alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 1998) 

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY Regulation 39.001 

 Page 1 of 1 

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

On the effective date specified below, and for the reasons set out in the background section, the CASA delegate whose signature appears below repeals Airworthiness 

Directive (AD) AD/GA8/8 and issues the following AD under subregulation 39.001 (1) of CASR 1998 and subsection 33 (3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The 

AD requires that the action set out in the requirement section (being action that the delegate considers necessary to correct an unsafe condition) be taken in relation to 

the aircraft or aeronautical product mentioned in the applicability section: (a) in the circumstances mentioned in the requirement section; and (b) in accordance with 

the instructions set out in the requirement section; and (c) at the time mentioned in the compliance section. 

GippsAero GA8 Series Aeroplanes 

AD/GA8/8 

Amdt 1 

Engine Mount Fire Seal Washer 7/2015 

Applicability: All GA8-TC 320 aircraft up to and including serial number GA8-TC 320-14-205. 

Requirement: Comply with GippsAero Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2014-115 Issue 1, or later 

approved revision. 

Compliance: Unless previously accomplished; within 300 hours flight time or 12 months, 

whichever occurs first, from 1 December 2014, (the original effective date of this 

AD). 

 This Amendment becomes effective on 1 April 2015. 

Background: A recent review of the engine mount installation on the GA8-TC 320 aircraft has 

highlighted the omission of engine mount fire seal washers during the assembly 

process. 

The current engine mount configuration does not meet the certification basis for the 

aircraft, specifically regulation 23.865 of the Federal Aviation Regulations of the 

United States of America, where engine mounts located in designated fire zones are 

required to be suitably shielded so that they are capable of withstanding the effects of 

a fire. 

The Gippsland Aeronautics GA8-TC 320 aircraft require the installation of an 

approved steel washer at each of the engine mount locations to address a potential risk 

of reduced engine retention capability in the event of a fire. 

This AD, AD/GA8/8 Amdt 1, amends the applicability statement to be inclusive of 

the affected aircraft serial number range. 

Mike Higgins 

Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority 

26 March 2015
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60624 Conference Calendar

WELTON ZOLICOFFER, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DONALD A. MCKELVY; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:97-CV-153-BrS

-------------------- December 14, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Welton Zolicoffer, formerly federal prisoner # 05145-067 in Mississippi, appeals the district court’s denial of two motions to reconsider the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Zolicoffer was convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by construing his § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.No. 98-60624 -2- The district court properly construed Zolicoffer’s § 2241 motion as a § 2255 petition since he challenges the validity of his sentence. See United States v. Tubwell , 37 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1994); Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I. , 821 F.2d 1129, 1131- 32 (5th Cir. 1987). Zolicoffer argues that, since § 2255 is unavailable to him because of his prior unsuccessful § 2255 petitions, he should be allowed to pursue these claims under § 2241. A prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of the remedy under § 2255. See McGhee v. Hanberry , 604 F.2d 9, 10 (5th Cir. 1979). While a § 2241 petition must be filed in the district where the prisoner is incarcerated, a § 2255 motion must be filed in the district where the prisoner was convicted. United States v. Weathersby , 958 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir. 1992). Zolicoffer was sentenced by the district court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. After the Mississippi district court correctly construed his § 2241 petiton as coming under § 2255, it lacked jurisdiction to decide the § 2255 motion on the merits. Accordingly, the district court did not err by dismissing Zolicoffer’s habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. Zolicoffer has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying either of his motions for reconsideration. Because his appeal lacks arguable merit, it is
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Zolicoffer is warned that the filing of future frivolous appeals will invite the imposition ofNo. 98-60624 -3- sanctions. He is cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise issues which are frivolous.
DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000798783
<NAME> UNIVERSAL HEALTH REALTY INCOME TRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1
<CASH>                                         572
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,705
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,116
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                     163,960
<DEPRECIATION>                              34,006
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             169,406
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                     66,016
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        90
<OTHER-SE>                                 101,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               169,406
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,771
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,879
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,490
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,337
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         14,337
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                14,337
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.60
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

AARON STONEROCK, :

 : Case No. 3:18-cv-00296 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

vs. : Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

 : 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL : DECISION AND ENTRY 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION : 

 :

 Defendant. :

 The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendations of 

United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington (Doc. #9), to whom this case was 

originally referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and noting that no objections have been 

filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has 

expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. 

 It is therefore ORDERED that: 

1. The Report and Recommendations docketed on September 10, 2019 (Doc. #9) is 

ADOPTED in full; 

2. The Commissioner’s non-disability decision on February 26, 2018 is vacated; 

 

3. This matter is remanded to the Social Security Administration under sentence 4 of 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for reconsideration consistent with the Report and 

Recommendations and this Decision and Entry; and 

4. The case is terminated on the Court’s docket. 

September 27, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
Amendment dated February 3, 2009 to Amended Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.18 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of February 3, 2009 by and between TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc. (the
“Parent”), Parent’s subsidiary, TPTX, Inc. (“TPTX”) and EVELYN GRAHAM (“Executive”). As used in this Amendment,
references to the “Company” shall include the Parent and TPTX, as appropriate. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Agreement (as defined below). 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive previously entered into that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of September 1, 2008 (the “Agreement”); and

 WHEREAS, the parties desires to amend the Agreement as set forth below. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties to this Amendment hereby agree as follows: 
 AMENDMENT 
 1. Section 4.4.2.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to
read as follows: 
 “The Company shall continue to pay the Executive’s base salary during the period following the
termination or resignation of the Executive for a period equal to twelve (12) months (the “Compensation Severance Period”). Such severance payments shall be subject to standard deductions and withholdings and paid in
accordance with the Company’s regular payroll policies and practices. For purposes of calculating the amount to be paid pursuant this Section 4.4.2.1, the Company shall use the Executive’s base salary in effect on the date of such
termination or resignation, but determined prior to any reduction in base salary that would permit the Executive to voluntarily resign for Good Reason pursuant to Section 4.5.3(iii).” 
 2. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 
 3. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument. 
  

 1. 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT as of the date set forth in the first paragraph hereof. 
  

									
	TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS, INC.:	 		 	CRAIG JOHNSON
					
	By:	 	/s/ Steven B. Ratoff	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Evelyn Graham
		 	Steven B. Ratoff	 		 		 	Evelyn Graham
		 	Chairman of the Compensation	 		 		 	Chief Executive Officer
		 	Committee of the Board of Directors of	 		 		 	
		 	TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc.	 		 		 	

  

 [SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT]
<PAGE>

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 Aethlon Medical, Inc. Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Edward C. Hall, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

1. Such quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2. The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Aethlon Medical, Inc.

Date: February 14, 2005

By:         /s/ Edward C. Hall
            Edward C. Hall
            Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Aethlon Medical, Inc. and will be
retained by Aethlon Medical, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certification of**

**Treasurer (Principal Financial and AccountingOfficer)**

**of****TGCIndustries, Inc. Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

This certification isfurnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-KSB (the “Form10-KSB”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 of TGC Industries,Inc. (the “Company”).  I, Kenneth W.Uselton, Secretary/Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) ofthe Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                    TheForm 10-KSB fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                    Theinformation contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: | March 23,  2005 |
|--------|----------------------|
|   |                 |
|   | /s/                  | Kenneth W.  Uselton |   |
|   |                 | Kenneth W.  Uselton |
|   |                 | Secretary/Treasurer |
|   |                 | (Principal  Financial |
|   |                 | and Accounting  Officer) |
|        |                      |  |  |  |

 

----
Robert G. GRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4099

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Lawrence C. WASHINGTON, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2721

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
OS?41 UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION

IX ‘

75Hawthorne Street San Francisco,
CA 94105.3901 MAY112011 OFFICEOFTHE REGIONALADMINISTRATOR Ms. Wahleah Johns Black Mesa Water Coalition P.O. Box 613 Flagstaff, Arizona 86002 Mr. Marshall Johnson Tonizhoni Ani P.O. Box 657 Kykotsmovl, Arizona 86039 Ms. Anna Frazier Dine CARE HC 63 Box 263 Winslow, Arizona 86047 Mr. Leland Grass Black Mesa Community Resident C/O Black Mesa Water Coalition P. 0. Box 613 Flagstaff, Arizona 86002 RE: Letter regarding public input for NGS BART FIP determination Dear Ms. Johns, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Frazier, and Mr. Leland: Thank youfor yourletter of March 21, 2011 requesting additional opportunities
for members
of Navajo Nation
to give input tothe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region

9 regarding our ongoing review of the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for the Navajo Nation Generating Station (NGS). As youareaware,the U.S. EPA Region

9 will be proposing ourBART determination

at NGS as required by provisions

of the Clean Air Act Regional Haze Rule after completing our ongoing analysis
of NGS.

PrintedonRecycledPaperRequest for Educational Session and Listening Session We are committed

to providing opportunities

to educate the public regarding the Regional Haze Rule and the Best Available Control Technology (BART) requirement.

I am asking one of my Associate Directors, Colleen McKaughan

of our Air Division,

to contact you to set up a mutually convenient meeting

to more fully understand your concerns and hear your ideas. Ms. McKaughan

is the EPA Region 9’s senior official with the most knowledge and responsibility

for the BART review of NGS. As you know, we have not yet completed our BART review for NGS. We anticipate completing that review later this summer. We will publish

a Federal Register Notice with our proposed BART determination upon completion

of our review and we will request public comments
on our proposal. During the public comment period we intend to hold information sessions and public hearings near the NGS and in Navajo communities

to allow those interested

to learn about the BART process and our proposed decision, and to accept oral comments
on the proposed decision. Request for Health and Alternative Energy Study While

a health study and renewable energy study at NGS
is outside the scope of the U.S. EPA Region 9’s BART analysis,

I invite you to discuss more fully with Ms. McKaughan your specific concerns regarding health impacts and renewable energy ideas and the analysis and criteria that US EPA uses in evaluating retrofit technologies. I deeply appreciate your personal invitation

to visit your communities.

I will be discussing with my staff an appropriate future venue for such

a visit. In the meantime, Colleen will contact you shortly regarding a meeting. She can be reached

at 520-498-0118

or via email
at McKaughan.Colleen@epa.gov. Sincerely,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Petitioner, Case No. 3:18-cv-248 

vs. 

BRENDA S. GEARHEARDT, District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

 Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 Respondent. 

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 5) AND 

TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURT’S DOCKET 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

This is a civil case in which the Government has petitioned the Court to enforce a summons 

issued by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and served upon Respondent. Doc. 1. The 

Government moves to dismiss this action because Respondent has now complied with the IRS 

summons at issue. Doc. 5. For good cause shown, Petitioner’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED 

and this case is TERMINATED on the Court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: September 10, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge 

Case: 3:18-cv-00248-TMR-MJN Doc #: 7 Filed: 09/10/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 18
Steven CRENSHAW v. STATE

CR-15-1220

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Extension of Executive Employment Agreement, David J. Keefe



 Exhibit 10.21 
 EXECUTION COPY 
 EXTENSION OF EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This EXTENSION OF EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Extension”) is made as of February 28, 2009 by and between Atlantic Broadband Management, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), and David Keefe (“Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered an
Executive Employment Agreement dated March 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”) which will expire on February 28, 2009; 
 WHEREAS the Company and
Executive desire to enter into a new employment agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive wish to extend the terms of the Agreement on an interim
basis for a period of six months to allow parties sufficient time to enter a new agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 Section 1. Extension of Employment Period The Employment Period shall be extended for a period of six months, beginning on the date of this Extension, unless terminated earlier under the provisions of Section 5
(a) (ii) – (iii) or by execution of a new employment agreement by Company and Executive. The term “fifth anniversary” is amended to read “fifth anniversary plus six months” wherever it appears in the
Agreement. In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain unamended. 
 Section 2. Retroactive Effect The terms and consideration as agreed to
by Company and Executive in a new employment agreement to be entered into following the date hereof shall apply retroactively to March 1, 2009. 
 Section 3. Capitalized Terms Capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Agreement. 
 Section 4.
Governing Law. Issues and questions concerning the construction, validity, enforcement and interpretation of this Extension will be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to any
choice of law or conflict of law rules or provisions (whether of the State of Delaware or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of Delaware. In furtherance of the foregoing, the
internal law of the State of Delaware will control the interpretation and construction of this Extension, even though under Delaware’s choice of law or conflict of law analysis, the substantive law of some other jurisdiction would ordinarily
apply. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Extension of Executive Employment Agreement as of the date
first written above. 
  

			
	ATLANTIC BROADBAND MANAGEMENT, LLC
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	
	
	  

	David Keefe