alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Title 14, Code of 

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

should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

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

Company filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2303, but we are unable to process your request 

any further. Your petition does not 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 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 

at 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

Enclosure
3
Corey THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-185

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 6, 2018

Corey, Thomas, Jasper, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. We find merit in Appellant's challenge to the summary denial of claim 3 and, accordingly, reverse as to that claim. In all other respects, we affirm.

Claim 3 involves the contention that counsel was ineffective in advising Appellant to withdraw a motion to sever the murder charge from the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon charge. The trial court concluded that this was an obvious trial strategy that could be discerned conclusively from the records attached to the order. We disagree. On remand, unless other records exist that conclusively refute this claim, the trial court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on claim 3.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA, PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed June 8, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00275-CR

No. 05-15-00277-CR

WESLEY GERARD JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-60306-P, F12-16783-P

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeals. Appellant’s counsel has approved 

the motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeals be DISMISSED

and this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

150275F.U05
Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

WESLEY GERARD JONES, Appellant

No. 05-15-00275-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-60306-P.

Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices 

Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 8th day of June, 2015.
Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

WESLEY GERARD JONES, Appellant

No. 05-15-00277-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-16783-P.

Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices 

Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 8th day of June, 2015.
#### Earnest Cassell WOODS II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin CHAPPELL, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16500

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*336Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 16, 2017

Earnest Cassell Woods, II, Pro Se

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. 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 **

Earnest Cassell Woods II, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to file an amended complaint his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Omstead v. Dell, Inc.,*594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010). We reverse and remand.

The district court dismissed Woods’s action after Woods failed to comply with a court order directing him to file an amended complaint. However, Woods explained in his first request for an extension that he sent his only copy of the complaint to the district court because it was the “safest place” where “defendants could not get to the documents,” and subsequently explained his efforts to try to obtain a copy of the complaint, which he contends he needed to file an amended complaint. The district court did not explain how to obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court until after dismissing the action. Under these circumstances, less drastic alternative sanctions would have been appropriate in this case, *See id.*(setting forth factors that district court must weigh in determining whether dismissal for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order under Rule 41(b) is warranted). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Woods’s request for leave to file an affidavit, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Efficiency and Renewables Advisory Committee 

Resolution Regarding 

Medium Voltage Dry-Type Distribution Transformers 

January 12, 2012 

WHEREAS, the Efficiency and Renewables Advisory Committee (“ERAC”) was established by 

the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) as a Federal advisory committee under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act to advise the Secretary of Energy regarding the portfolio of DOE’s 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; 

WHEREAS, on July 29, 2011, DOE published a notice of intent to form a subcommittee under 

the ERAC to negotiate new Federal energy conservation standards for medium-voltage dry-type 

and liquid-immersed distribution transformers (“MV subcommittee”) and on August 12, 2011, 

DOE published a similar notice of intent to form a subcommittee under the ERAC to negotiate 

new Federal energy conservation standards for low-voltage dry-type distribution transformers 

(“LV subcommittee”); 

WHEREAS, the MV subcommittee held eight subcommittee meetings and two public webinars 

between September and December 2011, and has reported to the ERAC that the MV 

subcommittee has reached consensus regarding proposed energy conservation standards for 

medium-voltage dry-type distribution transformers in equipment class 8; 

WHEREAS, the MV subcommittee has directed DOE to resolve certain technical issues to 

allow scaling from the consensus regarding medium-voltage dry-type distribution transformers in 

equipment class 8 to propose energy conservation standards for medium-voltage dry-type 

distribution transformers in equipment classes 5, 6 7, 9 and 10 that DOE anticipates the MV 

subcommittee will also approve by consensus; 

WHEREAS, the ERAC need not recommend specific energy conservation standards for 

medium-voltage liquid-immersed or low-voltage dry-type distribution transformers because the 

MV and LV subcommittees did not reach consensus on energy conservation standards for these 

distribution transformer superclasses; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the ERAC: 

	 Recommends that the Secretary of Energy propose the energy conservation standards 

recommended by consensus of the MV subcommittee for medium-voltage dry-type 

distribution transformers in equipment class 8; and 

	 Recommends that the Secretary of Energy propose the scaled energy conservation 

standards for medium-voltage dry-type distribution transformers in equipment classes 5, 

6, 7, 9 and 10 once the MV subcommittee approves the standards by consensus.
#### In the Matter of Jason G. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Pamela G., Appellant; Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 889]

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara Schechter, J.), entered on or about December 7, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from, removed the subject children from respondent’s custody upon fact-finding determinations that respondent neglected the older child and derivatively neglected the younger child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that respondent neglected the older child on one occasion by hitting him on his legs with a belt causing bruises that required medical attention, and on another occasion by hitting him over his eye with a closed fist, also causing a noticeable bruise (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; *see Matter of Rasheid A.,*283 AD2d 372, 373 [2001], citing, inter alia, *Matter of Alena O.,*220 AD2d 358, 360 [1995]). No basis exists to disturb Family Court’s findings of credibility. The findings of excessive corporal punishment as to the older child support the finding of derivative neglect as to the younger child *(see Matter of Terrell H.,*197 AD2d 372 [1993]). We note the unchallenged evidence that respondent failed to cooperate with the rehabilitative service plan presented to her by petitioner’s caseworker immediately after the first incident, and reject respondent’s argument that the finding of derivative neglect is unwarranted since the punishment she inflicted was meant to protect the younger child against a physical threat posed by the older child. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.
James Wilson LOPEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1029

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 17, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.7



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANTS





We consent to the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statement No. 333-178635 on Form F-10, Nos. 333-175265, 333-155538 and 333-113073 on Form S-8, and No. 333-159215
on Form F-3 and to the use of our reports dated March 1, 2013 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Brookfield
Office Properties Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control
over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012.



/s/ Deloitte LLP



Deloitte LLP
Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
Licensed Public Accountants



Toronto, Canada
March 28, 2013
# Review**of the IMPROVE Equation for**

**Estimating Ambient Light Extinction**  **Coefficient s**  **- Final Report**  Jenny L. Hand and William C. Malm

March 2006 **Ab stract**  - The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) protocols for reconstructing a mbient light extinction from measured aerosol species is the basis for evaluating compliance under the Regional Haze Rule. W e review the assumptions involved in computing reconstructed light extinction using the IMPROVE protocol. This review includes exami ning the biases in the measurements of aerosol composition, the assumed chemical forms of aerosol species, particle hygroscopicity, and assumed mass scattering efficiencies. We present a thorough survey of estimates of mass scattering efficiencies from rec ent peer- reviewed literature. Furthermore, we use IMPROVE nephelometry and composition data to estimate mass scattering efficiencies using a variety of methods. The current mass scattering efficiencies applied in the IMPROVE equation are then interpreted i n the context of this survey and results derived from the IMPROVE data analyses. Finally, a summary of provisional recommendations for refinements to the IMPROVE equation and a discussion of important uncertainties to consider in the assumptions is present ed. Although tentative recommendations of refinements to the IMPROVE equation are presented, final refinements to the IMPROVE equation await future discussions of the results presented here.

**Click on the title below to view PDF**  **files of these documents:** Main Body of Report (PDF file

- 4.5 Megs) Appendix 1 (Excel file K

- 0.4 Megs) Appendix 2 (Word file K

- 0.9 Megs) Appendix 3 (Excel file

- 0.2 Megs) Appendix 4 (PPT file

- 11 Megs)
-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 DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
A.A.G., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2222

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS AT AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE
30, 2000, 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-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           6,837
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  203,457
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,432
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               218,601
<PP&E>                                         170,249
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,521
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 376,579
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          302,741
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,141
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   376,579
<SALES>                                        219,948
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               219,948
<CGS>                                          194,557
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,028)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,542
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (86,711)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,437)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (86,711)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (75,274)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.75)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael K. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant, and North Star Finance LLC; Thomas G. Ellis; Yasuo Oda; Thomas H. Vetter; Sharon L. Salinas; Capital Source Funding LLC; Capital Source Lending LLC; Goodwill Funding Inc., Relief Defendants; Charel Winston, Relief Defendants, Defendants, v. Griffin Thomas Ellis; Andrew Hutchison, Third Party Defendants.

No. 17-1080

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 25, 2017

Michael K. Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Alan Berger, UNITED STATES SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*179PER CURIAM:

Michael K. Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order compelling him to produce certain documents in response to Appellee’s discovery requests and the district court’s entry of a preliminary injunction.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The discovery order Martin seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to resolve that aspect of his appeal.

A preliminary injunction is an appeal-able interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C. § 1292. 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 preliminary injunction order was entered on the docket on May 21, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on January 16, 2017. Because Martin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We deny Martin’s motions to vacate all district court orders, to dismiss the case in the district court, and for stay. 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*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Curtis J. Parker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.'s Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2002 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 Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.


Date: January 6, 2003                           By: /s/ Curtis J. Parker
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Curtis J. Parker
                                                Executive Vice President and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
#### Carl Schreiber, Respondent, *v.*American Employees' Insurance Company, Appellant.

Submitted February 25,1943;

decided April 8, 1943.

*674
      *Walter L. Glenney*for appellant.

*Solomon Raffe*for respondent.

*675Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur; Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond. JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF
CURTIS W. MEWBOURNE/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 I, Curtis W. Mewbourne, Chief Executive Officer of Mewbourne
Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy
Partners
00-A, L.P., (the Registrant), hereby certify that the accompanying report on
Form 10-k, for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 and filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section
13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Registrant fully
complies with the requirements of that section. I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant. /s/ Curtis W. MewbourneName: Curtis W. MewbourneDate: March 29, 2004
#### Joseph G. Browne, Appellant, *v.*Fenton G. Hibbets, as President of Local Union No. 584, Unit No. 3, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Submitted May 24, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

Motion by plaintiff for reargument and to amend the remittitur denied. (See 290 N. Y. 459.)
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 

Ariba, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-117437, 333-107864, 333-61064, 333-73458, 333-81773, 333-89119, 333-95665, 333-33544, 333-46820, and 333-84916) of Ariba, Inc. of our report dated December 6, 2005 with respect to theconsolidated balance sheet of Ariba, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-yearperiod ended September 30, 2005, which report appears in the September 30, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Ariba, Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

December 1, 2006
**Exhibit 32(b)**

**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 Financial 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, George A. Troutman, 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.