alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Transport Transports 

Canada Canada

 TP 7245E

 

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

The following airworthiness directive (AD) may be applicable to an aircraft which our records indicate is registered in your name. ADs are issued pursuant to Canadian 

Aviation Regulation (CAR) 521 Division X. Pursuant to CAR 605.84 and the further details of CAR Standard 625, Appendix H, the continuing airworthiness of a Canadian registered aircraft is contingent upon compliance with all applicable ADs. Failure to comply with the requirements of an AD may invalidate the flight authorization of the aircraft. 

Alternative means of compliance shall be applied for in accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above-referenced Standard. 

This AD has been issued by the Continuing Airworthiness Division (AARDG), National Aircraft Certification Branch, Transport Canada, Ottawa, telephone 613 952-4357.

Pursuant to CAR 202.51 the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft shall, within seven days, notify the Minister in writing of any change of his or her name or address. 

To request a change of address, contact the Civil Aviation Communications Centre (AARC) at Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8, or 1-800-305-2059, or www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/communications/centre/ address.asp 

24-0022 (01-2005)

1/1 No.

CF-2011-34

Issue Date 

 16 August 2011 

Number: CF- 2011-34 

Subject: Ice Protection System – Failure of the Timer and Monitor Unit

Effective: 31 August 2011 

Applicability: Bombardier Inc. DHC-8 Aeroplane Models 400, 401 and 402, serial numbers 4001

and subsequent, equipped with Aerazur TMU, Part Number 4100S018-06.

Compliance: As indicated below, unless already accomplished. 

Background: There have been multiple reports of in-service incidents where the automatic deicing 

mode became unavailable due to a failure of the Timer and Monitor Unit (TMU). 

Investigation has revealed that the failures were attributed to overstressed capacitors

installed in the circuit board of the TMU “Module 300” power supply. The failure of the 

capacitors leads to failure of the TMU “Module 300” power supply and subsequent loss of 

the automatic deicing mode. 

This directive mandates the replacement of the TMU, part number (P/N) 4100S018-06,

with a new improved unit, P/N 4100S018-07. 

Corrective 

Actions: 

1. Within 3000 hours air time or 18 months, from the effective date of this directive, 

whichever occurs first, incorporate Bombardier ModSum 4-126525. Bombardier 

Service Bulletin (SB) 84-30-14, Initial Issue, dated 20 May 2011, or later revisions 

approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada, provides 

approved instructions for incorporating ModSum 4-126525. 

2. As of the effective date of this directive, installation of a TMU, P/N 4100S018-06, is 

not permitted on any aeroplanes. 

Authorization: For the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY

Derek Ferguson 

Chief, Continuing Airworthiness 

Contact: Mr. Robert Farinas, Continuing Airworthiness, Ottawa, telephone 613-952-4357, 

facsimile 613-996-9178 or e-mail CAWWEBFeedback@tc.gc.ca or any Transport 

Canada Centre.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

R.T., the father and J.T., the mother

, Appellant s ,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and

GUARDIAN AD LITEM

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 19

- 2711

[ December 5, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Yael Gamm , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2019

- 912 CJ JDP

.

John B. Agnetti and Daniel H. Kent of Hoffman, Larin & Agnetti, P.A., Miami, for appellants.

Ashley Moody, Attorney Gener al, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Department of

Children and Families.

Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, Senior Attorney, Tallahassee, for appellee Guardian ad L item.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, G ERBER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
II 

Calendar No. 454 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 599 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3500 West 6th Street, Suite 103 in Los Angeles, California, as the ‘‘Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DOSAN AHN CHANG HO POST OFFICE REDESIG4 NATION. 

5 (a) REDESIGNATION.—Section 1 of Public Law 108– 

6 239 is amended by striking ‘‘3751 West 6th Street in Los 

7 Angeles, California’’ and inserting ‘‘3500 West 6th Street, 

8 Suite 103 in Los Angeles, California’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 599 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in section 1 of Public Law 

4 108–239 as amended by subsection (a) shall be deemed 

5 to be a reference to the ‘‘Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Of6 fice’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 454 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 599 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostAhn Chang Ho Post Office’’. 103 in Los Angeles, California, as the ‘‘Dosan al Service located at 3500 West 6th Street, Suite 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 604 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 604

 To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to make available video 
                 conferencing for applicants for NEXUS.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2023

   Mr. Higgins of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to make available video 
                 conferencing for applicants for NEXUS.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Make NEXUS Work Act''.

SEC. 2. VIDEO CONFERENCING FOR NEXUS APPLICANTS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall, not later than 45 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, make available video conferencing for applicants 
for NEXUS enrollments and renewals.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dennis Armando ROSALES-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50107 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 29, 2017

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

Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

*205PER CURIAM: *

Dennis Armando Rosales-Alvarado pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States and was sentenced-above the advisory guidelines range to 52 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. In his only argument on appeal, he asserts that because the indictment did not allege that he had a prior felony conviction, his sentence exceeded the two-year statutory maximum sentence set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and violated his due process rights. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but states that he seeks to preserve it for possible future review because recent decisions indicate that the Supreme Court may reconsider the issue. *See Alleyne v. United States,*— U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013).

The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance. Summary affirmance is proper when, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” *Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (5th Cir. 1969).

As Rosales-Alvarado concedes, his due process argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres.*The Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and *Alleyne*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte,*513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008); *United States v. Wallace,*759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S MARCH 31, 1997 REPORT ON FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,001,586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,177,345
<PP&E>                                         699,810
<DEPRECIATION>                                 230,170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,881,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          597,552
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,430
<COMMON>                                         9,971
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,272,979
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,881,932
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               142,127
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,329,522
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,187,395)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,187,395)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,187,395)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        


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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          91,154
<SECURITIES>                                    11,081
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               254,715
<PP&E>                                         157,673
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,330
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 538,913
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          307,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                         1,876
<OTHER-SE>                                     177,040
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   538,913
<SALES>                                        349,982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               349,982
<CGS>                                          188,223
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  706,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   577
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 386
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (353,689)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (353,689)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (353,689)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.90)
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Martin MORELOS-HINOJOSA a/k/a, Jose Martin Morales-Hinojosa, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-1327

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed December 21, 2016

James C. Murphy, Wayne B. Paugh, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Mary V. Butterton, John T. Carlson, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before LUCERO, EBEL, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

The government moves to enforce Jose Martin Morelos-Hinojosa’s waiver of his right to appeal. The waiver is enforceable, so we grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

Mr. Morelos-Hinojosa pled guilty to illegal reentry of a previously removed alien following an aggravated felony conviction and was sentenced to 24 months in prison. As part of the plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal his sentence unless it exceeded certain máximums or unless the government appealed. Neither of these happened, but Mr. Morelos-Hinojosa appealed his sentence anyway.

The government now moves to enforce the appeal waiver. This requires three conditions to be met: (1) the appeal must fall within the scope of the waiver, (2) the defendant must have knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, and (3) enforcing the waiver must not result in a miscarriage of justice. *United States v. Hahn,*359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). The government’s motion addresses these conditions and explains why each is satisfied.

Mr. Morelos-Hinojosa’s attorney informs the court that he sees no meritorious grounds to oppose the government’s motion and that he explained this to Mr. Morelos-Hinojosa. We notified Mr. More-los-Hinojosa of his attorney’s position and invited him to file a response showing why the court should not enforce the waiver. *729He did not respond and the deadline to do so has passed.

After reviewing the record, we conclude the *Hahn*conditions are met and Mr. Morelos-Hinojosa’s appeal waiver is enforceable. We therefore grant the motion to enforce the waiver and dismiss this appeal.

*

 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.
<PAGE>   1


              EXHIBIT 11.1-COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Three Months Ended June 30,       Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                                 2000                1999          2000              1999
                                                                -------             -------       -------           -------
<S>                                                             <C>                 <C>           <C>               <C>
Income (loss) applicable to common shares:

Net income (loss)                                               $  (699)            $   471       $(1,474)          $   926

                                                                -------             -------       -------           -------
              Income (loss) applicable to common shares         $  (699)            $   471       $(1,474)          $   926
                                                                =======             =======       =======           =======



     Weighted average number of common shares outstanding         7,441               7,350         7,420             7,344


              Weighted average common shares                      7,441               7,350         7,420             7,344
                                                                =======             =======       =======           =======


     Income (loss) per common share                             $ (0.09)            $  0.06       $ (0.20)          $  0.13
                                                                =======             =======       =======           =======
</TABLE>
Raymond BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1046

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender; Jennifer M. Painter and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Wolf, Roberts, and Wetherell, JJ., concur.
Daniel Lee LIEDTKA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1306

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Daniel Lee Liedtka, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Ray, Bilbrey, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50365 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DARRELL MONTEZ BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-99-CR-56-1

-------------------- February 13, 2001 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Darrell Montez Brown (Brown) appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Brown challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. He argues the search of his vehicle was unconstitutional because, inter alia , the trooper testified he was not positive the odor he smelled was marijuana and because no marijuana was found in the vehicle. As noted in United States v. Reed , 882 F.2d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 1989), the distinct odor of burnt marijuana, by itself, willNo. 00-50365 -2- provide probable cause to search a vehicle. Moreover, the detection of the odor of marijuana justifies a search of the entire vehicle, including locked compartments where contraband is likely to be concealed. Id

. As in Reed , "the resolution of this issue simply boil[s] down to a credibility choice," and because the trooper repeatedly testified that he believed the odor he smelled was marijuana, the district court did not err in denying Brown's motion to suppress. Reed , 882 F.2d at 149. Neither is it relevant that the trooper did not ultimately find marijuana in the vehicle. "It is not controlling that the substance eventually discovered in the vehicle was cocaine, and that no marihuana was ever found." Id . "It is settled that the presence or absence of probable cause to search is not determined by what the search does or does not ultimately reveal." Id

. Brown's conviction is AFFIRMED.
Floyd T. KENNY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0433

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 22, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.1


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002






I, Rene
A. Schena, the Chief Executive Officer of Integrated Media Holdings, Inc.,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Integrated Media
Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Endavo Media and Communications, Inc.





April
      15, 2008
            By:
      /s/Rene A. SchenaName:
      Rene A. SchenaTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer




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


                                                                      Exhibit 21

                         Subsidiaries of NaviSite, Inc.


Subsidiary                                         Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----------                                         -----------------------------

Avasta, Inc.                                                 California
ClearBlue Technologies Management, Inc.                      Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/Chicago-Wells, Inc.                   Delaware
Clear Blue Technologies/Las Vegas, Inc.                      Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/Los Angeles, Inc.                     Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/Milwaukee, Inc.                       Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/Oak Brook, Inc.                       Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/Vienna, Inc.                          Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/Dallas, Inc.                          Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/New York, Inc.                        Delaware
ClearBlue Technologies/San Francisco, Inc.                   Delaware
Conxion Corporation                                          California
Intrepid Acquisition Corp.                                   Delaware
Lexington Acquisition Corp.                                  Delaware
C.A., The Mother, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3968

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*