alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 6 , 2015

Mr. Noel Johnson

Broker/Owner

Premier Real Estate Services

550 25 th Ave. N

St. Cloud, MN 56303

Dear Mr. Johnson :

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

§ xx.xx of Title 14, Code of F ederal 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 No t Process Your Request

We received your April 15, exemption request on behalf of Premier Real Estate Services filed

in D ocket No. FAA

- 20 15

- 1154 , 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 following:

 The specif

ic section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

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

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to su pport your request.2

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 outline s 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 at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

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
1 

### SPA15 

# • RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 128: Wastes From the Use of Chlorophenolic Formulations in Wood Surface Protection (cont'd) RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 128 Wastes From the Use of Chlorophenolic Formulations in Wood Surface Protection 59 FR 458-469 January4, 1994 (RCRA Cluster IV, Non-HSWA provisions)

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION
WAC 173-303· STATE ANALOG IS: EQUIV- LESS MORE BROADER ALENT STRIN- STRIN- IN SCOPE GENT GENT PART 260 - HAZARDOUSWASTE MANAGEMENTSYSTEM: GENERAL SUBPART B - DEFINITIONS REFERENCES revise the reference 260.11(a) 110(3)(a) 

# x 

# • to "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods" by replacing "[Third Edition (September, 1986), as amended by Update I (July 1992)]" with "(Third Edition (November, 1986), as amended by Updates I, II and IIA)"; in the second sentence, replace "Update I" with "Updates I, II and IIA"; remove the last sentence regarding where copies may be inspected 

# •

DCL128.15 - Revised: 01/25/94 Printed: 10/21/98 January 4, 1994 - Page 1 of 2SPA 15· RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 128: Wastes From the Use of Chlorophenolic Formulations in Wood Surface Protection (cont'd) 

# o PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING. OF HAZARDOUSWASTE APPENDIXVIII TO PART 261 HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS add the specified AppendixVIII 9905 X hazardous constituents in alphabetical order as shown below:

Common Name ChemicalAbstracts name No. Chemical abstracts

No. Hazardous waste

Potassium pentachlorophenate Pentachlorophenol, potassiumsalt 7778736 None

Sodium pentachlorophenate Pentachlorophenol, sodiumsalt 131522 None
2,3,4,6-telrachlorophenol, potassiumsalt 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol, sodium salt same
same 53535276 25567559 None None

. 

# 0

te (November 1986) given in the FR appears to be an error becausethe date on the third edition of SW-836 is Septem was indicated in the Federal ReQTSter (58 FR 46040; August 31, 1993) addressed by Revision Checklist 126.

Del128.15 - Revised: 01/25/94 Printed: 10/21/98 January 4, 1994 - Page 2 of 2
Dwayne COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2420

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Milton BARNETT v. Bertha GIBBS

2151015

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
K.S., A Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2464

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
English Translation of Power of Attorney



 Exhibit 4.36 

Power of Attorney 
 The shareholders of Beijing Perfect Moment Network Technology Co., Ltd., Yufeng Chi (ID No.: 110108197109148935) and Qi Zhu (ID No.: 110101197208063019) (collectively “the Authorizers”) hereby
irrevocably authorize Beijing Perfect World Software Co. Ltd. (Registration No.: 110000410295807) (“the Authorized”) to exercise the following rights within the valid term of this Power of Attorney: 

To authorize the Authorized to fully and completely represent the Authorizers to exercise all shareholder rights of the Authorizers as
Beijing Perfect Moment Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“PM Co.”)’s shareholders as specified in laws and articles of association, including but not limited to, propose shareholders’ general meetings, receive any notice about the
convening and rules of procedure of shareholders’ general meetings, attend PM Co.’s shareholders’ general meetings and exercise all voting rights (including, as the Authorizers’ authorized representative, designating and
appointing PM Co.’s directors, general manager, chief financial officer and other senior management members at PM Co.’s shareholders’ general meetings, deciding upon PM Co.’s dividend distribution and other issues, etc.), sell or
transfer all or part of the Authorizers’ equities in PM Co. etc.. 
 To further authorize the Authorized to designate any
person appointed by its board of directors to exercise the rights granted by the Authorizers in this Power of Attorney. 

Unless the Business Operation Agreement signed by PM Co. Beijing Perfect World Software Co. Ltd., Yufeng Chi and Qi Zhu is terminated
prematurely for whatsoever reason, this Power of Attorney shall be valid from the signing day, which dates back to December 2, 2011 until Beijing Perfect World Software Co., Ltd. is dissolved in accordance with the laws of the People’s
Republic of China. 
 (No text below) 







 (Signature page for the Power of Attorney with no text) 

The Authorizers: 
  

	
	Yufeng Chi
	
	Signature: /s/ Yufeng Chi
	
	Qi Zhu
	
	Signature: /s/ Qi Zhu

 The Authorized: 

Beijing Perfect World Software Co., Ltd. (seal) 

Authorized Representative: /s/ [Authorized Signatory] 
 12 (month) 2 (day), 2011
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-1/December%202012/P-13-0108/p130108.eng.txt[1/7/2013 9:46:17 AM]

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0108

Focus Ready Draft 12/6/2012

ENGINEER: Austin \ REC

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE:

OTHER USES: 

MSDS: No Label: No

TLV/PEL:

MSDS not provided.
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-1/December%202012/P-13-0108/p130108.eng.txt[1/7/2013 9:46:17 AM]

SAT (concerns) (11/27/2012):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox Related Cases: 

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P2B2T2 .

Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1.00)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1A

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-1/December%202012/P-13-0108/p130108.eng.txt[1/7/2013 9:46:17 AM]

the Bromine Recovery Unit (consistent with this IRER).

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

P2 Claim: 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0108
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-1/December%202012/P-13-0108/p130108.eng.txt[1/7/2013 9:46:17 AM]

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0108
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-1/December%202012/P-13-0108/p130108.eng.txt[1/7/2013 9:46:17 AM]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

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

     The undersigned, Leonard F. Ferro, Chief Accounting Officer of Galey &
Lord, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (1) The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June
29, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

 /s/ Leonard F. Ferro
-------------------------
Leonard F. Ferro
Chief Accounting Officer
August 13, 2002
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Rickey Gene Pippin, * From the 297th District

 Court of Tarrant County,

 Trial Court No. 1224614D.

Vs. No. 11-14-00032-CR * August 21, 2015

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tarvis Leviticus DUNHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6130

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Tarvis Leviticus Dunham, Appellant Pro Se. Randolph John Bernard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*107PER CURIAM:

Tarvis Leviticus Dunham seeks to ap-peal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 9, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on January 17, 2017.* Because Dunham failed to file a timely notice of appeal, or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. Further, we deny Dunham’s motion for a certificate of appealability. We dispense with oral' 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*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the 'date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 38

 39

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

07/19

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6422 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to limit the number of local wage 

areas allowable within a General Schedule pay locality. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2023 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to limit the number 

of local wage areas allowable within a General Schedule 

pay locality. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Locality Pay Equity 

5 Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITING THE NUMBER OF LOCAL WAGE AREAS DE7 FINED WITHIN A GENERAL SCHEDULE PAY 

8 LOCALITY. 

9 (a) LOCAL WAGE AREA LIMITATION.—Section 

10 5343(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6422 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking ‘‘(but 

2 such’’ and all that follows through ‘‘are employed)’’; 

3 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ after 

4 the semicolon; 

5 (3) in paragraph (5), by striking the period 

6 after ‘‘Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

7 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(6) the Office of Personnel Management shall 

9 define not more than 1 local wage area within a pay 

10 locality, except that this paragraph shall not apply 

11 to the pay locality designated as ‘Rest of United 

12 States’.’’. 

13 (b) GENERAL SCHEDULE PAY LOCALITY DE14 FINED.—Section 5342(a) of title 5, United States Code, 

15 is amended— 

16 (1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

17 after the semicolon; 

18 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period 

19 after ‘‘employee’’ and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

20 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(4) ‘pay locality’ has the meaning given that 

22 term under section 5302.’’. 

23 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

24 The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 

25 shall prescribe any regulations necessary to carry out the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6422 IH

1 purpose of this Act, including regulations to ensure that 

2 the enactment of this Act shall not have the effect of re3 ducing any rate of basic pay payable to any individual who 

4 is serving as a prevailing rate employee (as defined under 

5 section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code). 

6 SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY. 

7 The amendments made by this Act shall apply on and 

8 after the first day of the first full pay period beginning 

9 at least 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 2ND QTR.
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,511
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,324
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (304)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,094
<PP&E>                                           3,525
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,339)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,880
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        79,159
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,544
<SALES>                                             54
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,154
<CGS>                                                2
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,467
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,331
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   132
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,779)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,779)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,779)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
454 A.2d 181

#### In the Matter of Patricia R.

Argued May 20, 1982.

Camela Presgona, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Dana S. Jones, for participating party.

*645Before HESTER, McEWEN and JOHNSON, JJ.

The order of the learned Erie County Judge Fred P. Anthony is affirmed.
Phillip KESSLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1035

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DISMISSED.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
MARY ROYAL, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-4270 ) PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, ) LLC, ) ) Respondent. ) ) Opinion filed May 8, 2019. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County; sitting in its appellate capacity. Jennifer E. Jones of McIntyre Thanasides Bringgold Elliott Grimaldi Guito & Matthews, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioner. Jason S. Lambert and Robert E. Sickles of Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel, Tampa, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.

Denied. CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
#### Jimmy R. TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John R. PATE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7497

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 19, 2017

Decided: May 4, 2017

Jimmy R. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Caroline M. Scrantom, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy R. Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, *213we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 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*
**Exhibit 32(a)**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q**

**OFPINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.**

**FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2007**

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 certificationaccompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. 

I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that, theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, 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 theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

Thiscertification is executed as of August 14, 2007.
From: Venu Ghanta/DC/USEPA/US

To: "Whiteman, Chad" <Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov>

Date: 01/17/2013 01:41 PM Subject: small refiner language

In CAA section 211(o)(9), enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress provided a temporary exemption to small refineries (those refineries with a crude throughput of no more than 75,000 barrels of crude per day) through December 31, 2010. C ongress provided that small refineries can receive a temporary extension of the exemption beyond 2010 based on a determination of disproportionate economic hardship. We approved a number of extensions to the exemption for 2011 and 2012. However, at this time, no exemptions have been approved for 2013. As a result, for this proposal we have calculated the proposed 2013 standards without a small refinery/small refiner adjustment. We are seeking comment on whether it would be appropriate to extend the two year exemption for small refineries as discussed in section 211 (o)(9)(A)(ii)(II). Note that if such exemptions were granted before finalizing the standards, or if an individual small refinery or small refiner requests an exemption and is approved followi ng the release of this NPRM and prior to issuance of the final rule, the final standards will be adjusted to account for the exempted volumes of gasoline and diesel. This adjustment would add a proportionate increase in volume and cost to all other obliga ted parties. We encourage any producers of gasoline and/or diesel who believe that they may be eligible under the small refinery exemption provision to send a petition to the EPA under the provisions of § 80.1441 or

§ 80.1442. We believe that the approach EPA is currently using to assess disproportionate economic hardships for small refineries appropriately addresses the intent of the statutory provision and the needs of the affected parties.