alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ROBINSON 

HELICOPTER COMPANY 

2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, California 90505 Phone (310) 539-0508 Fax (310) 539-5198 

66-13-06-07 

June 18, 2013 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

400 r h Street, SW 

Room PL 401 

Washington, D.C. 20591-0001 

Dear Sirs: 

Subject: Request to Rescind Exemption No. 9589 

Reference: Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 14, Part 27.695 

Power Boost and Power-Operated Control Systems 

Docket # FAA-2006-25287 

Robinson Helicopter Company (RHC) would like to rescind an exemption it 

received for the hydraulically boosted main rotor control system on the R66 

helicopter. 

BACKGROUND: Exemption No. 9589 to Part 27.695 was granted for the 

model R66 helicopter on 28 January 2008. The exemption granted 

RHC relief from considering the jamming of a control valve as a 

possible single failure. The exemption was granted based on a 

number of factors including the simplicity of the proposed system and 

historical reliability of the same system used on the R44 helicopter. 

Despite bilateral airworthiness agreements, validation of the R66 in 

Canada, EASA member countries, and the Commonwealth of 

Independent States was not possible with an exemption against the 

requirements of Part 27.695, only full compliance with the regulation 

or an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) finding was acceptable. RHC 

consequently undertook the analysis and testing necessary to 

substantiate an ELOS. ELOS Memo#: AT14992LA-R-S-1 was granted 

by the FAA on February 20,2013 for 14 CFR §27.695(a)(1). 

-co nt-
Page 2 

June 18, 2013 

66-13-06-07 

The certification basis for the R66 therefore now includes both 

Exemption No. 9589 and ELOS # AT14992LA-R-S-1 for the 

requirements of Part 27.695. 

REQUEST: In order to eliminate the inconsistency and confusion caused by 

having an Exemption and an ELOS for the same regulation in the R66 

certification basis, RHC is requesting that the Exemption be rescinded. 

SAFETY: There were no design, operating procedure, or continued 

airworthiness procedure changes associated with the ELOS finding 

and consequently there are no safety implications. 

PUBLIC INTEREST: Public interest is served by eliminating the confusion that 

may be caused by having an Exemption and ELOS against the same 

regulation. 

Thank you for your careful consideration of our request. 

Yours sincerely, 

Certification Manager
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Thomas G. Moody,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:18-cv-72

Mr. Evans, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This is a civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983 by

plaintiff, an Ohio state inmate, against two employees of the Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. In an order filed on

March 12, 2018, the court adopted the initial screen report and

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3) for failure to state a claim for which relief may be

granted. A judgment dismissing this case was also filed on March

12, 2018. On March 20, 2018, plaintiff submitted a memorandum

arguing that the judgment is void. In an order entered on March

21, 2018, the court considered this filing as a motion for relief

from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), and denied the

motion.

On March 30, 2018, plaintiff filed a document entitled

“STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY” which also contained the notation “INRE:

SUMMARY JUDGMENT” in the caption. This filing was placed on the

docket as a motion to reconsider the order of March 21, 2018 (Doc.

14). Insofar as this filing was intended to advance objections to

the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, it is untimely. 

If construed as a motion to reconsider the order of March 21, 2018,
this filing contains no new argument or information which would

provide a basis for reconsideration of this court’s previous order. 

The motion to reconsider (Doc. 15) is denied.

Date: April 2, 2018 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

2
```

[Federal Register: May 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 96)]
[Notices]               
[Page 28096]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19my10-123]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

 
Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending May 6, 2010

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0120.
    Date Filed: May 6, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: May 27, 2010.
    Description: Application of Jet-A, LLC requesting a certificate of 
public convenience and necessity authorizing interstate charter air 
transportation.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-11958 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
#### Maurice DEANS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18417.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

July 6, 1964.

Rehearing Denied en Banc Dec. 18, 1964.

*242Mr. Robert E. May, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Gene P. Bond, Washington, D. C. (both appointed by this court), was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Martin R. Hoffman, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and William H. Collins, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Mr. Robert Perry, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before Edgerton, Senior Circuit Judge, and Washington and Burger, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel.

Although the delay between the time of some of the offenses and the time of the arrest was substantial, the testimony of the defendant-appellant demonstrated his ability to recall the details of the transactions, and thus tended to negate prejudice from the delay; and moreover, the sentences imposed were concurrent, see Hirabayshi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943); and the court concludes that no error occurred affecting substantial rights, it is

Ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the District Court on appeal in this cause is hereby affirmed.

ORDER

Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Fahy, Washington, Danaher, Bastían, Burger, Wright and McGowan, Circuit Judges, in Chambers.

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing *en bane,*it is

Ordered by the Court *en bane*that appellant’s petition is denied.

BAZELON, Chief Judge, would grant appellant’s petition for rehearing *en banc.*See his dissenting statement in Hardy and Ferguson v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. -, 343 F.2d 233.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, prior to his retirement on October 15, 1964, voted to deny appellant’s petition.

FAHY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, would grant appellant’s petition.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

United States of America 

 v. 2:18-cr-58 (4) 

Judge Marbley 

John Amoah

ORDER 

There being no objections, the Court hereby adopts the 

Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 99) 

that the defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The Court 

accepts the defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the 

Indictment, and he is hereby adjudged guilty on this count. The 

Court will defer the decision of whether to accept the plea 

agreement until the sentencing hearing. 

Date: March 1, 2019 s\Algenon L. Marbley

Algenon L. Marbley 

United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

VINNY GEORGE, 

Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:17-cv-802 

 Judge George C. Smith 

 v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

MR. SHEKHAR, 

 Defendant. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This case was filed on September 12, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On December 13, 2017, the 

Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen (14) days why the Court should not 

dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 4.) To date, 

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Show Cause Order. It is therefore RECOMMENDED

that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely 

effect service of process. 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS 

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that 

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and 

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in 

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 
2 

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and 

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat=l Latex 

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate 

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district 

court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that 

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, 

appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 

981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to 

specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation 

omitted)).

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 3, 2018 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
.*AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

JANNALLA WADLINGTON, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 2:17-cv-1068 

v. Chief Magistrate Judge Deavers 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND 

CORRECTION 

Defendant. 

 

[ ] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been 

tried and the jury has rendered its verdict. 

[ ] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been 

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered. 

[X] Decision by Court. This action was decided by the Court without a trial or hearing. 

PURSUANT TO THE ORDER filed on March 30, 2020, Judgment is entered in favor of 

the Defendant, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION. 

 

 

Date: March 30, 2020 Richard W. Nagel, Clerk of Court

By: /s/Jodi L. Keener 

 Jodi L. Keener, Deputy Clerk
Order entered October 29, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00780
- CV SAMUEL PETERS AKA SAMUEL C. PETERS, Appellant V. AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, Appell ee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 18
- 05333
- B

ORDER Before the Court is appellant’s October 28, 2020 motion for an extension of time to file his jurisdictional letter brief. We GRANT the motion . Appellant’s letter brief was filed on October 27, 2020. Appellee shall file any response to appellant’s letter brief on or before November 6, 2020.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)

myCUmortgage, LLC, H CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00091-WHR

Plaintiff, H (Judge Walter H. Rice)

v.
| ORDER GRANTING
CENLAR FSB, : UNOPPOSED MOTION OF
DEFENDANT CENLAR FSB FOR
Defendant. : EXTENSION OF TIME TO
ANSWER OR OTHERWISE PLEAD

Upon Defendant Cenlar FSB's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to
Answer or Otherwise Plead, for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that the time for

Defendant Cenlar FSB to file an answer or otherwise plead is extended until April 23, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:_ 3 ALVES he aa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1263081.1
No. 70359 

# FILED
JUN 1 0 2016 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

TANYA WALLACE, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE LINDA MARIE BELL, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE ESTATE OF DAVID L. WALLACE; AND SHAFFER C. SMITH, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court oral decisions granting a joint motion for a good-faith settlement determination, determining that petitioner lacked standing to amend real party in interest The Estate of David L. Wallace's complaint, and vacating a May 9, 2016, trial date in a contract action.

Having reviewed the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). In particular, petitioner has not met her burden to demonstrate that an appeal from an adverse final judgment would not be an adequate legal remedy. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841; see Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686,

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A wee.. 

# LQ-4 

# qo688-89, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (noting that an oral pronouncement

from the bench is not valid for any purpose and the district court remains free to reconsider its ruling before issuing a written order). Accordingly,

we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

Pickering

cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge David Lee Phillips & Associates Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas Hutchison & Steffen, LLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A e
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)

FAAIZAH T. AWOSHAKIN, : Case No. 3:18-cv-00021
Plaintiff,
v. : Judge Walter H. Rice
SUGAR CREEK PACKING CO., :
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO STAY THE CASE

The Court having been advised that the parties have reached a settlement agreement in
this action, hereby grants the parties’ Joint Motion To Stay The Case, including all dates in the
April 3, 2018 Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order, pending approval of the settlement by the
United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Ohio in Case No. 18-31686. The parties to
the instant action shall file a dismissal with prejudice following Bankruptcy Court approval.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sin. em

WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-3

Eric Lee Parker 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 23) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: May 4, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
#### People v Rawls,

No. 90782;

Court of Appeals No. 116632.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Subjex Corporation does hereby certifythat:





(a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Subjex Corporation for thethree monthsended March 31, 2009(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial conditionand results of operations of Subjex Corporation





Date: May 21, 2010
By:
/s/ Andrew D. HyderAndrew D. HyderPresident& Chief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 32.02
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company for the periods presented therein.
 Date: March 16, 2006
    /s/ Robert FreemanRobert FreemanChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit
32.2





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 on Form 10-Q of Acorn Energy, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarterly period ended December March 31, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Michael Barth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, 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 result of operations of the
      Company.




/s/Michael
      BarthMichael
      BarthChief
      Financial OfficerMay
      13, 2010
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

u the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus post judgment interest at the rate of % per annum, along with costs.

u the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

u other:

.

This action was (check one):

u tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

u tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

u decided by Judge on a motion for

.

Date: CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

9/27/2019

 Southern District of Ohio

Africa N. Whitfield

3:18-CV-108

Commissioner of Social Security

Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant; Case is remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §

405(g) for payment of benefits; case terminated on Court's docket

✔ Thomas M. Rose

Report and Recommendations
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 1201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00233]



[[Page 1201]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION


Performance Review Board Members

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) announces the 
appointment of members of the PBGC Performance Review Board.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), made 
applicable by PBGC's Senior Level Performance Management System, PBGC 
announces the appointment of those individuals who have been selected 
to serve as members of PBGC's Performance Review Board. The Performance 
Review Board is responsible for making recommendations on each senior 
level (SL) professional's annual summary rating, performance-based 
adjustment, and performance award to the appointing authority.
    The following individuals have been designated as members of PBGC's 
2021 Performance Review Board:

1. Gordon Hartogensis, Director
2. Kristin Chapman, Chief of Staff
3. David Foley, Chief of Benefits Administration
4. Patricia Kelly, Chief Financial Officer
5. Alice Maroni, Chief Management Officer


    Issued in Washington, DC.
Gordon Hartogensis,
Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2022-00233 Filed 1-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7709-02-P
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report of Genta Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Raymond P. Warrell, Jr., M.D.,
Chief Executive 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) 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:
            August
      14, 2009





/s/ RAYMOND P. WARRELL, JR.,
      M.D.*Name:
                  Raymond
      P. Warrell, Jr., M.D.Title:
                  Chairman
      and Chief Executive
Officer





* A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Genta Incorporated and will be retained by Genta Incorporated and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 96 Filed: 06/23/21 Page: 1 of 5  PAGEID #: 3319

Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 96 Filed: 06/23/21 Page: 2 of 5  PAGEID #: 3320

Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 96 Filed: 06/23/21 Page: 3 of 5  PAGEID #: 3321

Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 96 Filed: 06/23/21 Page: 4 of 5  PAGEID #: 3322

Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 96 Filed: 06/23/21 Page: 5 of 5  PAGEID #: 3323