alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 8:22 AM

To: 'jfsriley@gmail.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: John F. Riley (FAA-2015-0810)

Dear Mr. Riley: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0810). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The descriptions should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manuals. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If 

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by August 6, 

2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
#### Eugene J. KERNAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-70574

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

Eugene J. Kernan, Pro Se

Robert Joel Branman, Esquire, Richard Farber, Esquire, Supervisory Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, Keman’s requests for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, are denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Eugene J. Kernan appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, confirming the Commissioner’s determination of deficiencies and additions for tax years 2001 through 2006. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. *Johanson v. Comm’r,*541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly sustained the Commissioner’s determination of deficiencies and additions to Kernan’s taxes for tax years 2001 through 2006. *See*26 U.S.C. §§ 1, 6012, 6651(a), 6654.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by striking Kernan’s briefs because they exceeded the length limitations imposed by the court. *See Alexander Shokai, Inc. v. Comm’r,*34 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth standard of review).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
John Paul SPENCER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-1830

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 28, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, May and Forst, JJ., concur.
CURRENT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 of the

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Report) of Current Technology Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, each of the undersigned Robert Kramer, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and George Chen, the Chief Financial Officer of 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, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and belief:

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.

September 11, 2008

/s/ Robert Kramer

___________________________

Robert Kramer, Chief Executive Officer





September 11, 2008

/s/ George Chen

______________________________

George Chen, Chief Financial Officer
#### Sandra Scott TABB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. BANK, as Trustee; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35795

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 5, 2017

Sandra Scott Tabb, Portland, OR, pro se.

Emilie K. Edling, Amber L. Labrecque, Houser & Allison, APC, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Sandra Scott Tabb appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine. *Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine over Count I because Tabb’s claim sought review of a prior state court judgment. *See id.*(the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine bars de facto appeals of a state court decision); *see also Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.,*525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) (a de facto appeal is one in which “the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit 23**
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-71862, 333-71860, 333-89529, 333-89533, 333-93717 and 333-93715) of Too, Inc. of ourreport dated April 12, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Columbus, Ohio
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6272 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6272

    To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 with respect to the 
    issuance of quality control guidance issued by the Secretary of 
                              Agriculture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 7, 2023

Mr. Moore of Alabama introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                    to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 with respect to the 
    issuance of quality control guidance issued by the Secretary of 
                              Agriculture.

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

SECTION 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ON QUALITY CONTROL GUIDANCE.

    Section 16(c) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
2025(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(10) Public comment on quality control guidance.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide 
                notice and make available for public comment for a 
                period of not fewer than 60 days any new or updated 
                guidance proposing substantive changes for conducting 
                quality control reviews prior to any such guidance 
                being finalized.
                    ``(B) Scope.--The requirement in (A) shall be 
                applicable to any proposed guidance reasonably expected 
                to require state agencies to make changes to systems, 
                procedures, or staffing pertaining to quality control 
                reviews or that impact verification requirements for 
                supplemental nutrition assistance program recipients.
                    ``(C) Exception.--In the case of an urgent and 
                immediate need, the Secretary may issue interim final 
                guidance simultaneous with the notice and comment 
                requirements required in (A).''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
10.18





800
5th
Avenue # 4100,
 Seattle,
WA 98104,
 Cardtrend International,
Inc.USA
 Tel
: +603 79553311
 WEB: www.cardtrend.comFax : +603 79550033





























RBSM
LLP


1360
Beverly Road,


Suit 103,
McLean,


VA
22101-3621,


USA.





Attention: Mr. Peter
Stefanou, Partner.





Dear
Sirs,


This is
to confirm that in consideration of a fee of US$5,000 to be paid to you by us on
or before November 5, 2008, we have both agreed, subject to you receiving the
said fee in your bank account, that the Maturity period as mentioned in Section
1.1 of the Convertible Promissory Note dated May 5, 2008 (a copy of which
attached herewith) is hereby amended to twelve (12) month anniversary of the
Loan Date.





Yours
      faithfully,
                Agreed
      to by:Cardtrend
      International Inc.
                RBSM
      LLPKING K. NG
                PETER STEFANOUKing
      K. Ng
                Peter
      StefanouPresident
      & CEO
                PartnerDate:
      October 30, 2008
                Date:
      October 30, 2008








Copy of
Convertible Note dated May 5, 2008 attached.
#### Hiram G. Hotchkiss, Appellant, *v.*The Commercial Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

(Argued May 15, 1871;

decided September term, 1871.)

Question as to the construction of the- language of a policy.

*M. M. Evarts*for the appellant.

*D. D. Lord*for the respondent.

Hunt, C., reads for reversal; Leonard and' Earl, CO., concur.

Lott, Ch. C., dissents; Gray, C., not voting.

Judgment of General Term reversed, and judgment ordered for plaintiff upon the verdict, for $2,144, with interest and costs, less, $273.70, and interest thereon from July 14,1861.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JANUARY 22, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-14381

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00180-CR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(January 22, 2009)

Before BLACK, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Donna Lee Elm, appointed counsel for Javier Martinez in this appeal of the
district court’s denial of Martinez’s sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582, has moved to withdraw from further representation and filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493

(1967). Our independent review of the entire record confirms that there are no

issues of arguable merit on appeal. Therefore, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and the denial of Martinez’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582 sentence reduction is

AFFIRMED.

2
Q.W., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2564

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Miami, Public Defender, and Billie Jan Goldstein, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Tallahassee, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, SCALES, and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
C.S., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4980

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 07, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Because C.S. has failed to serve an initial brief as provided by this court's order of May 4, 2018, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute.

BLACK, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### Richard H. ALSENZ, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

No. 12-20524 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 7, 2017

Conley Greg Goodrum, Attorney, Good-rum Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Paul Alan Hoefker, Aldridge Pite, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appel-lee

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

*242PER CURIAM: *

Richard Alsenz sued Aurora Bank, FSB; Aurora Loan Services, L.L.C., and Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation. He raised the same foreclosure-related claims against all three entities. Cal-Western’s role was as a trustee for Aurora Bank. It initiated the foreclosure proceedings and notified Alsenz that his loan was being accelerated.

Back in 2012, the district court dismissed all of the claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The dismissal order treated all three defendants collectively and used the same rationales for dismissing each of them from the suit.

Alsenz appealed. While the appeal was pending, in June 2013, Cal-Western filed a suggestion of bankruptcy and notice of automatic stay. That stayed the entire appeal for more than two years. In November 2015, the Aurora Defendants moved to lift the stay for all parties except Cal-Western, which was still in bankruptcy. We granted that motion and later decided the appeal as to the Aurora Defendants. We affirmed the district court’s dismissal. *Alsenz v. Aurora Bank, FSB,*641 Fed.Appx. 359 (5th Cir. 2016).

Cal-Western recently notified the court that its bankruptcy case has finally closed. So we can now decide the appeal as to Cal-Western.

Alsenz gave no reason in his briefing below or in this court for treating Cal-Western any differently for purposes of the motion to dismiss. The district court’s order also made no distinction. Indeed, the similarity of the legal posture is evident from Cal-Western’s filing a letter to adopt the Aurora brief rather than file its own. The reasoning our court gave last year in affirming the dismissal thus applies equally to Cal-Western,

The judgment entered in favor of Cal-Western 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.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6296

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BRYAN KEITH NOEL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Richard L. Voorhees , Senior District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00057

- RLV

- 1 ; 1:16

- cv - 00406

- RLV )

Submitted : May 18, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018

Before WYNN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Bryan Keith Noel , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bryan Keith Noel seeks to appeal the district court’s order s dismissing as untimely his 2 8 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion , and denying his motion for reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not
i ssue 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 t he district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Noel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
V&V \ of z.

(2IS-/3

COA # 10-12-00100-CR

STYLE: ThP stateofTexas v. Rolando Barragan

TRIAL COURT:

TRIAL COURT#:

TRIAL COURT JUDGE: Hon. Ralph T. Strother

DISPOSITION: reversed &remanded

19th District Court

2011-1161-C1

July 25, 2013

OFFENSE: Indecency with a Child

COUNTY: McLennan

FOR REHEARING IS:

DATE:

JUDGE:

MOTION

DATE:

JUSTICE:

PUBLISH:

Chief Justice Gray PC

dnpT

S YES

YES

CLK RECORD:

RPT RECORD:

STATE BR:

APE BR:

May 8, 2012

June 26, 2012

August 14, 2012

November 15, 2012

SUPP CLK RECORD:

SUPP RPT RECORD:

SUPP LTR BR:

SUPP LTR BR:

i.m.arY-ll. 2013 &June 20, 2013

June 21, 2013

IN THE COURT TM CRIMINAL APPEALS

CCA #

appbll££^_ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE:_P_----^--2^^

JUDGE: /^ .

CCA IS:.

JUDGE:

MOTION FOR REHEARING IN

ON _____

Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:.

SIGNED:.

PUBLISH:.

PC.

DNP:.

MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS:

ON

JUDGE: =

Vol. I of 2
Sean Christopher MILLER, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Child Support Program, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2266

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
1 2 3 4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 A B CD 

## List of Attendees

NAME ORGANIZATION ON PHONE IN PERSON

Lance Crimmins Glasgow Water Company X Kelly K. Willmott AMVAC Chemical Corporation X Robert Michaelson Manitowoc Public Utilities Water Department X Robin Bolte Allied Universal Corporation Mike Wollner Nebraska Fertilizer & Chemical Association X Bradley Rogers FutureFuel Chemical Company X Mike Shorts Fluid Sealing Association Lyndon Denton Apache Nitrogen Products, Inc.

Thatcher Block Ag Cooperative Safety Directors of Iowa

Shawn Ward Cornerstone Chemical Company X Lowell Randel International Association of Refigerated Warehouses (IARW) X Tim Brown / Steve Sherk American Refining Company X Kelly R. Kane Specialty Polymers, Inc. X Charles T. Newell Minnesota Freezer Warehouse Company X Rae Cronmiller / Dorothy Kellog National Rural Electric Cooperative Association X Jess McCluer National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) X John Auger Brook Warehousing Corporation X Mike Gapp Kugler Oil Company X Matt Hite Gas Processor Association (GPA) X Tim Gominiak Perry's Ice Cream Company X Brenda Segerman Hydrite Chemicals Company Michael Williams Agronomy Services, LLP X HELPER: Emily Lyons International Dairy Foods Association X HELPER: Theresa Forbes / Jennifer Gibson National Association of Chemical Distributors X HELPER: Javaneh Nekoomaram American Coatings Association 

## EPA's Pre ‐ Panel Outreach Meeting on Risk Management Plan Modernization Rule September 22, 2015, 9:30 am ‐ 12:00 pm, WJC North 7530

Potential Small Entity Representatives1 2 3 4

5

6 A B CD 

## List of Attendees

NAME ORGANIZATION ON PHONE IN PERSON 

## EPA's Pre ‐ Panel Outreach Meeting on Risk Management Plan Modernization Rule September 22, 2015, 9:30 am ‐ 12:00 pm, WJC North 7530

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 HELPER: Mark Druex Arent Fox HELPER: Edward Flynn Louisianna Chemical Association X HELPER: Karen Haase American Chemistry Council X HELPER: Lara Swett American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Tabby Waqar SBA Advocacy X Charley Maresca SBA Advocacy X Bruce Lundegren SBA Advocacy Jonathan Porat SBA Advocacy Danielle Jones OMB OIRA X Cortney Higgins OMB OIRA

Bob Burt X Bryan Lincoln X Ed Baird X Dennis Dudzinski X Peter Vassalo X Lisa Long X

Todd Klessman X Craig Conklin X

Kim Jennings EPA/OSWER/OEM X Patty Gioffre EPA/OSWER/OEM X Gerain Cogliano EPA/OSWER/IO X Jim Belke EPA/OSWER/OEM X EPA Employees SBA / OMB

OSHA

DHS1 2 3 4

5

6 A B CD 

## List of Attendees

NAME ORGANIZATION ON PHONE IN PERSON 

## EPA's Pre ‐ Panel Outreach Meeting on Risk Management Plan Modernization Rule September 22, 2015, 9:30 am ‐ 12:00 pm, WJC North 7530

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Kathy Franklin EPA/OSWER/OEM X Glenn Farber EPA/OP/ORPM X Beth Bosecker EPA/OSWER/OEM X Craig Matthiessen EPA/OSWER/OEM X John Averback EPA/OGC X Bill Nickerson EPA/OP/ORPM X Lanelle Wiggins EPA/OP/ORPM/RMD X Laura Free EPA/OP/ORPM/RMD X Margaret Gerardin EPA/OSWER/OEM X
In the MATTER OF the SUCCESSION OF Don Michael BRIDGES, Sr.

NO. 2018-C-0450

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 2018

Denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence McCowen, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 633]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered April 10, 2001, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree (three counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts), assault in the second degree, petit larceny, and menacing in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial because the prosecutor improperly injected racial bias into the proceedings is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Dien, 11*NY2d 885 [1991]; *People v Ali,*158 AD2d 460 [1990]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.