alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Airworthiness Directive : Boeing 747 Airplanes

Docket FAA

- 2014

- 0780; Directorate ID 2014

- NM

- 168

- AD

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

CARGO AIRLINE ASSOCIATION

Inquiries concerning these Comments should be addressed to:

Yvette Rose, Senior Vice President

Cargo Airline Association

1620 L Street, NW

, Suite 610

Washington, DC 20036

202

- 293

- 1032

yrose@cargoair.org

January 8, 2015

### BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Airworthiness Directive: Boeing 747 Airplanes

Docket FAA

- 2014

- 0780; Directorate ID 2014

- NM

- 168

- AD

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

CARGO AIRLINE ASSOCIATION

The Cargo Airline Association (“CAA”), on behalf of its members 1 hereby requests that

the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA” or “Agency”) grant an additional 30 days for filing

of public comments on the above

- referenced pro posed Airworthiness Directive (“AD”). In

support of this request, CAA submits the following:

The proposed AD was issued by publication in the Federal Register on December 1,

2014, 79 Fed. Reg. 71037 (Dec. 1, 2014) , and interested parties were given 45 days (until

January 15, 2015) to submit comments. The requirements of the AD would affect cargo airlines

that operate Boeing 747 aircraft. A majority of our mem bers would be affected by the propose d

requirements.

Many of our members have been working with the National Air Carrier Association

(“NACA”) and a group of other airlines to address the FAA’s concerns with Boeing 747 cargo

1 Member all

- cargo airlines include Atlas Air, Inc., FedEx Express, Kalitta Air, L.L.C. and UPS Airlines.2 aircraft equipped with main deck side cargo doors for closely ove r a year . However, the work is

still ongoing and the January 15, 2015, date is simply not feasible given the complex nature of

these issues.

The airlines most affected by this AD would like to continue working with the agency

and more time would allow for more meaningful input. Therefore, CAA respectfully requests

that the deadline for comments be extended an additional 30 days to February 16, 2015. CAA

also supports the petition submitted by NACA and Kalitta Air to this docket.

Respectfully su bmitted,

Yvette A. Rose, Senior Vice President

Cargo Airline Association

1620 L Street, NW, Suite 610

Washington, DC 20036

January 8, 2015
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Airlines for America, Department of Transportation Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection
October 22, 2015

Chris Saladin

Enterprise Systems Group

2305 Kelbe Dr.

Little Chute, WI 54140

Dear Saladin :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR ). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your August 6, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Enterprise Systems Group

filed in D ocket No. FAA

- 20 15

- 3386 b ut we are unable to process your request any further.

Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11 .81 (copy enclosed). For us to

consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For m ore detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days b efore the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 299 9.

Sincerely,

/s/

B rittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Valassis Communications, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the 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 the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 8, 2008 |  | /s/ Alan F. Schultz    
|                      |  | Alan F. Schultz        
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer



35
Docket No. FAA- <Ol{- OD).5

Record of Ex Parte Contacts

o?D IO-1'J M- ;;z03-AD

Directorate Identifier: -AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder,

manufacturer, AT A,NBAA, RAA,IAOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? (You might need to submit a separate

record to the Rules Docket. The AD Ma~ual defines "Ex Parte Contacts. '') •

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE

Boeing Bruce Shull 07/1 1/07 to Dresent Concur.

ATA Joe White 08/25/1 0 No response.

Other/Additional Information:
Jimmy D. MCKLEROY v. STATE

CR-15-1271

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO INCLUDED IN THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       4,737,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                442,925,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             496,885,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    156,211,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       214,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 210,643,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               496,885,000
<SALES>                                    160,736,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           160,736,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              144,105,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,853,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,161,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,692,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,692,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Elias GONZALEZ, a/k/a Solo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6494

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Johnny Elias Gonzalez, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Christopher Morris, Kevin Zo-lot, Office of the United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

*800Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Elias Gonzalez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability -will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gonzalez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gonzalez’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of ap-pealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Ronnie Fay STOOKEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5510

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER
UNIT DATA) EXTRACTED FROM STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001002590
<NAME> STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,115
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,531
<ALLOWANCES>                                       252
<INVENTORY>                                     10,608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,947
<PP&E>                                         137,192
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,930
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 179,607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,912
<BONDS>                                        105,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        58,686<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,339)<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   179,607
<SALES>                                        107,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               111,685
<CGS>                                           49,498
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,749
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   239
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,087
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (930)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (955)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (955)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  $(0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(0.16)
<FN>
<F1>COMMON - IN DECEMBER 1995 STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P. ISSUED COMMON AND
SUBORDINATED UNITS WHICH REPRESENT LIMITED PARTNER INTERESTS.  THESE UNITS ARE
CONSIDERED TO POSSESS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMON STOCK AND ARE BOTH INCLUDED
IN THE DETERMINATION OF EPS.
<F2>OTHER-SE - REPRESENTS THE GENERAL PARTNER'S INTEREST IN THE PARTNERSHIP AND IS
CLASSIFIED HERE SINCE IT DOES NOT POSSESS THE RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS OF
EITHER COMMON OR PREFERRED STOCK.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Richard B. FLANZER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Eric KAPLAN, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-3258

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The parties' stipulation for dismissal filed January 22, 2018, is treated as a notice of voluntary dismissal and is granted. This appeal is dismissed.
John WARKE, Appellant, v. LENNAR HOMES, LLC; Paradise Palms Realty, LLC ; Charles H. Valeston; and Steven Adkins, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-5276

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**UNITED STA TES ENVIRONMENTA**  **L PROTECTION A**  **GENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105
- 2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION July 8 , 2015 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: A bug fixed in GEM manual transmission efficiency FROM: Houshun Zhang , OTAQ/ASD TO: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium
- and Heav y - Duty

Engines and Vehicles
- Phase 2
- Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- xxxx - yyyy A bug was identified recently in calculating the manual transmission mechanical efficiency . In the GEM design, it is supposed that all gear mechanical efficiency sh ould be set to 96% except the direct drive ratio with 1:1, which should be set to 98%. However, GEM was set 98% to gear ratio number less than 1, and all others are 96%. This is incorrect. Consequently , the modification on GEM was conducted, making sure that only gear ratio of 1:1 is set to 98% and all others are 96%. It should be pointed out that this bug only affect s the manual transmission and it doesn’t affect all of other transmission s .
From: Nathaniel S ym ons <Nathaniel.S ym ons@newpagecorp.com >

Sent: 2/22/2012 9:55 AM To: Stacie Enoch < Stacie.Enoch@erg.com > Subject: RE: Data Revision Spread sheet Stacie, If you need an y additional information please let me know. I tried to give brief explanations for the changes.
Gary BRADSHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2108

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                               CERTIFICATION UNDER
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Glacier Water  Services,  Inc., (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended September 26, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian H.
McInerney,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant to and for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
ss. 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 of the Company as of
               the dates indicated and results of operations of the Company for
               the periods indicated.


/s/ Brian H. McInerney
-------------------------------------

Brian H. McInerney
President and Chief Executive Officer
October 27, 2004
#### HSBC Bank USA, Appellant, v Lezi Realty Corp. et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 899]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered on or about March 4, 2003, unanimously withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the order discontinuing the action and correspondence of the parties hereto. No opinion. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.20




SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


The following is a description of the standard arrangements pursuant to which directors of SM Energy are compensated for services provided as a director, including additional amounts payable for committee participation:


DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Employee directors do not receive additional compensation for serving on the Board of Directors or any committee.


For service in 2018 - 2019 as it relates to the period from May 2018 through May 2019, target compensation for each member of the Board of Directors has been set at $180,000 annually, plus a retainer paid in lieu of committee and attendance fees. As described more fully below, the actual value of compensation may be higher or lower depending on the results of the restricted stock component of director compensation. Primary director compensation is in the form of stock grants and is fully described below. The retainer component of director compensation for non-employee directors consists of an annual retainer of $90,000 for committee and board meeting fees paid in SM Energy common stock or cash as selected by the director; provided that in the event any director attends in excess of 30 Board and committee meetings in the aggregate during the period from May 2018 through May 2019, such director shall receive $1,500 per meeting for each meeting in excess of 30. In addition, each non-employee director is reimbursed for expenses incurred in attending Board and committee meetings and director education programs.
The committee chairs receive the cash payments identified in the list below in recognition of the additional workload of their respective committee assignments. These amounts are paid at the beginning of the annual service period.        
		
	•
	Audit Committee - $20,000


		
	•
	Compensation Committee - $15,000


		
	•
	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee - $10,000




The stock compensation for non-employee directors is as follows:
Annual compensation payable upon election to the Board by the stockholders, valued at $180,000. This resulted in a grant of restricted stock to each non-employee director of 6,780 shares of SM Energy common stock issued on June 25, 2018, under SM Energy's Equity Incentive Compensation Plan. These shares vested on December 31, 2018. Ms. Bailo received a pro rata grant of shares of our common stock.


A retainer for the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board valued at $115,000. This resulted in a grant of 4,332 shares of SM Energy common stock issued on June 25, 2018, under SM Energy's Equity Incentive Compensation Plan. These shares vested on December 31, 2018.


Loren M. Leiker and William D. Sullivan each elected to receive SM Energy common stock for their retainer, which resulted in a grant of 3,390 shares of SM Energy common stock issued on June 25, 2018, under SM Energy's Equity Incentive Compensation Plan. These shares vested on December 31, 2018.  Larry W. Bickle, Stephen Brand, Ramiro G. Peru, Julio M. Quintana and Rose Robeson each elected to receive a $90,000 cash payment for their retainer.
#### Dennis M. O’HARA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMPTROLLER OF MARYLAND; Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 16-1684

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Dennis M. O’Hara, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Joseph Salem, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Annapolis, Maryland; Bruce R. Ellisen, Jennifer Marie Rubin, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*778PER CURIAM:

Dennis M. O’Hara appeals- the district court’s orders dismissing his petition for ■writ of mandamus for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. O’Hara v. Comptroller of Md., No. 8:14—cv-04044-TDC, 2015 WL 6739154, 2016 WL 2760337 (D. Md. Nov. 3, 2015 & May 12, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Kelvin DEWBERRY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0831

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 05, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Adrin Kentral ROME, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim O’SULLIVAN, Sheriff of Chesapeake Jail; Nurse Cordova, Nurse of Chesapeake City Jail; Nurse Martinez, Nurse for Chesapeake Jail; Officer Cipcic, c.o/ Deputy; John Doe, c.o/Deputy; Nurse Moss, Nurse, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6791

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 22, 2017

Adrin Kentral Rome, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Adrin Kentral Rome appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) (2012) for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Rome’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Rome has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Rome’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*