alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### ZUCKERT SCOUIT & 

### RASENBERGER, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 888 SeventeenthStreet, NW, Washington, DC 2()()()6...3309 Telephone [202]298-8660 Fax [202]342-0683 www.zsrlaw.corn
RICHARD D. MATHIAS DIRECT DIAL (202) 973-79I 7 rdmathias@zsrlaw.com September 1, 2011
BY ELECTRONIC FILING George Wellington, Chief Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division (X-45) U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Polling Results, Application ofAerovias del Continente Americano S.A. (Docket OST-2011-0166) Dear Mr. Wellington: ' ,-)

cr

This is to advise that Aerovias del Continente Americana S.A. ("A vianca") has completed polling ofcarriers on the service list ofAvianca's August 30, 2011 Application for a Statement ofAuthorization. No objections were received. Accordingly, Avianca urges that the requested authority be granted as soon as possible. Sincerely,

Richard D. Mathias Counsel for Aerovias del Continente Americana S.A.
2Z , A_ y

~

~ 

# w

~ i Q

0

~~ yTq C PROZ'

G

~ ` UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460



### J U N 8 2010

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION Donald C. Gadbury Manager, National TRU Program Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 Dear Mr. Gadbury:
On January 19, 2010, the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) requested that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approve a proposed Tier 1 change containing eight containers of retrievably stored, remote-handled (RH) transuranic (TRU) debris waste from waste stream ID-MFC-S5400-RH for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The enclosed report (EPA Docket No. A-98-49;11-A4-126) provides more detailed background of our review. We approve the Tier 1 change request, and Idaho National Laboratory (INL) may dispose of this waste at the WIPP.The Central Characterization Project (CCP) characterized this waste using remotehandled waste characterization processes approved by EPA in February 2007. In our current evaluation, EPA identified no concerns. EPA determined that the procedures and processes used by INL-CCP staff for characterizing this waste were adequate. As a result of our evaluation, we revised the tiering table (Table 1) in the enclosed report. Revisions were made to reflect the tiering changes needed to sufficiently address nondestructive examination (NDE) T1 changes. If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462 or Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422.
Sincerely,



# ~~ ~ / Tom Peake, Director Center for Waste Management and Regulations

Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable 0 Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperEnclosure

cc: Electronic Distribution Christine Gelles, DOE EM Alton Harris, DOE EM David Moody, CBFO Vernon Daub, CBFO Ava Holland, CBFO QA J R Stroble, CBFO Courtland Fesmire, CBFO Martin Navarrete, CBFO QA Dennis Miehls, CBFO QA Jerry Wells, DOE ID D K Ploetz, WTS-CCP Mike Sensibaugh, WTS-CCP Mark Pearcy, WTS-CCP Allison Pangle, CTAC Wayne Ledford, CTAC Steve Zappe, NMED EPA Region 10
Casey ORTIZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3592

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 16, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT
32.1





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
Salon Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March
31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Gingras, 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) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Richard
Gingras


June
      26, 2009
            Richard
      Gingras


Chief
Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2





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





The undersigned, Brion D. Umidi, the Chief Financial Officer of ReGen Biologics, Inc. (the “Company”), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2009 (the “Report”).
The undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that:





(1) 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.





Date: August 11, 2009





/s/ Brion D. UmidiName:
Brion D. UmidiTitle:
Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

DEVIN DEWAYNE BENNETT, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 22-6097 

(D.C. No. 5:21-CR-00180-PRW-1) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This matter is before the court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Remand (the 

“Motion”). Upon consideration, the Motion is granted, as provided below. 

This matter is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate 

Appellant Devin Dewayne Bennett’s sentence and conduct any and all proceedings 

necessary to resentence Appellant consistent with the grounds presented in the 

Motion, which is incorporated into this Order and Judgment by reference. 

* After examining the parties’ motion and appellate record, this panel has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The 

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment 

is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent 

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

September 15, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-6097 Document: 010110739678 Date Filed: 09/15/2022 Page: 1
2 

This appeal is dismissed. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam 

Appellate Case: 22-6097 Document: 010110739678 Date Filed: 09/15/2022 Page: 2
##### 



Exhibit 4.20
 REGEN BIOLOGICS, INC.
NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
          REGEN BIOLOGICS, INC.By:Title:OPTIONEE[Insert Name]




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
TO
REGEN BIOLOGICS, INC.
NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 Grant of Option
 Vesting and Expiration
   Exercise Following Termination of Employment, Consulting or Director Relationship




---



##### 



Exercise




---



##### 



Nontransferability of Option
 Adjustments Upon Reorganization or Changes in Capitalization
 Acceleration of Exercisability




---



##### 



Change in Control
 Termination without Cause
 Miscellaneous
 Notices
 (i)
    
    if to the Corporation, at:
 
 (ii)
    
    if to Optionee, at the address set forth on the Cover Page,
  Compliance with Law and Regulations
 No Rights as Stockholder
 No Consulting, Employment or Director Relationship Rights
 Withholding




---



##### 



Reservation of Shares; Certain Costs
 Plan Governs
 Choice of Law
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



(18 U.S.C. 1350)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Elephant Talk Communications Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge and belief, that:



(1)         This  Amendment
No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company 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 this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all materials respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|Date:  May 4, 2012 | /s/ Steven van der Velden                                    | 
|------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|                   | Steven van der Velden, President and Chief Executive Officer | 



This certification shall not be deemed
“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange
Act.
Opinion issued March 21, 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 22 - 00 231 - CV

——————————— FEDEX FREIGHT, INC. AND DAVID FOREHAND , Appellant s V. JACK CARGAL AND ANDREW CARGAL , Appellee s On Appeal from the 334 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2018 - 80520 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant s , FedEx Freight, Inc. and David Forehand , filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s December 28, 2021 final judgment. On December 29, 2022, this appeal was abated, at the parties’ request, to allow the parties an opportunity to finalize their settlement agreement. On March 14, 2023 , appe llant s and appellee s ,2

Jack Cargal and Andrew Cargal , filed a “Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal , ” stating that they “ha [d] fully and finally settled the[ir] dispute.” The parties request ed that this Court “dismiss this appeal” and order that the parties bear their own appellate costs. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.1( a)(2 ) , (d)
. N o opinion has issued. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.1(c). Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal on the Court’s active docket. The motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a) (2), 43.2 (f)
. We direct the Clerk of this Court that costs are to be taxed against the parties who incurred the same. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(d). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra
.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Argonaut Group, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Mark W. Haushill, as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to the §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



CERTIFIED this 9th day of March, 2005.



/s/ Mark W. HaushillMark W. HaushillSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2013-10657]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0614; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-351-AD; 
Amendment 39-17450; AD 2013-09-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

Correction

    In document 2013-10657, published in the issue of Tuesday, May 14, 
2013 on pages 28128-28130, the following corrections are being made:

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

    1. On page 28129, in paragraph (g), in the eighth line, ``737-
28A1407'' should be ``737-28A1307''.
    2. On page 28130, in the same section, in paragraph (j)(2)(i), 
``737-28A1407'' should read ``737-28A1307.
[FR Doc. C1-2013-10657 Filed 5-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
Raymond SCHULTZ v. COX OPERATING, LLC and Terry Vincent

NO. 2018-C-0397

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

WEIMER, J., additionally concurs in the denial and assigns reasons.

The appellate court errantly made explicit findings that Timothy Hassinger, counsel for Greene's Energy, LLC failed to respond to communications from plaintiff's counsel regarding discovery. Plaintiff's counsel does not dispute the representations to this court by Mr. Hassinger that the relevant communications were sent by plaintiff's counsel to an email address that was not Mr. Hassinger's email address. Mr. Hassinger supports his representations to this court with printed copies of the emails from the record on appeal. Accordingly, I conclude that the appellate court's findings regarding Mr. Hassinger failing to respond to those emails are incorrect.

Hughes, J., would grant the writ.

Respectfully, I would grant the writ and provide some relief to counsel for Greene's Energy Group, LLC. He is criticized for failing to respond to emails that were sent to the wrong address (gtbs.com rather than gjtbs.com). This discrepancy is not contested. The court of appeal should have granted rehearing to amend its opinion in order to delete any implication that counsel for Greene's "failed to cooperate."
Aaron PIAZZA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-2235

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 15, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 10, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Jasmine Quintera Russell, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, Robert Charles Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

B.L. Thomas, C.J.

Appellant agreed to a negotiated plea and entered pleas of guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon and one count of grand theft of a firearm. The charges were based on the following facts: Appellant, a felon, entered a gun store, where he possessed one rifle, then possessed a handgun, then possessed another rifle, and then stole the handgun he had previously possessed. Originally charged with two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon based on the two possessions of two rifles, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss one of those counts. Appellant then pled guilty to two separate charges based on his possession of the rifle and theft of the firearm.

Appellant now argues on appeal that he cannot be sentenced for possession of a firearm by a felon and also for grand theft of a firearm.

The Florida Supreme Court has directly held that when a criminal defendant agrees to a negotiated plea, he cannot raise a claim based on double jeopardy:

> The general rule is that a plea of guilty and subsequent adjudication of guilt precludes a later double jeopardy attack on the conviction and sentence. *United States v. Broce,* 488 U.S. 563, 569, 109 S.Ct. 757, 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989) ). There is an exception to this general rule when (a) the plea is a general plea as distinguished from a plea bargain; (b) the double jeopardy violation is apparent from the record; and (c) there is nothing in the record to indicate a waiver of the double jeopardy violation.

*Novaton v. State,* 634 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1994).

Appellant's argument is thus foreclosed under *Novaton.* Appellant asserted a double jeopardy argument on one count and was successful. Appellant then entered *489into a negotiated plea, and accepted the benefits of the plea, thus waiving any further argument based on double jeopardy. Appellant argues that, because he is challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss filed before he entered his plea, his double jeopardy argument is preserved. However, "where [the appellant] entered into a bargained plea with the State, we find that [the appellant] waived *any double jeopardy claim that may affect either his convictions or his sentences ....* " *Id.* (emphasis added); *see also* *Guynn v. State* , 861 So.2d 449, 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (rejecting state and federal double-jeopardy claims as foreclosed under *Novaton* , because appellant entered negotiated plea). Here, none of the three factors required under *Novaton* are present that would justify consideration of Appellant's argument based on double jeopardy.

AFFIRMED.

Wetherell and Winsor, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
     I, Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr., certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics,Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a — 15(e) and 15d — 15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: August 12, 2004         By: /s/ GERALD E. BISBEE, JR.           Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr.     *President and*     *Chief Executive Officer*
PLAQUEMINES PARISH GOVERNMENT, as the Assignee and Subrogee of All South Consulting Engineers, LLC v. FIRST MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY and All South Consulting Engineers, LLC

NO. 2018-CC-0517

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.
# U.S. Navy Testimonies Feed

Testimonies from U.S Navy.

- Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Holds Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2025 Navy and Marine Corps Budget Request Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Franchetti, and Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Eric Smith testified&nbsp;before the Senate&nbsp;Appropriations Committee&rsquo;s Subcommittee on Defense, April 16, 2024. Below is a transcript of the hearing:
- House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Holds Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2025 Navy and Marine Corps Budget Request Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Franchetti, and Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Eric Smith testified&nbsp;before the House Appropriations Committee&rsquo;s Subcommittee on Defense, April 10, 2024. Below is a transcript of the hearing:
- Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Nomination Hearing Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing for Chief of Naval Operations nominee Adm. Lisa Franchetti at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., Sep. 14.
- Senate Armed Services Readiness and Management Support: The Current Readiness of the Joint Force To hear more about the timeliness and conditions for improvements in readiness recovery.
- House Armed Services: Department of the Navy FY2024 Budget Request House Armed Services Committee hearing to provide the information Congress needs to mark up the FY &#39;24 NDAA.
- House Armed Services Readiness: FY2024 Budget Request for Military Readiness Hearing of the Senate Readiness Subcommittee of the FY 2024 budget request for military readiness.
- House Appropriations Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2024 Request for Navy and Marine Corps Military Construction and Family Housing Hearing on the Navy and the Marine Corps is fiscal year 2024 budget requests for military construction and family housing.
- Senate Armed Services: The Posture of the Department of the Navy in Review of the Defense Authorization Request for FY2024 and the Future Years Defense Program To receive testimony from the Honorable Carlos del Toro, Secretary of the Navy; Admiral Michael Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations; General David Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps on FY-24 Posture Hearing.
- House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Holds Hearing on Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request for the Navy and Marine Corps House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Holds Posture Hearing with Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday, and Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David Berger on the Fiscal Year 2024&nbsp;Navy and Marine Corps Budget Request, March 29, 2023.
- Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Holds Hearing on Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request for Navy and Marine Corps Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Holds Posture Hearing with Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday, and Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David Berger on the Fiscal Year 2024&nbsp;Navy and Marine Corps Budget Request, March 28, 2023.
Steven REVERDES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4055

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.