alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the matter of 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RECEIVED 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUG - 6 2012 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

HEARING DOCKET 

FAA Docket No. UNASSIGNED 

FDMS No. F AA-2012-0470 j··~~., 

Case No. 2011 WP910359 

PREMIER JETS, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Law Judge Goodwin t .. -o~.J 

------------------------~) 

COMPLAINANT'S WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT c:) 

.r: 

Pursuant to the Procedural Order, dated June 11, 2012, and in accordance with 14 C.P.R. 

§ 13.215, Complainant hereby withdraws its Complaint in this matter; all parties having settled 

all pending issues. 

Date: July 27, 2012 

Respectfully submitted, 

Michael 

~A~ F. McKinley 

Senior Attorney 

Enforcement Division 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Telephone: (202) 267-7100 

Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I delivered by U.S. Certified Mail the original and one copy of the 

foregoing Complainant's Withdrawal of Complaint in In the Matter of Premier Jets, Inc, FAA 

Docket No. Unassigned, Case No. 2011 WP910359, to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

In addition, I hereby certify that I served a copy of the same by First Class Mail, 

addressed to the following: 

Name: 

Roger B. Kelsay 

President 

Premier Jets, Inc. 

2140 N.E. 25th Avenue 

Hillsboro, OR 97124 

@_7x~ 

Date: _7-+-/;---=-7--J.....-f~~cJ---­ / I ' 

2
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Robert I. ChenRobert I. ChenPresident, Chief Executive Officer
andChairman of the Board
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 00-20341

_____________________

GARY PEAK, MIKE KIMBRO; JACQUELINE COGLEY,

OSCAR FAVELLA

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

VARTEC TELECOM, INC

Defendant-Appellee

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

_____________________

No. 00-20409

_____________________

GARY PEAK, MIKE KIMBRO; JACQUELINE COGLEY,

OSCAR FAVELLA

Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

VARTEC TELECOM, INC

Defendant-Appellant

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

_________________________________________________________________

January 10, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and DUHÉ, Circuit

Judges.
 

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

PER CURIAM:*

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment

in favor of defendant-appellee Vartec Telecom, Inc., nor did the

district court abuse its discretion in refusing to award

attorney’s fees to Vartec. 

AFFIRMED.
R.B.H., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4934

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### Worksheet



## BT Summary

MPAs **Quantitative Nonuse Summary Tables for BA .xlsx**  

## Author: Abt Associates Inc. Created: 05/02/14 Purpose: To summarize the results of the nonuse benefits transfer from the Nonuse Benefit Transfer SAS Model and from the analysis of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The tables are presented in Chapter 8 of the Benefits Analysis for the final rule.

### Description



## Summarizes changes in winter flounder abundance and benefits estimates from Nonuse Benefit Transfer SAS Model by region for the final rule and other options considered. This table is presented in Chapter 8 of the Benefits Analysis for the final rule. Summarizes number of facilities with improved technology within MPAs by region for the final rle and other options considered. This table is presented in Chapter 8 of the Benefits Analysis for the final rule. **Quantitative Nonuse Summary Tables for BA .xlsx**  

## Author: Abt Associates Inc.
Purpose: To summarize the results of the nonuse benefits transfer from the Nonuse Benefit Transfer SAS Model and from the analysis of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The tables are presented in Chapter 8 of the Benefits Analysis for the final rule.

### Step **Proposal Option 4** **Final Rule Proposal**  **Option 2 Baseline**  Reduction in Northeast IM&E (millions of A1E) 0.03 0.08 4.78 6.23 Percentage increase in age-1 fish in Northeast waters relative to age-1 stock at MSY 0.02% 0.07% 4.18% 5.44% Household WTP per Household (2011$) $0.02 $0.05 $3.01 $3.92
Annual WTP (millions of 2011$) $0.09 $0.28 $16.35 $21.29 Annualized WTP (3% discount rate; millions of $0.06 $0.21 $10.43 $20.21 Annualized WTP (7% discount rate; millions of 2011$) $0.05 $0.17 $7.61 $19.77
Annual WTP (millions of 2011$) $0.34 $1.09 $63.80 $83.10 Annualized WTP (3% discount rate; millions of 2011$) $0.25 $0.81 $40.70 $78.89 Annualized WTP (7% discount rate; millions of 2011$) $0.20 $0.65 $29.69 $77.17
Annual WTP (millions of 2011$) $0.42 $1.37 $80.14 $104.39 Annualized WTP (3% discount rate; millions of 2011$) $0.31 $1.01 $51.13 $99.10 Annualized WTP (7% discount rate; millions of 2011$) $0.25 $0.82 $37.30 $96.95 **North Atlantic a** 



### Mid-Atlantic**b**

a 

### Based on 5.41 million households. b

### Based on 21.11 million households. Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report **Total Northeast (North Atlantic plus Mid-Atlantic) IM**  **E IM**  **E IM** **E Number of**  **Facilities Affected** 

**Waterbodies With Tech** 

**Data b**  California 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 North Atlantic 2 0 2 0 2 2 7 6 6 Mid-Atlantic 8 0 8 0 8 6 24 15 12 South Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 Gulf of Mexico 2 0 2 0 3 3 3 3 3 Great Lakes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inland 2 0 2 0 2 2 6 5 2 **Total 15**  **0 15**  **0 16**  **14 44**  **32 25** 

aIM is impingement mortality and E is entrainment. bEPA does not have adequate data for all facilities to estimate current compliance with the final rule. Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report **Baseline**
**Final Rule Proposal** 

**Option 2 Number of Facilities with Improved**  **Technologies by Option a,b**  **Region Proposal** 

**Option 4**
Nicholas Robert DUNLAP v. STATE

CR-15-0439

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron Michael MURRAY, a.k.a. Tyler Peterson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-13448 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/30/2016

David Paul Rhodes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Bryon R. Aven, U.S. Attorney’s Office—FLM, Ocala, FL, David Rodney Brown, Bonnie Ames Glober, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Donna .Lee Elm, Rosemary Cakmis, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, Aaron Michael Murray, FCI Coleman Medium—Inmate Legal Mail, Coleman, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before TJOFLAT, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

*748PER CURIAlM:

Meghan Ann Collins, appointed counsel for Aaron Murray in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) because she finds the appeal “wholly frivolous.” *Id.*at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396. Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of Murray’s appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Murray’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
William C. STRUPP, Jr., D.D.S. and William C. Strupp, Jr., D.D.S., P.A., Petitioners, v. Loretta SPIGNARDO and Chris Limberopoulos, Respondents.

Case No. 2D17-3777

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 18, 2018

Jason M. Azzarone, Thomas Saieva, and Lesley A. Stine of La Cava & Jacobson, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioners.

Andrew Wellman and Chris Limberopoulos of The Florida Law Group, Tampa, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Denied.

CASANUEVA, SALARIO, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report
of Ariba, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Robert M. Calderoni, as President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and James W. Frankola, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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
results of operations of the Company.



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    ROBERT M.
CALDERONI                                
|Robert M. Calderoni Chief Executive Officer April 10, 2003



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    JAMES W.
FRANKOLA                                
|James W. Frankola Chief Financial Officer April 10, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nicholas Moon, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 223]

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Leaman, J.), rendered June 28, 2002, which classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

Defendant was convicted in 1994 upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sodomy in the first degree resulting from his sexual contact, including two acts of oral intercourse and one act of anal intercourse, with a three-year-old boy. At least one of these acts was witnessed by the victim’s six-year-old brother. In preparation for his release on parole in August 2002, defendant was evaluated by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter Board) to determine his risk level classification pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act *(see*Correction Law art 6-C). Having scored 100 points on the risk assessment index, he was presumptively classified as a risk level II sex offender. Given the circumstances presented by defendant’s case history, however, the Board recommended that his risk designation be raised to level III. After considering the case summary submitted by the Board containing the details of defendant’s prior criminal and psychological history and following a determination proceeding, County Court increased defendant’s risk level assessment score to 110 points and accepted the Board’s recommendation that defendant be designated a risk level III sex offender.

Defendant appeals, contending that he failed to receive adequate notice of the Board’s intention to seek an upward departure from the presumptive risk level, in violation of Correction Law § 168-d (3). This assertion is not supported by the *601record, which discloses that defendant was first placed on notice of the Board’s intention to seek a level III designation in the “departure” section of the form submitted by the Board to County Court on or about May 22, 2002, over a month before the determinative hearing held June 28, 2002, giving defendant considerably more than the 15 days’ notice required by statute.

We find, in addition, that County Court properly exercised its discretion by elevating defendant’s score by 10 points, increasing his sex offender risk status to level III *(see People v Roland,*292 AD2d 271, 272 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 614 [2002]). Given the three-year-old victim’s complaint of pain and obvious “physical helplessness” against the sexual assault of an adult male, together with the undisputed facts contained in defendant’s case summary demonstrating that defendant has a lengthy history of mental health issues and emotional problems, the record provides sufficient evidentiary support for the enhancement of his risk classification to level III *(see People v Dorato,*291 AD2d 580 [2002]). The remaining arguments raised by defendant have been examined and found to be without merit.

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1651

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Gregory Lamont Charles, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 6, 2001

Filed: April 18, 2001

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG,

Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Gregory Lamont Charles contends the district court

committed reversible error by refusing to declare a mistrial and by allowing the

government to bolster the testimony of one of its witnesses. Having satisfied ourselves

that the district court correctly resolved Charles's challenges and that the appeal simply

involves the application of settled principles of law to unique facts, we conclude the

issues do not warrant a comprehensive opinion. We thus reject Charles's contentions

and affirm his conviction without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alberto ACOSTA-ESTRELLA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51007 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alberto Acosta-Estrella, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Alberto Acosta-Estrella has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18. L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Acosta-Estrella has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Steve Frickenstein, Chief Executive Officer of
Breda Telephone Corp., certify that to my knowledge (i) Breda Telephone Corp.s
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Breda Telephone Corp. Date: March
 28, 2008/s/ Steve
 FrickensteinSteve
 Frickenstein, Chief Executive Officer E-5
EX PARTE Mesiah ABERCROMBIE

1160173 (CR-14-1742)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Cert. denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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


     In connection with the Annual Report of MedSource Technologies, Inc., (The
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Richard
J. Effress, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

          1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated: September 26, 2003


                                        /s/ Richard J. Effress
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Richard J. Effress
                                        Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                           Executive Officer
Customer Service Hotline: 1 - 800 - 438 - 2474 UNITED ST AT ES ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION A GENCY REGION III 1650 A rch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 - 2029 June 3, 2010

Mr. George S. Aburn, Jr., Director Mary land Department of the Environment Air and Radiation Management Administration 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21230 Dear Mr. Aburn: On April 23, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Mary land State Implementation Plan (SI P) from the Mary land Department of the Environment. The SI P revision pertains to the adoption of the EPA Control Technique G uideline (CTG) for paper, film, and foil coatings. This SI P revision includes amendments to Regulation .07 under COMAR 26.11.19, Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking. If members of your staff have an y questions, they may direct them to Ms. Ellen Wentworth at (215) 814

- 2034. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. Sincerel y, /s/ David Arnold, Acting Director Air Protection Division cc: Brian Hug, MDE
#### Darrell J. HARPER, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 15-5229

September Term, 2015

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed: 07/26/2016

Darrell J. Harper, Huntsville, TX, Pro Se.

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office (USA), Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

BEFORE: Rogers and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on appellant’s brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed July 21, 2015, dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, be affirmed. Appellant has provided no basis for overturning the district court’s decision: he failed to name any individual federal defendant as he must to bring a viable claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971); the United States did not waive sovereign immunity, see FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994); and appellant failed to exhaust the administra*806tive remedies available before he filed suit, see DeBrew v. Atwood, 792 F.3d 118, 126 (D.C.Cir.2015).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.