alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Zimbra Page 1of2 

### Zimbra rmaguire@norwoodma.gov

Re: Boston Executive Helicopters From :Russ Maguire, A.A.E. ,ACE <rmaguire@norwoodma.gov> 

### Subject: Re: Boston Executive Helicopters To: CHRISTOPHER DONOVAN <christopherdonovan1@gmail.com> Mon, Sep 27, 2010 04:10 PM

Thanks Chris . I ' ll put this into the packet for October ' s meeting , which is tentatively scheduled for 10/13. As mentioned in our earlier meeting , please have your insurance provider list the two aircraft and their covered use (e . g ., flight training , charter , etc . ) on the certificate , which you ' ll want to get us a copy of prior to the meeting . Regarding your safety and noise abatement program, I would incorporate this into a document . (1 - 2 pages) I have some safety/noise abatement programs already on file , from other commercially permitted businesses . So , rather than re - invent the wheel , I ' ll be happy to provide you with copies , which can simply be adopted . Russ

----- Original Message - - - - - From : " CHRISTOPHER DONOVAN " <christopherdonovanl@gmail . com> To : " Russ Maguire , A.A . E. , ACE" <rmaguire@norwoodma . gov> Sent : Friday, September 24 , 2010 6 : 15 : 02 PM GMT - 05 : 00 US/Canada Eastern Subject : Boston Executive Helicopters Mr. Maguire , As we discussed today , I am looking to add Flight instruction and rental to my Commercial permit . We have 2 Helicopters , N6089J and N80KK under Boston Executive Helicopters . I have classroom space and an office as well as hanger space in our current location that exceeds the required space . I plan on reviewing the Airport Noise abatement procedures with all students and staff and will fly friendly . We own our own hangers here at Norwood . https://ncs.norwoodma.gov/h/printmessage?id=l3884&tz=America!New _York 411 8/2015

### Zimbra We have a listed telephone on file . I currently have insurance on file in accordance with the requirements of the Commission . Thank you , Christopher Donovan Boston Executive Helicopters Russ Maguire , A. A. E ., ACE Manager , Norwood Memorial Airport Business phone (781) 255 - 5616



### https:/ /ncs.norwoodma.gov/ h/printmessage?id=13884&tz=America/New_York Page 2 of2

4/18/2015
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41523 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Daniel Dominguez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Daniel Dominguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Dominguez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mikel Walters, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop F-63, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone (404) 639-0913,                         *MWalters@cdc.gov.*

                        The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Kalwant Smagh,

Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2022-04340 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6670 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue certain regulations with 

respect to the minimum age of a driver of a commercial motor vehicle, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2023 

Mrs. HINSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue certain 

regulations with respect to the minimum age of a driver 

of a commercial motor vehicle, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Reciprocity Efficiency 

5 and Age Limitation Trucking Act’’ or the ‘‘REAL Truck6 ing Act’’. 

2 

•HR 6670 IH

1 SEC. 2. AGE REQUIREMENT FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VE2 HICLE OPERATOR. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

4 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transpor5 tation shall issue such regulations as are necessary to up6 date sections 383.5 and 390.5T of title 49, United States 

7 Code, to reduce the minimum age for an operator of a 

8 commercial motor vehicle from 21 years of age to 18 years 

9 of age. 

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 23022 of 

11 the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (49 U.S.C. 

12 31315 note) is repealed. 

Æ
| 1)   | The Report 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. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |   |                                                        |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  Date: February 15, 2012 |   | /s/ Lawrence D. Field                                       |   |
|                          |   | Lawrence D. Field                                           |   |
|                          |   | Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer |   |
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, David W. Neibert, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify 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 my knowledge:

(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|      |                   |  |     |                                         
|----- | ----------------- |  | --- | ----------------------------------------
|      |                   |  |     |                                         
|Date: | November 16, 2009 |  | By: | /s/ DAVIDW. NEIBERT                     
|      |                   |  |     | David W. Neibert
Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Concierge Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Concierge Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH
                     SS.1122(D)(2)(VI) AND SS.1122(D)(4)(XI)
                       OF REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA


American Security  Insurance  Company,  Standard Guaranty  Insurance Company and
Safeco  Financial  Institution  Solutions,  Inc.  (affiliates  of Assurant Inc.,
collectively the "Asserting  Party") is responsible for assessing  compliance as
of December 31, 2006 and for the period from  January 1, 2006  through  December
31, 2006 (the  "Reporting  Period")  with the  servicing  criteria  set forth in
ss.1122(d)(2)(vi),   ss.1122(d)(4)(xi)  and   ss.1122(d)(4)(xii)  of  Title  17,
ss.229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, which the Asserting Party has
concluded  are  applicable  to the  insurance  escrow  servicing  activities  it
performs with respect to all mortgage loan-tracking transactions covered by this
report.   The   transactions   covered  by  this  report  include  all  mortgage
loan-tracking  transactions  for which the Asserting Party served as a Vendor on
behalf of Servicers  for such  asset-backed  securities  transactions  that were
registered  after January 1, 2006 with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission
pursuant  to the  Securities  Act of 1933  (the  "Platform").  The  scope of the
Asserting   Party   assertions   excludes   ss.1122(d)(4)(xii)   of  Title   17,
ss.229.1122(d)  of the Code of Federal  Regulations,  which relates to servicing
activities  that are  performed  by the  Asserting  Party  with  respect  to the
Platform, but are not reported on herein.

The  Asserting  Party has assessed its  compliance  with  ss.1122(d)(2)(vi)  and
ss.1122(d)(4)(xi) ("the Applicable Servicing Criteria") for the Reporting Period
and has  concluded  that the  Asserting  Party  has  complied,  in all  material
respects,  with the Applicable  Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with
respect to the Platform taken as a whole.  The Asserting Party used the criteria
set  forth  in  paragraph  (d) of  Item  1122 of  Regulation  AB to  assess  the
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects,  with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.

PricewaterhouseCoopers  LLP, an independent  registered  public accounting firm,
has  issued an  attestation  report on the  assessment  of  compliance  with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period ending December
31, 2006 as set forth in this assertion.

     American Security Insurance Company
     Standard Guaranty Insurance Company
     Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.


           /s/ John Frobose
       By: John Frobose
           Senior Vice President


       Date: February 23, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.2 – 906 Certification








PEGASUS TEL, INC.





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUNT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Pegasus Tel, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nathan lapkin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.








By: /s/Nathan Lapkin


Nathan Lapkin


Chief Financial Officer





April 16, 2013





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Pegasus Tel, Inc., and will be retained by Pegasus Tel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Chalfant *vs.*Sterns’ Heirs.

(Messrs. Morehead & Brown for appellant: no appearance for appellee",}

From the Pendleton County Court.

*November*5.

It is the duty of the county courts to revise, and approve or reject, the reports of their commissioners of accounts; & therefore,the appointment of one of the justices to be a commissioner, seems not altogether proper"— but it is not prohibited by law, and the proceedings are not, on that account, irregular.

An allowance to an adm’r of $50 only, for his services, when five per cent, would amount to more than $100, and no reason appearing for a smaller allowance than usual, disappioved.

judge Ewing

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

As the duty devolves on the County Court to reviso and approve or reject the report of commissioners of accounts, it is not strictly proper to appoint members of their own body as commissioners; but as the law imposes no restriction upon them in making their selection, and as there may be justices who are as competent to act as others, and there are always a sufficient number to form a court for a revision of the report, without those who act as commissioners, (if ’it were admitted that the commissioners were incompetent to preside in revising their own report,) we cannot say that it is irregular and inadmissible to make such appointments.

But though it may be competent for the County Court to allow to an administrator, as compensation, less than five per cent, upon the amount collected or charged to have been collected by‘him, as no proof is exhibited, or reason given, in this case for allowing *less than one half that*amount, and as from the number of vouchers exhibited, and the smallness of the items of claims which came to his hands for collection, he seems to have had much trouble in settling the estate,'we think the allowance to him of fifty dollars only, was too small.

It is therefore considered by the Court, that the order of the County Court be reversed, and the matter re-committed to the commissioners of accounts for re-examination and settlement and report.- ,,
#### David Earl WATTLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6329

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

David Wattleton, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*653PER CURIAM:

David Wattleton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed,2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Wat-tleton v. Lynch,*No. 6:16-ct-03063-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 2017). 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. ,

*AFFIRMED*
#### Helen FONG, also known as Helen Poy, also known as Fong Hong May, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20619.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 21, 1966.

*326John F. Wells, of Stark & Champlin, Oakland, Cal., for appellant.

Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., John H. Youngquist, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., Mitchell Rogovia, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Harry Baum, Edward Heilbronner, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before BARNES and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and MATHES, Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The taxpayer appeals from a judgment of the District Court denying her recovery of interest which she had paid upon interest accrued prior to a jeopardy assessment under the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, from the date of notice .and demand following the jeopardy assessment until the date of notice and demand following final decision of the Tax Court upon appellant’s petition for redetermination of the tax.

The case at bar is substantially identical to Ginsburg v. United States, 1 Cir., 278 F.2d 470, rehearing denied, 278 F.2d 473 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 878, 81 S.Ct. 166, 5 L.Ed.2d 101 (1960), which held adversely to the taxpayer’s contentions here. Appellant urges us to reject the rationale of *Ginsburg*but, all circumstances considered, we find no compelling reason for doing so.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: 7/27/15 

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602 

FROM: Julie Rosenberg, EPA 

SUBJECT: 4/22/15, REEOs Meeting Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants 

SUMMARY 

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on 4/22/15 to discuss 

the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. 

ATTENDEES 

OAR EPA Staff: Julie Rosenberg, Jean Lupinacci, Ann Bailey, Jonathan Passe, Julia Miller, 

Robyn DeYoung, Emma Zinsmeister, Stacy Angel and Joe Bryson 

Doug Lewin – South-central Partnership for Energy Efficiency as a Resource SPEER 

Howard Geller – Southwest Energy Efficiency Program SWEEP 

Susan Stratton – Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NEEA 

Sue Coakley –Northeast Energy Efficiency Program NEEP 

Mandy Mahoney and Jenna Zweig – Southern Energy Efficiency Alliance SEEA 

Stacey Paradis – Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance MEEA
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Certifications Pursuant to Section 302of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I, James R. Lavelle,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-Q of Watchit Media, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others with those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: May 22, 2006

 

 
|   | /s/ James R. Lavelle                                |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | James R. Lavelle                                    |
|   | Chairman of the Board  and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

1

----
Order entered April 24 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 12
- 01476
- CR
JOSE FRANCISCO ORTEZ , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. F01
- 52273
- M


### O RDER
The Court GRANTS court reporter Darline King LaBar’s April 19, 2013 request for an extension of time to coordinate with court reporter Deborah Hamon to file the reporter’s records from the October 22, 2001 hearing and the November 14 and 19, 2001 hearings. We ORDER that the records of these hearings be filed by MAY 8, 2013

. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to court reporters Darline King LaBar and Deborah Hamon

.

/s/ DAVID EV ANS JUSTICE