alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03778]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 21

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1086]


Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness Criteria for 
the Amazon.com Services LLC MK27-2 Unmanned Aircraft; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Issuance of final airworthiness criteria; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA published a document in the Federal Register on 
January 27, 2022, announcing the special class airworthiness criteria 
for the Amazon.com Services LLC Model MK27-2 unmanned aircraft. The 
document contained incorrect references to the applicant's name.

DATES: This correction is effective on February 24, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher J. Richards, Emerging 
Aircraft Strategic Policy Section, AIR-618, Strategic Policy Management 
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 6020 28th Avenue South, Room 103, 
Minneapolis, MN 55450, telephone (612) 253-4559.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 21, 2022, the FAA issued final airworthiness criteria 
for the Amazon.com Services LLC Model MK27-2 unmanned aircraft, which 
published in the Federal Register on January 27, 2022 (87 FR 4128). The 
original application identified the applicant name as Amazon Logistics, 
Inc. On November 19, 2020, Amazon Logistics, Inc., amended its 
application to change its applicant name to ``Amazon.com Services 
LLC.'' As published, the document incorrectly referred to the original 
applicant name.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of January 27, 2022 (87 FR 4128), make the 
following corrections:
    1. On page 4128, in the first column, correct the subject heading 
to read ``Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness Criteria 
for the Amazon.com Services LLC MK27-2 Unmanned Aircraft''
    2. On page 4128, in the first column, in the SUMMARY section, line 
3, correct ``Amazon Logistics, Inc.'' to read ``Amazon.com Services 
LLC''.
    3. On page 4128, in the second column, in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section, line 1, correct ``Amazon Logistics, Inc.'' to read 
``Amazon.com Services LLC''.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 15, 2022.
Ian Lucas,
Manager, Policy Implementation Section, Policy and Innovation Division, 
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-03778 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I, Michael P. Huseby, the Chief Financial Officer of Charter
Communications Holdings, LLC and Charter Communications Holdings Capital
Corporation (collectively, the Company) in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that, the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission:  
    
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. /s/ Michael P. Huseby

Michael P. HusebyChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)March 25, 2004
SYMC-SMBOnlineStoreRenewal2012_Ex10.1




Exhibit 10.1







AMENDMENT ONE TO SYMANTEC ONLINE STORE AGREEMENT FOR SMB AND MIDMARKET BUSINESS BETWEEN SYMANTEC CORPORATION AND RAINMAKER SYSTEMS, INC.


This Amendment One (“Amendment One”) is made to the Symantec Online Store Agreement for SMB and Midmarket Business (“Agreement”), effective June 30, 2010, by and between Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) and Rainmaker Systems, Inc. (“Rainmaker”).  Terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment One shall have the meaning as defined in the Agreement. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment One and the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment One shall govern. 


WHEREAS, Symantec and Rainmaker desire to amend the Agreement effective as of April 1, 2012 (“Amendment One Effective Date”).


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:    


1.    Section J – Term and Termination.  The Term of the Agreement shall be extended until March 31, 2014.    


2.    No Other Modifications.  Except as modified by this Amendment One, the terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.  


* * * * * * * *


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment One as of the Amendment One Effective Date above, and each party warrants that its respective signatory whose signature appears below is duly authorized by all necessary and appropriate corporate action to execute this Amendment One on behalf of such party.


    
	
								
	RAINMAKER SYSTEMS, INC.:
	 
	 
	SYMANTEC CORPORATION:

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ TIMOTHY BURNS
	 
	 
	By:
	/s/ HENRI ISENBERG

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Name:
	Timothy Burns
	 
	 
	Name:
	Henri Isenberg

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Title:
	CFO
	 
	 
	 
	Title:
	Vice President
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Date:
	3/12/2012
	 
	 
	 
	Date:
	3/9/2012
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TANIELA F. KIVALU,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

DAVID J. SHULKIN

, * Sec retary, Veterans

Administration ; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 17359

D.C. No. 2:16

- cv

- 02929

- DJH

MEMORANDUM * *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 23, 2017 * * *

Before: LEAVY , WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Taniela F. Kivalu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his claims related to the Veterans Administration’s denial of his

* David J. Shulkin has been substituted for his predecessor, Eric Shinseki, as Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

* * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

OCT 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 17359

benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

dismissal for lack of subject matter juri sdiction. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox

Entm’t Grp., Inc. , 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm in part, vacate in

part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Kivalu’s action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction because the United States Courts of Appeals for Veterans

Claims and the Federal Circuit have exclusive jurisdiction over questions that

relate to benefits administered by the Veterans Administration

. See Veterans for

Common Sense v. Shinseki , 678 F.3d 1013, 1022

- 25 (9th Ci r. 2012) (the Veterans’

Judicial Review Act precludes district court jurisdiction over claims re lating to or

affecting veterans’ benefits decisions )

. However, we vacate the judgment to the

extent that it dismissed Kivalu’s action with prejudice

, and remand for entry of

dismissal without prejudice

. See Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris , 847 F.3d 646,

656 (9th Cir. 2017) (“In general, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is

without prejudice.”).

We do not consider matters not specificall y and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We treat Kivalu’s contention regarding the denial of his motion for of ficial3 16

- 17359

transcripts as a motion for recon sideration, and deny the motion

.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ashwood Realty Corporation, Respondent, against James J. Sexton et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Defendants, and Alliance Realty Company, Intervener Appellant.

Argued May 17, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*900
      *Israel Tilden*and *Richard G. Babbage*for appellant.

*Israel Hoffman*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 21 - 00072 - CV IN RE S.L. , RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

### May 17 , 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ . Relator, S.L., filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court seeking to compel respondent, the Honorable Matt Martindale, to reinstate a suit affecting the parent - child relationship . Now pending before the Court is S.L.’s motion seeking to withdra w his petition and voluntarily dismiss th is original proceeding. Without passing on the merits of the petition, we grant S.L.’s motion and dismiss the proceeding. Accordingly , our Order on Motion for Emergency Stay of May 3, 2021 , is vacated . Per Curiam
#### Ryan v. Campbell et al.

1. Corporations: transfer of stock: entry on books: when necessary. *(Fort Madison Lumber Co. v. Batavian Bank et al., ante,*p. 270, followed.)

*Appeal from Jones District Court,*

Saturday, March 12, 1887.

*J. W. Jamison, 11. N. Ryan*and *B. H. Miller,*for appellant.

*Sheean <& MoCarn,*for appellees.

Seevers, J.

The facts’ in this case and the questions to be determined are precisely the same as in *Fort Madison Lumber Co. v. Batavian Bank, ante, p,*270, and, following that case, the judgment of the district court in this case must be Reversed.
#### Leon-Michael THOLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin L. DILLON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-36036

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*322Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 16, 2017

Leon-Michael Tholson, 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 **

Alaska state prisoner Leon-Michael Tholson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference- to his safety. We have jurisdiction under. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We vacate and remand.

Although the district court properly concluded that Tholson failed to state deliberate indifference and retaliation claims, the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Tholson’s action without leave to amend because it is not absolutely clear that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. *See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr.,*66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect, ... a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”); *Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review). We vacate the judgment and remand for the district court to provide Tholson with an opportunity to amend.

In light of our disposition, we do not consider the district court’s order denying Tholson’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### W. Gary OLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edwina S. UEHARA, in her official and individual capacities; Richard Cordova, in her official and individual capacities; Shari Spung; University of Washington, an agency of the State of Washington; Michael K Young, in his official and individual capacities; John Doe, I through IV, fictitious names for individuals whose true names are currently unknown, in their official and individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

*450No. 14-36100

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 8, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed June 12, 2017

Neil H. Robblee, Neil Robblee, Ed-monds, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Andrew G. Cooley, Attorney, Keating Bucklin McCormack, Bank of America Plaza, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges,

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

W. Gary Olson appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his claims against the University of Washington and various university employees (collectively, “the University”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo the district court’s summary judgment. *Ambat v. City & Cty. of San Francisco,*757 F.3d 1017, 1023 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

With respect to Olson’s retaliation claim, even if we assume that he advanced a prima facie showing of retaliation under Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.210, Olson has failed to rebut the University’s legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for taking an adverse employment action against him. *See Hollenback v. Shriners Hosps. for Children,*149 Wash.App. 810, 206 P.3d 337, 343-44 (2009). Specifically, Olson has failed to raise á genuine issue of material fact that the University’s proffered reason was pretextual or that an improper, retaliatory purpose was a “substantial factor” motivating the University’s actions. *See Scrivener v. Clark Coll.,*181 Wash.2d 439, 334 P.3d 541, 546-47 (2014).

Olson’s Fourteenth Amendment claim for deprivation of his liberty interest without due process also fails. Even assuming that Olson has established that his asserted harms are sufficient to trigger the procedural protections of the Fourteenth Amendment, *cf. Paul v. Davis,*424 U.S. 693, 711-12, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976), he received an adequate pre-depri-vation opportunity to clear his name. *Cox v. Roskelley,*359 F.3d 1105, 1110-12 (9th Cir. 2004).

Because we uphold the district court’s grant of summary judgment, we need not address the exclusion of Olson’s damages expert for untimely disclosure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
GREENWAY, LLC. and G.H.M.D., 

LLC., 

Appellants,

v.

STEINHATCHEE ANCIENT 

OAKS PROPERTY OWNER’S 

ASSOCIATION, INC. and TRICOUNTY ELECTRIC 

COOPERATIVE, INC.,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NOS. 1D14-2928 & 1D14-4683

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 4, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County.

Andrew J. Decker, III, Judge.

David Lawrence, Tallahassee and Guillermo M. Mancebo of the Mancebo Law 

Group, P.A., Miami, for Appellants.

Joseph R. Fritz of Joseph R. Fritz, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee Steinhatchee Ancient 

Oaks Property Owner’s Association, Inc. and E. Dylan Rivers of Ausley & 

McMullen, Tallahassee, for Appellee Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., BENTON, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6927

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MIGUEL PEGLERA, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-58, CA-97-81-5-BO) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Miguel Peglera, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Blaise Hamilton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Miguel Peglera seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Peglera , Nos. CR-93-58; CA-97-81-5-BO (E.D.N.C. May 5, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00312-CV

Luis and Janeth MORENO, individually and on behalf of their daughter G.M.,

Appellants

v.

Rosa VIDA

Rosa VIDA,

Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CVT000802 D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 12, 2015

DISMISSED

Appellants have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion contains a certificate of 

service to appellee, who has not opposed the motion. Therefore, we grant the motion and dismiss 

the appeal. See TEX.R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Costs of appeal are taxed against appellants. See id. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT ACADEMY, P.O. BOX 619617, DALLAS/FORT WORTH AIRPORT, TEXAS 75261-9617

February 18, 2011 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-10) 

Docket No. 27712 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591-0001 

Exemption 6916, Docket No. FAA-2001-8878 

Ladies/Gentlemen: 

Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) §11.25 American Airlines petitions the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an extension of and amendment to 

Exemption 6916 (Docket No. FAA-2001-8878). This exemption is due to expire July 31, 

2011. 

Exemption 6916 provides relief from FAR §121.434(c)(1)(ii) to permit American 

Airlines to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA 

inspector, to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC), while that PIC is performing 

prescribed duties during at least one flight leg, that includes a takeoff and a landing when 

completing initial or upgrade training as specified in §121.434. 

The conditions and circumstances, in regard to public interest and equivalent level of 

safety, which warranted the original grant of exemption, continue to exist. This 

exemption has been in use for almost twelve years with no known compromise of safety. 

In accordance with the provisions of FAR §11.27 (j)(3)(i), Exceptions of Publication of 

Summary of Petition for Exemption, American Airlines requests that a finding of good 

cause be made for waiving publication in the Federal Register. Since similar extensions 

have been granted to other Part 121 Air Carriers, no precedents will be set by granting 

the requested relief. Therefore, American requests that the publication and comment 

period be waived. 

A summary of this petition is attached as required by FAR §11.25. Please advise if you 

require any addition information in order to evaluate or act on this petition. 

Sincerely, 

Christopher K. Broom 

Managing Director 

Flight Training 
Docket FAA-2001-8878 

Attachment 

February 18, 2011 

SUMMARY OF AMERICAN AIRLINES PETITION 

 Petitioner: American Airlines (AAL) 

 Regulations Affected: FAR § 121.434 (c)(1)(ii). 

Description of Relief Sought: American Airlines requests an extension and 

amendment of Exemption No. 6916 (Docket No. 

29207) which is due to expire on July 31, 2011. 

This exemption provides relief from FAR 

§121.434(c)(1)(ii) to permit AAL to substitute a 

qualified and authorized check airman in place of 

an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in 

command (PIC) while that PIC is performing 

prescribed duties during at least one flight leg that 

includes a takeoff and a landing when completing 

initial or upgrade training as specified in § 121.424.
# C_2013363EN.01000701.xml

| 13.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/7

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2013/C 363/08)

Image

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Finland

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Finland

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country: Finland

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration: The 150th anniversary of the Parliament of 1863 when regular Parliament sessions started in Finland

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design: The 2-euro commemorative coin is depicted with the year 1863 and a shoot growing out of it symbolising the start of democracy and Finland’s development. In semicircle, at the bottom, the name of the issuing country ‘SUOMI FINLAND’ with the two words separated by the mint mark, and the year ‘2013’.

Description of the design

The Diet of 1863 is the start of period of illumination. In Finland, the year 1863 marked a start for genuine democracy, transparent press operations and the right to use the Finnish language. With the beginning of regular meetings of the Diet, the opportunities of Finns to influence affairs in their own country improved in an unprecedented way. The year marked the beginning of a period of illumination for Finnish democracy.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued: 1 million

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue: September 2013

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---