alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## REGISTRATION NOT TRANSFERABLE U N IT E D STA TES OF A ME R I CA



# I This certificate DEP A RTM E NT O F TR AN S P ORT A TION- FE D ER A L AVI ATI O N A DMINISTR AT ION must be in theairCERTIFICATE OF AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION
craft when operated. NATIONALITY AND



# I AIRCRAFT SERIAL NO. REGISTRATION

M A RKS 

# N 612PF W13DCH04040436 MANUFACTURER AND MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF AIRCRAFT DJI INSPIRE

1 ICAO A ircraft A ddress Code: 51773567

This certifi ca te is issued for I UASHOT AERIAL FILMWORK INC registration purposes 

# s 1545 EUCLID AVE APT 6C

only and

i s not a 

# s MIAM

I BEACH FL 33139-3562

ce rtificat e of titl e. 

## u

The Feder a l A viation E

Administr
a tion does D

not determine rights of owner s hip as T

betwe

e n private 

### 0

persons

. Corporation


# 0

It is certified that the above described aircraft has been entered on the register of the Federal Aviation A dministration

, Un

i ted States of America, in accordance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation dated December
7, 

### 1944

, and with Title 

### 49, United States Code,

U
. S . Department and regulations issued thereunder

. DATE OF ISSUE November 3, 2015



# )

of

Transportation Federal Aviation E X PIRAT IO N DATE November 30, 20 18 ADMINISTRATOR Administration

Ui z ::; 0 

# ~ 0 z 0 1- ::J !d. A C F orm 8 0 5 0 · 3 ( 10 /2 010 ) S up e r s edes pr e vi o u s e d it i o n s


### ~=..::! 

## J. **~=~;:±:~:;!!:::t::.::: :_~:_:25**  U.S. Department 

### of Transportation 

### Federal Aviation Administration



## • U.S . POSTAGE)) PITNEY BOWES 

### ~-,,=. **~** 

### ---.-.,.~ 

# -- **~** .. ;."':§ ZIP 73169 

# $ 000 

# 485 **~~~=** 02 

## 1~

• 

# Ji~·"'·v 0001402926NOV
05 2015 C ivil Aviation Regi s try P . O . B ox 2550 4 O klahoma City, OK 73125- 050 4 Official Busine
s s Penalty for Privat e Use $300 AC Form 805 0 -3 (10/2010) Supersedes previous edition 

# TO: UA5HOT AERIAL FILMWORK

I NC 1 545 EUCLID AVE APT 6C M

I AMI BEACH FL 33139-3562 612PF 

# i 

# iji j, 

## I 

# i Ji 

# i ;iII 

# i iii'i

l I'' 

## J 

# ;jjlll J 

# jl I ill"



# i 

# HI 

# j ;iiI ,j/ 

# Iii I 

# iJi ,; j 

# ji
Exhibit 31.2

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

 

 

I, C.            Steven Guenthner, certify that:

1. I            have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Almost            Family, Inc.; and

2.            Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material            fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light            of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect            to the period covered by this report.

|   | Date: | April 29, 2008 |
|--------|-------|----------------|

BY/s/ C. Steven Guenthner

|   | C. Steven Guenthner |
|--------|---------------------|

|   | Senior Vice President & |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

 

 

 

1
**Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) -**  **Information Collection Request (ICR)**

**Change Worksheet** 1. Id entification of the Information Collection Title: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Providing Option for Rescission of EPA

- Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits OMB control number : 2060

- 0003 2. Description of the Change in Requirements In this rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to amend the f ederal Clean Air Act (CAA) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program regulations to allow for rescission of certain PSD permits issued by the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities under Step 2 of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration an d Title V Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule). We are taking this action in order to provide a mechanism for the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind PSD permits that are no longer required in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA and the amended appeals court judgment in Coali tion for Responsible Regulation v. EPA that vacated the Tailoring Rule. These decisions determined that Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule was not required under the C AA and vacated the EPA regulations implementing Step 2. When effective, this action will authorize the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind Step 2 PSD permits in response to requests from applicants who can demonstrate that they are eligible for permit rescission. 3. Description of the Burden EPA estimates that about 20 permittees with Step 2 permits issued by EPA or delegated permit reviewing authorities would request this relief. Sources requesting Step 2 permit rescission s will have completed the permit application process, which on average had an annual burden of 1,006 hours, but until the permit is rescinded the sources remain subject to an y m onitoring, record

keeping, or reporting requirements imposed by the permit

. Sources that request a Step 2 PSD permit rescission, will have to demonstrate to the applicable permit reviewing authorities that they hold a Step 2 permit, which should be evident from the material submitted during the permitting process . Any incidental burden from this demonstration will be more than offset by the burden reduction from the rescission, which will relieve the source of ongoing obligations under the permit

. Inaddition, under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(1) a request to rescind a Step 2 PSD permit would qualify as a certification that is not considered to be “information” as defined by the PRA.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-21-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                         302,169
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  540,096
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (20,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,330,198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,692,536
<PP&E>                                         176,290
<DEPRECIATION>                               (182,374)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,391,836
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,988,585
<BONDS>                                      3,370,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        991
<COMMON>                                     1,118,387
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,893,981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,391,836
<SALES>                                        518,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               518,637
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,152,668
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,610
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (696,641)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (696,641)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (696,641)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
Anthony Joseph REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-455

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 20, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Andrew Mich, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
#### John Lee MCLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-17328

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 15, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed February 17, 2017

Eric G. Slepian, Esquire, Slepian Law Office, Phoenix, AZ, Plaintiff-Appellant

Daniel E. Burrows, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, SSA-Social Security Administration, Office of the Regional Chief *561Counsel, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Ap-pellee

Before: CANBY, SILER,** and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in remanding John McLaughlin’s claim for disability benefits to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings, rather than ordering an award of benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. The district court concluded, and the Commissioner concedes on appeal, that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in discrediting the medical opinion of one of McLaughlin’s treating physicians without providing specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ also erred in discrediting the opinion of a nurse practitioner without providing reasons germane to her. *See Molina v. Astrue,*674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012).

2. Although the credit-as-true rule permits remand for an immediate award of benefits in some cases when an ALJ improperly discredits a medical opinion, a remand for further proceedings remains appropriate if conflicts in the record create a serious doubt that a claimant is disabled. *See Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,*775 F.3d 1090, 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2014). The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the record in this case contains substantial evidence consistent with non-disability, including evidence that McLaughlin’s pain and symptoms were well-treated by treatment and medication.1

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Because we rejnand on an open record, we do not address McLaughlin’s arguments that the AU improperly discounted his testimony about his symptoms and subjective pain.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000925252
<NAME> HEALTH O METER, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                           2,315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     44,036
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               118,771
<PP&E>                                          17,520
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 281,171
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,455
<BONDS>                                        173,637
<COMMON>                                            10
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,830
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   281,171
<SALES>                                         87,136
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,136
<CGS>                                           61,077
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (189)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,982
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,227
<INCOME-TAX>                                       736
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                491
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       491
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
FRANK GREMAUX

ALISSA DERRY

Pirst Wnrd Commissioom

CITY OF LEWISTOWN

ELIZABETH PUTNAM

GAYLE DONEY

Third Ward Ccmmissiceers

JIM DANIELS

Park and Recreation Director

PA1TfTURK

DIANA HEWITT

Second WiJ.Cd Commissioners

MONTEaOEnGER

CilyAl!omcy

CORYBtRDWELL

Poliee Chief

RJCKPOSS

At-Large Ccmmissioner

JASON MANLEY

Fire Cltief

ROGER KRUCKENBERG

Director of Public Works

KEVIN MYHRE

Ciry Manager

305 W. Watson, Lewistown, Montana 59457

(406) 535-1760 Fax (406) 535-3323

KELLYANNETERRY

Librnry D~C<:(or

DUANE FERDINAND

Planning Director

NlK.Kl DRUMMOND

Finnnee Offi=fCily Clerk

August 22,2013

Dennis DeVany

Department of Transportation

Office oftbe Secretary

Washington, D.C.

Sent via email to: dennis.devany@dot:gov; eas@dot.gov; cc to:

Mark Hybner@baucus.senate.!!:ov; dzrice@!!:maiLcom

Dear Mr. DeVany,

On July 2,2013, the City of Lewistown submitted a Petition for Reconsideration regarding Order 2013-6-

13. Since that submission, we have reviewed this matter further with the Department, Senator Baucus'

office and other communities facing similar challenges. As a result, please consider this letter as the City

of Lewistown's request to withdraw the Petition for Reconsideration previously submitted.

The City of Lewistown is still very interested in preserving Essential Air Service for Central Montana.

Accordingly, and after we have more fully researched the matter, we may pursue a request to the

Department for reinstatement ofEAS.

Thank you for your assistance and willingness to work with the City of Lewistown on this important

matter.

Kevin Myhre

Lewistown City Manager

cc, City Commission
EXHIBIT 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 ISP Chemco Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Sunil
Kumar, as Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Neal E.
Murphy, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
each hereby certifies, 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 his
knowledge and belief:

         (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/ Sunil Kumar
----------------------------------------------
Name:  Sunil Kumar
Title: Chief Executive Officer and President

Date:   August 13, 2002



/s/ Neal E. Murphy
----------------------------------------------
Name:  Neal E. Murphy
Title: Senior Vice President and
       Chief Financial Officer

Date:   August 13, 2002

This certification accompanies the 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.
Dan COBBS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3728

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
CHAPTER 33-15-15 

PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION OF AIR QUALITY 

Section 

33-15-15-01 

33-15-15-01.1 

33-15-15-01.2 

33-15-15-02 

General Provisions [Repealed] 

Purpose 

Scope 

Reclassification 

33-15-15-01. General provisions. Repealed effective February 1, 2005. 

33-15-15-01.1. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to adopt by 

reference federal provisions for the prevention of significant deterioration program 

in North Dakota. The department will continue to implement the prevention of 

significant deterioration program as part of the state implementation plan. 

History: Effective February 1, 2005. 

General Authority: NDCC 23-25-03, 23-25-04.1 

Law Implemented: NDCC 23-25-03, 23-25-04.1 

33-15-15-01.2. Scope. The provisions of title 40, Code of Federal 

Regulations part 52, section 21, paragraphs (a)(2) through (e), (h) through (r), (v), 

(w), (aa), and (bb) as they exist on July 1, 2013, are incorporated by reference 

into this chapter. This includes revisions to the rules that were published as a final 

rule in the Federal Register by this date but had not been published in the Code 

of Federal Regulations yet. Any changes or additions to the provisions are listed 

below the affected paragraph. 

1 
History: Effective February 1, 2005; amended effective April 1, 2009; April 1, 2011; 

January 1, 2013; April 1, 2014. 

General Authority: NDCC 23-25-03, 23-25-04.1 

8
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE REGISTRANT'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-QSB/A FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      987,980
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            987,980
<PP&E>                                      574,432
<DEPRECIATION>                              334,933
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            1,450,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1,231,058
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     53,677
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              1,450,840
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            203,380
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             2,429,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (41,548)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (2,184,536)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                             (2,184,536)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.41)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         105,346
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  155,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               261,072
<PP&E>                                       2,316,782
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,512,661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          779,578
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,733,083
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,512,661
<SALES>                                         74,110
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,782
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,692
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,224
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48,224
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,224
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
N.J., the Father of E.J., Minor Child, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3946

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Randy ANDERSON

NO. 2017-KO-1913

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 2018

Denied.

CRICHTON, J., recused.