alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: AUGUST 28, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF AIRMEDICAL RESOURCES GROUP, INC. DOCKETNO. FAA-2014-0551 (Civil Penalty Action)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2014WP910076) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAAHearing Docket, and the otherpersons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST -BYU.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Counsel The Aviation Law Firm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway, Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 TEL: 301-294-8550 FAX: 866-568-9886 Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel Federa1 Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region (ANM-7) 1601 Lind Avenue Southwest Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-2161 FAX: 425-227-1007 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0551 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
#### CHONG SU YI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Abdoulaye DIENE; Whole Foods Market, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1048

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2017

Decided: May 3, 2017

Chong Su Yi, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Eric Humber, OGLETREE DEA-KINS NASH SMOAK *&*STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Whole Foods Market, Incorporated.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Chong Su Yi appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice as barred by a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *Yi v. Diene,*No. 8:16-cv-03653-TDC (D. Md. filed Dec. 14, 2016; entered Dec. 15, 2016). We dispense with *196oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Desiree SENNIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-5306

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 18, 2018.

Desiree Sennie, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chelsea S. Alper, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
#### William A. Hadden et al., Respondents, *v.*Jeremiah W. Dimick, Appellant.

(Argued September 21, 1871;

decided January term, 1872.)

*662Action to recover damages for breach of contract. Yer-dict ordered by the court for plaintiffs. Reversed upon the ground that there was some evidence tending to show a parol waiver of the contract by plaintiffs, which should have been submitted to the jury; and, if they found such waiver, plaintiffs would be estopped from claiming a non-performance.

*William G. Ohoate*for the appellant.

*John Blosson*for the respondents.

Earl, C., reads for reversal.

All concur ; Leonard, 0., not sitting.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event.
### SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT

THIS   AGREEMENT   made  and  entered  into  as  of  this
14th day of November,  2000, between PUGET SOUND ENERGY, a Washington
Corporation     (the     Company)     and    WILLIAM    S.    WEAVER
(Employee).  The term Parties  refers to the Company and
the Employee.

#### RECITALS

A. The Parties entered in an Agreement  ("Employment  Agreement")  dated
October 18, 1996;

B.  The  Company's  Board of  Directors  has  requested  Employee not to
terminate employment voluntarily prior to December 31, 2001;

C.  Employee  agrees not to terminate  employment  voluntarily  prior to
December 31, 2001; and

D.  The  Parties  wish to  supplement  the terms and  conditions  of the
Employment  Agreement to ensure that Employee is not economically  prejudiced by
agreeing with the Board's request.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the
Parties agree as follows:

|1. |  | Employee will not voluntarily  terminate his employment with the Company as
its Chief  Executive  Officer any earlier than  December  31, 2001.  Termination
through  death  or  disability  or  termination  for  cause  as  defined  in the
Employment Agreement shall not be considered voluntary.
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. |  | The various  payments due to Employee from the Company under the Employment
Agreement shall be calculated based on the actual termination date or an assumed
termination  date of December 31, 2000,  whichever  produces the higher  payment
under each payment  provision.  For this  purpose each payment  provision of the
Employment  Agreement  shall  be  calculated   separately  rather  than  in  the
aggregate.
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|3. |  | Except as expressly  supplemented  hereby,  the Employment  Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect in its entirety.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as
of the date first written above.

### PUGET SOUND ENERGY

### By________________________

### Title_______________________

______________________________

### William S. Weaver
**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 Too, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the fiscalyear ended January 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Michael W. Rayden, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman ofthe Board of Directors of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.Dated:April 10, 2006       /s/ Michael W. Rayden              Michael W. Rayden         Chairman of the Board of Directors, President, and         Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  
80
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar MELENDREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50431 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

Oscar Melendrez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar Melendrez 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). Melendrez 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.
Phillip E. ELLIS and Linda L. Ellis, Appellants, v. U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee FOR the LSF8 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2299

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 18, 2018.

Jason P. Ramos of Law Offices of Jason P. Ramos PLLC, Sarasota, for Appellants.

Jonathan L. Blackmore and William S. Isenberg of Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, PLLC, Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SALARIO, and ATKINSON, 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-51210

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERALD WAYNE HOWARD, SR., also

known as Gerald Howard,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(W-98-CR-71-ALL)

August 26, 1999

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gerald Wayne Howard, Sr. appeals his conviction and sentence after a jury

trial for wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. He contends that the district

court erred in enhancing his sentence for more than minimal planning, in denying

his motion for a judgment of acquittal, and in denying his motion for a mistrial

based on an improper remark by the prosecutor during closing arguments.1 United States v. Barndt , 913 F.2d 201 (5 th Cir. 1990).

2 United States v. Aggarwal

, 17 F.3d 737 (5 th Cir. 1994); United States v. Greenwood

, 974 F.2d 1449 (5 th

Cir. 1992).

3 United States v. Andrews , 22 F.3d 1328 (5 th Cir. 1994).

2 Our review of the record and briefs of the parties persuades that the district

court did not clearly err in determining that Howard engaged in more than minimal

plann ing. 1 The record contains sufficient evidence upon which a rational juror

could find all of the elements of wire fraud proven beyond a reasonable doubt and

the district court did not err in denying Howard’s motio n for a judgment of

acquittal. 2 We further conclude that the improper remark made by the prosecutor

during closing arguments did not substantially affect Howard’s right to a fair trial. 3

AFFIRMED.
ex_136154.htm


EXHIBIT 10.26


 


DIRECTOR FEE SUMMARY


 


Set forth below is a summary of the director fee arrangements for non-employee directors serving on the Board of Directors of Mercantile Bank Corporation (“Mercantile”).  Director compensation is based on a single retainer figure and meeting fees have been discontinued.  The retainer fee is higher to each director who serves as Chairman of our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Governance and Nominating Committee, as reflected in the chart below.  One-half (50%) of the retainer value is paid in shares of Mercantile common stock as of the annual meeting date, with the share count calculated on the day of issuance.  One-half (50%) of the retainer value is paid in cash, with payments divided into equal instalments payable at the end of each calendar quarter.  Directors who fail to meet an attendance threshold of 75% of scheduled board and committee meetings would not receive their fourth quarter cash payment.


 


	 	 	
			Retainer Value

			
	 	 	 
	
			Chairman of the Board

				 	
			$80,000

			
	
			Chair of the Audit Committee

				 	
			$69,000

			
	
			Chair of the Compensation Committee

				 	
			$66,000

			
	
			Chair of the Governance Committee

				 	
			$62,000

			
	
			Executive Session Facilitator

				 	
			$60,000

			
	
			Non-Chair Directors

				 	
			$58,000

			



 


 


Under the Bank’s deferred compensation plan for non-employee directors, Mercantile directors who are also directors of the Bank may elect to defer the cash portion of their annual retainer until they are no longer serving on the Board or until specific dates that they select. Directors are eligible to receive stock-based awards under the Stock Incentive Plan of 2016.
August 27, 205

Mr. Douglas Jakway

Senior Vice President, General Counsel

NAU Country Insurance Company

7333 Sunwood Drive

Ramsey

, MN 55303

Dear Mr. Jakway :

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

part 21 and § § 61.113(a) and (b), 91.103, 91.109(a), 91

. 119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1),

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2) and 91.417(a) and (b) of Titl e 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you

should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your June 1, 2015, exemption request on behalf of NAU Country Insurance

Company filed in D ocket No. FAA− 20 15

− 2303 , but we are unable to process your request

any further. Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed).

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the foll owing:

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

benefit the public as a whole.

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

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

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

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

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

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

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

a t least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

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

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

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
Robert Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-612

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
May 4 , 2015

Manager, Flight Standards Service Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office FAA Headquarters, Building 10A 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

Re: Petition to Amend Exemption No. 11253 to Regulatory Docket No FAA

- 2014

- 0817

for Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management (DFAM) for additional aircraft.

Attention: FAA UAS Integration Office

DFAM respectfully requests the addition of the following aircraft to our Exemption No.

11253 and COA FAA

- 2014

- 0817

- 333E:

Additional Aircraft Requested:

• DJI Phantom 3

The DJI Phantom 3 is the latest release of the Phantom Aircraft family. It has enhanced functionality and precision, from our already approved Phantom 2 in our existing Exemption. Included are the technical s pecifications & user manual.

DFAM’s existing safety standards and procedures as outlined in our Flight Operation & Procedures Manual (FOPM) will continue for the additional Aircraft. We will follow the recommended Maintenance and Operations Parameters se t forth by each of these respective UAV Manufactures.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at the phone number or via the e

- mail address provided above should you have any questions or concerns.

Respectfully submitted,

Simon Nielsen

CEO

, Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management , Inc. Simon Nielsen

CEO Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management, Inc. 606 Venice Blvd, Suite E Venice, CA 90291 (213) 379

- 0629 Simon.Nielsen@drone

- fleet.com

www.drone

- fleet.com
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 8464 Dir ID: 2015 - NM - 050 - AD
STATE of Louisiana v. Jeremy WILSON

NO. 2017-K-0908

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 23, 2018

On Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Washington, No. 09 CR1105531, Division J; Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015 KA 1794.

And, whereas, the Court has this date, pursuant to Article 5, Section 5, of the Constitution of Louisiana, made and issued the following order, to wit-"It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the District Court and the Court of Appeal send up the record in Duplicate of the case; and that counsel for all parties be notified."

Now, therefore, the said District Court and the Court of Appeal is hereby commanded, in the name of the State of Louisiana and of this Honorable Court, to send up forthwith to this Court, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 1, at the City of New Orleans, the record in duplicate of the above-entitled case.
**Exhibit 32(a)**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q 

OF PINNACLEDATA SYSTEMS, INC. 

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2008 

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the “Issuer”). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certification accompanies the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008. 

I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

This certification is executed as ofAugust 14, 2008.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10972 

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES HOWARD HANEY,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:92-CR-061-A

- - - - - - - - - -

February 29, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Howard Haney has moved for a determination of the

status of his case, which raises his ultimate issue for appeal,

whether the district court had jurisdiction to convict him for

violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court had proper

jurisdiction to consider Haney's offense. See United States v.

Davis, 666 F.2d 195, 199 (5th Cir. 1992); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 124(a)(1). Haney's motions for determination of status, for

leave to apply for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court, and

for an extension of time to file an appellate brief are DENIED. 
No. 95-10972

-2-

Haney's appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. 42.2. 

Haney is WARNED that the filing of frivolous appeals in the

future will result in the imposition of sanctions. See Moody v.

Baker, 857 F.2d 256, 258 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 985

(1988).
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of Excalibur
Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry C. Shumate, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18,
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002:

      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/ Larry C. Shumate
--------------------
Larry C. Shumate, Chief Executive Officer
August 30, 2005
Russell Lloyd POST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2085

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

-- -- -- --

NO. 19-0901

IN THE INTEREST OF H.J.G. AND

I.S.G., CHILDREN

§

§

§

§

§

§

Dallas County,

5th District.

October 18, 2019

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under

the date shown.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 27th day of November, 2019.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
1 

### Mears, Gilbert

From: Susan H. Jones <susan.jones612@earthlink.net>

Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 10:02 AM

To: Mears, Gilbert

Subject: Docket #: EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281

Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Mr. Gilbert Mears

Toxics Release Inventory Program Division Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Mr. Mears:

More and more citizens are joining the fight against the oil and gas industries' invasion of our lives. There is too much

danger associated with fracking and too much use of our precious water resources and loss of that water as it becomes

toxic waste. There are too many problems with figuring out how to dispose of that waste.

Please close the TRI Loophole that the oil and gas industries currently enjoy. America deserves to be moving forward

toward renewable sources of energy and not having the oil and gas industry use their power and money to keep this

country from leading the world in new sustainable technologies.

We all deserve to know exactly what oil and gas industry operations are releasing into our air, water and onto our land.

The public's right to know must be guaranteed.

TRI reporting is crucial for all of us as we make decisions about the future of our country and the future of the whole

planet.

Sincerely,

Susan H. Jones

612 Hastings St.

Pittsburgh, PA 15206
Willie MCKINNON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1618

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 2, 2018 Rehearing Denied January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.