUAGE (HR) TRANSLATORS (AD 5) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/327/16 — CROATIAN-LANGUAGE (HR) TRANSLATORS (AD 5)

| | EPSO/AD/328/16 — LITHUANIAN-LANGUAGE (LT) TRANSLATORS (AD 5) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/328/16 — LITHUANIAN-LANGUAGE (LT) TRANSLATORS (AD 5)

| | EPSO/AD/329/16 — MALTESE-LANGUAGE (MT) TRANSLATORS (AD 5) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/329/16 — MALTESE-LANGUAGE (MT) TRANSLATORS (AD 5)

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 205 A of 9 June 2016.

Official Journal of the European Union

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/

---
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-92,431-01

EX PARTE JAMES GARRY SOUDERS III, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 10020A IN THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM LAMPASAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of evading arrest and sentenced to imprisonment. Applicant filed

this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk

forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that the Board of Pardons and Paroles denied him procedural due process

in reviewing him for parole release. There is no response in the habeas record from the Parole Board.

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct.

859 (2011). Accordingly, the record should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate forum

for findings of fact. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order the Board

of Pardons and Paroles’s Office of the General Counsel to obtain a response from a person with
2

knowledge of relevant facts. In developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out in

Article 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant

is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall

appoint counsel to represent him at the hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. If counsel

is appointed or retained, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant

was denied procedural due process in his parole review. The trial court maymake any other findings

and conclusions that it deems appropriate.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: March 31, 2021

Do not publish
April Crop Production

Agricultural Statistics Board Briefing

Nick Streff, Acting Chief

Crops Branch

April 11, 2024
Data Sources

April 11, 2024

Objective Measurement

Florida Citrus

Row Count

Florida Citrus

Utilization Florida Citrus Administrative Committee

Data Quantity of Fruit Packed or Processed

Field Surveys

769 Groves March 18-25

53,564 Rows March 26-27
April 11, 2024

April 2024 Citrus

Utilized Production

All Oranges

% Change from Previous Estimate ↓ 1.4

% Change from Previous Season ↑ 7.3

Non-Valencia Oranges

% Change from Previous Estimate ↑ 0.2

% Change from Previous Season ↑ 6.4

Valencia Oranges

% Change from Previous Estimate ↓ 4.7

% Change from Previous Season ↑ 9.2

Grapefruit

% Change from Previous Estimate ↑ 3.8

% Change from Previous Season ↑ 4.1

Lemons

% Change from Previous Estimate ↑ 10.3

% Change from Previous Season ↓ 15.9

Tangerines

% Change from Previous Estimate NC

% Change from Previous Season ↓ 6.3

Production

(1,000 Tons)

904

2,733

1,856

877

353

922

9.03

8.73

7.70

6.09

8.14 7.85

6.91

5.59

4.95 4.91

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Million Tons

All Citrus Production

United States

6.35

6.09

5.09

3.88

5.43 5.25

4.39

3.42

2.55 2.73

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Million Tons

All Orange Production

United States
Selected Upcoming Reports

April 11, 2024

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/index.php

April 17 National Hemp Report

April 19 Cattle on Feed

April 30 Agricultural Prices

Cotton System

Fats & Oils

Flour Milling - Quarterly & Annual

Grain Crushings

May 7 Noncitrus Fruits & Nuts Annual

Crop Production

Cotton Ginnings - Annual

County Estimates: Cotton

County Estimates: Peanuts

May 1

May 10
Join Us Online or in Chicago

University of Chicago – Gleacher Center

450 North Cityfront Plaza Drive

Chicago, IL 60611

For more information and to register please go to

www.nass.usda.gov/go/data_users

2024 USDA Spring Data Users’ Meeting

April 11, 2024
#StatChat

April 11, 2024
All Reports Available At

www.nass.usda.gov

For Questions

(202) 720-2127

(800) 727-9540

nass@usda.gov
1629 Mona Loop, Hilo, HI 96720 T: 808.557.1988 E: tjlerma@gmail.com

April 9, 2015
U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington DC 20590
Re: Supporting information for Lewanui UAS exemption Dear Sir or Madam: I would like to add some more documents and supporting information to my exemption request. I would like to add some additional UAS platforms to my request. I would like to add the DJI S1000 Octocopter and the DJI S900 to the list of approved aircraft. Both the S1000 and the S900 have a max takeoff weight, including gear, less than 24.2 lbs (11kg) and a top speed under 40 knots. I sincerely apologi ze, due to the size of the file , I am unable to attach a copy of the DJI S900 manual, but I have attached the S1000 manual and a link to the S900 manual. DJI S900: **http://download.dji -** **innovations.com/downloads/s900/en/S900_User_Manual_v1.2_en.pdf** In addition to the request to add additional aircraft, I have attached the new maintenance manual for a previous aircraft listed in our exemption, the DJI Inspire 1. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact the undersigned at 808.557.1988 or tjlerma@gmail.com

. S incerely yours,

Timothy Lerma Lewanui
Document Title Abstract FDMS Document Type FDMS Document Sub-Type

Section 114 Response from Agrium 

(Sacramento, California). NOX 

CEMS data from 2007.

Section 114 Response from Agrium 

(Sacramento, California). NOX 

CEMS data (1 hour averages) from 

2007.

Supporting & Related Materials Data

Section 114 Response from Agrium 

(Sacramento, California). NOX 

CEMS data. November 2007.

Section 114 Response from Agrium 

(Sacramento, California). NOX 

CEMS data (hourly averages) from 

November 2007.

Supporting & Related Materials Data

Section 114 Response from Agrium 

(Sacramento, California). NOX 

CEMS data. December 2007.

Section 114 Response from Agrium 

(Sacramento, California). NOX 

CEMS data (hourly averages) from 

December 2007.

Supporting & Related Materials Data
Source Citation Authors (limited to 48 

characters including spaces) Document Date

Agrium 3/11/2010

Agrium 3/11/2010

Agrium 3/11/2010
XLS

XLS

XLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

p0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

137348 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137348 

 COA: 283792 

Wayne CC: 07-011473-FH 

DARRYL DUCKETT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 4, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT TISSOT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued June 6, 1977

Decided August 3, 1977.

*43Before Judges Fritz, Ard and Prbssuer.

*Mr. Mark D. Sperber,*Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant *(Mr. Stanley O. Van*Ness, Public Defender, attorney; *Ms. Rosemary K. Reavey,*Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

*Mr. Albert G. Fredericks,*Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent *(Mr. William F. Hyland,*Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).

Per Curiam.

In this matter we are confronted with the converse of the question raised and answered in *State v. Mickschutz,*101 *N. J. Super.*315 (App. Div. 1968). We are faced with the question, expressly reserved in *Mickschutz,*whether, in a matter within the purview of *N. J. S. A.*2A:164—3, the recommendation of the Diagnostic Center that defendant be committed to an institution is controlling upon the sentencing judge who may not then place defendant upon conditional probation. The sentencing judge, satisfied “that I have to sentence under the statute,” answered that question in the affirmative. We are in respectful disagreement with that conclusion.

*44We are satisfied the Legislature intended that the disposition of the sex offender, toward the end that he or she obtain the most efficacious treatment, *State v.*Clark, 65 *N. J.*426, 430 (1974), be committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. We find this purpose manifest and clear in *N. J. S. A.*2A.164-6 which, after directing that disposition *“be*made by the court,” offers the court without limitation “1 or more” alternatives from which to choose. Analogous to sentencing, although for a purpose other than punishment *(Clark, supra),*this statutory procedure imposes the obligation upon the judge. Thus the heavy mantle of responsibility rests on the shoulders of one trained for its wearing and accustomed to its weight, where it traditionally and historically belongs.

Needless to say, the sentencing judge must give serious consideration to the report and recommendation which are also statutory procedures and are referred to in the disposition statute. *N. J. S. A.*2A:164-6. We think departure should be rare and then only for cogent reasons precisely expressed in the disposition procedure. But we are convinced from the plain language of the statute alone and measured in the context of the purposes of the act that the Legislature did not intend the recommendation to be controlling.

Reversed and remanded for resentencing in accordance with the foregoing. We do not retain jurisdiction.
**Exhibit 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofNUI Corporation (the "company") for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"),I, A. Mark Abramovic, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer ofthe company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)      thereport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

2)      theinformation contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the company.

/s/  A. Mark AbramovicA. Mark AbramovicChief Operating Officer andChief Financial OfficerMay 15, 2003

Asigned copy of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct has been provided to the company.
Exhibit 5.1


June 28, 2019


Harmonic Inc.


4300 North First Street


San Jose, California 95134


Re: Registration Statement on Form S-8


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (the “Registration Statement”) to be filed by Harmonic Inc., a Delaware corporation, with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof, in connection with the registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of (i) 1,000,000 additional shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share (“Common Stock”), reserved for issuance pursuant to the Harmonic Inc. 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended and restated effective as of June 5, 2019, and (ii) 3,500,000 additional shares of Common Stock reserved for issuance pursuant to the Harmonic Inc. 1995 Stock Plan, as amended and restated as of June 5, 2019. Such shares of Common Stock are referred to herein as the “Shares,” and such plans are referred to herein as the “Plans.”


On the basis of the foregoing, and in reliance thereon, we are of the opinion that the Shares, when issued and sold in the manner referred to in the Plans and pursuant to the agreements that accompany the Plans, will be legally and validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.


We consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration Statement, and further consent to the use of our name wherever appearing in the Registration Statement and any amendments thereto.





Very truly yours,





WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.





/s/ Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         This Certification is intended to accompany the Annual Report of NCO
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002. To the best of his knowledge, the undersigned, Michael J. Barrist,
Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies 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.


         /s/  Michael J. Barrist, Chief Executive Officer
              -------------------------------------------
              Date: 3/13/03
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4636

SAHARA SIMON, a/k/a Soukee, a/k/a

Juliet,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.

Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge.

(CR-01-60-2-8)

Submitted: February 25, 2002

Decided: March 19, 2002

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Carl J. Roncaglione, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.

Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John J. Frail, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Sahara Simon appeals her conviction and the sentence imposed by

the district court following her guilty plea to distribution of cocaine

base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999). Counsel

has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Counsel states there are no meritorious issues for appeal,

but suggests on Simon’s behalf that the district court erred in determining her sentence. Simon has not filed a pro se supplemental brief,

although she was informed of her right to do so. Finding no reversible

error, we affirm. 

Simon contends the district court erred in sentencing her to thirtyseven months of imprisonment. However, because Simon’s sentence

was within the properly calculated sentencing guidelines range and

less than the statutory maximum sentence, it is not reviewable. See

United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990). 

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record and find no error.

Accordingly, we affirm Simon’s conviction and sentence. This court

requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the

client requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes such a petition

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. SIMON
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-36026, No. 333-64536, No. 333-71536 and No. 333-76780) pertaining to
the issuance of shares of Cardima, Inc.'s common stock and (Form S-8 No.
333-38506, No. 333-32545, No. 333-65916 and No. 333-65928) pertaining to the
1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1993 Stock Option Plan, and the 1997
Directors' Stock Option Plan of Cardima, Inc. of our report dated February 4,
2002, with respect to the financial statements and schedule of Cardima, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 29, 2002