alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Mav.31. 2013 12:32PM 

Port.-·~ 

of Seattle 

March 31,2013 

Ms. Nancy Kalinowski 

Vice President 

System OperationS Services (AJR.-0) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: FAA-2013~0392, ''Notice for Data and Information Distribution Policy" 

Dear Ms. Kalinowski: 

No. 3 811 P. 2 

Seattle-Tacoma · 

lnlemallonal Airport 

P.O. Box 68727 

Seattle, WA 98168 

Tel: (206) 433-5388 

FaK: (206) 431-5912 

www.portseatlle.org 

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is pleased to submit the following comments and requests 

for clarification regarding Federal Register Notice F AA-2013-0392, ''Notice for Data and 

Information Distribution Policy" (the Notice), which was published in the Federal Register on 

May 1) 2013, Specifically related to item number 7: 

a) What process or procedures would an airport need to complete, in order for the FAA to 

"consider", and then approve, a direct connect data feed? 

b) How much will it cost an airport (payable to the FAA) to establish and maintain a duect 

connect data feed? · 

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport appreciates this opportunity to submit comments regarding 

Federal Register Notice FAA-2013-0392. Hyou have any questions, please contact me viaemail at Kikillus.r@portseattle.org, or phone 206-787-6626 . 

Robert H. ·killus, A.A.E. 

Airport Operations Manager 

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 

206-787-6626
**Exhibit      32.2**

**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 Annual Report of GCA I Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on      Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities      and      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael M. Membrado,      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of      the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|   |                                                                                                       |                                   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                       | /s/                Michael M. Membrado |
|   | Michael                M. MembradoPrincipal                Financial OfficerAugust                24, 2007 |

----
#### Martin L. MAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RHA, Attn: John White-Chief Ethics Compliance Ofcr., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-1870

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 18, 2017

Martin L. May, Appellant Pro Se. Randall D. Avram, Jennifer Rasile Everitt, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Martin L. May appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing May’s employment discrimination action as time-barred. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant May’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. May v. RHA No. 1:15-cv-00291-MR-DLH, 2016 WL 4059203 (W.D.N.C. July 26, 2016). 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
#### Edward Barreiro TREVINO, In Propria Persona, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The State of FLORIDA, 2 Courthouse Square #2000, Kissimmee, FL 34741, d.b.a. Leslie A. Hess, Defendant-Appelllee.

No. 16-15389 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(May 4, 2017)

Edward Barreiro Trevino, Pro Se

Pam Bondi, Attorney General’s Office, Criminal Division, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellee

Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Edward Trevino, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 com*862plaint as frivolous. After review,1 we affirm.

I. DISCUSSION

Trevino’s legal arguments, including that Florida has no jurisdiction over him because he is a “natural born, free ... [Hiving, breathing, flesh and blood human [being]” and that he must be released because Florida breached a security agreement with him, are frivolous. *See Miller v. Donald,*541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (“A claim is frivolous if and only if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” (quotation omitted)); *United States v. Sterling,*738 F.3d 228, 233 n.1 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting that so-called “sovereign citizens” are individuals who believe they are not subject to courts’ jurisdiction and that courts have summarily rejected their legal théories as frivolous); *United States v. Benabe,*654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases and noting that a court should summarily reject arguments that a person is beyond a court’s jurisdiction because he is a “sovereign citizen,” “secured-party creditor,” or “flesh-and-blood human being”). In addition, Trevino’s factual allegations that he is a party to some sort of secured transaction requiring Florida to release him are clearly baseless. *See Denton v. Hernandez,*504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). If Trevino seeks to challenge his conviction, ha-beas corpus, and not § 1983, is the proper avenue. *See Wilkinson v. Dotson,*544 U.S. 74, 78, 81, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005). Finally, leave to amend the complaint would have been futile because a more carefully drafted complaint could not save Trevino’s claims. *See Cockrell v. Sparks,*510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Leave to amend a complaint is futile when the complaint as amended would still be properly dismissed.... ”).

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

1

. We review for abuse of discretion a district court's sua sponte dismissal for frivolity under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l), mindful of the fact that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. *Miller v. Donald,*541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> BD
<CIK> 0001005177
<NAME> ML JWH STRATEGIC ALLOCATION FUND LP

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,910                   4,036
<RECEIVABLES>                               65,418,772              76,851,927
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                        226,774,405             303,927,057
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             292,200,087             380,783,020
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                  11,010,383               7,677,168
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 281,189,704             373,105,852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               292,200,087             380,783,020
<TRADING-REVENUE>                         (22,651,135)              32,832,777
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         8,898,530               8,185,317
<COMMISSIONS>                             (13,503,603)              18,067,111
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                (27,256,208)              22,950,983
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           (27,256,208)              22,950,983
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                              (27,256,208)              22,950,983
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (11.73)                   10.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (11.73)                   10.40


</TABLE>
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 11614]

The Department of State's Overseas Schools Advisory Council will hold its Winter Committee Meeting on Thursday, April 7, 2022, from 9:00 a.m. until approximately 12:00 p.m. If permitted, the members will meet in-person. To limit exposure, the meeting is open for the public to participate virtually only. If an in-person meeting is not permitted for the Advisory Council members due to local conditions, the meeting will be held exclusively online.

The Overseas Schools Advisory Council works closely with the U.S. business community on improving American-sponsored schools overseas that are assisted by the Department of State and attended by U.S. government employee dependents, and the children of employees of U.S. corporations and foundations abroad.

This meeting will address issues related to the support provided by the Overseas Schools Advisory Council to American-sponsored overseas schools. There will be a presentation on the status of the Council-sponsored Child Protection Project and Social Emotional Learning Project. Also, the Regional Education Officers in the Office of Overseas Schools will present on the initiatives in the American-sponsored overseas schools.

                    Public members may attend the meeting virtually, subject to the instructions of the Chair. Those interested in participating virtually should RSVP prior to April 7, 2022 to: Mr. Mark Ulfers, Office of Overseas Schools, Department of State, Tel: 202-261-8200, Email:                     *OverseasSchools@state.gov.*

The Department will send instructions for virtual participation to those that RSVP. Requests for reasonable accommodation should be sent prior to April 7. Requests sent after that date will be considered but may not be possible to fulfill.

Mark Ulfers,

Executive Secretary, Overseas Schools Advisory Council.

[FR Doc. 2022-05100 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 1606

_____________________________
K ENNETH C HAKY , Appellant,

v.

F LORIDA C OMMISSION ON O FFENDER R EVIEW , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. John C. Cooper , Judge

. October 23, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. See Mobley v. McNeil , 989 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

W OLF , R OBERTS , and R OWE , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Kenneth Chaky, pro se
, Appellant.

Rana Wallace, General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7006 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7006

 To prohibit natural asset companies from entering into any agreement 
 with respect to land in the State of Utah or natural assets on or in 
                               such land.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2024

  Mr. Curtis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit natural asset companies from entering into any agreement 
 with respect to land in the State of Utah or natural assets on or in 
                               such land.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.

    (a) In General.--A natural asset company may not enter into any 
agreement with respect to land in the State of Utah or natural assets 
on or in such land.
    (b) Natural Asset Company Defined.--In this section, the term 
``natural asset company''--
            (1) has the meaning given that term under the notice of the 
        Securities and Exchange Commission titled ``Self-Regulatory 
        Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of 
        Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Listed Company Manual To 
        Adopt Listing Standards for Natural Asset Companies'' (88 Fed. 
        Reg. 68811; published October 4, 2023); and
            (2) includes any company that is substantially similar to a 
        company described under paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 32001X1228(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001X1228(01)

**Council Act of 17 December 2001 appointing a Deputy Director of Europol **

*
Official Journal C 371 , 28/12/2001 P. 0001 - 0001 *

Council Act

of 17 December 2001

appointing a Deputy Director of Europol

(2001/C 371/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Covention on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention)(1), and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Acting as the authority vested with the power to appoint the Director and Deputy Directors of Europol,

Having regard to the opinion of the Management Board,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Mariano Germán SIMANCAS CARRIÓN is hereby appointed Deputy Director of Europol from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2005.

Article 2

This Act shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Article 3

This Act shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 17 December 2001.

For the Council

The President

M. Verwilghen

(1) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 2.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5947 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include foster care transition 

youth as members of targeted groups for purposes of the work opportunity credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 

Mr. MCDERMOTT (for himself, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. DANNY K. 

DAVIS of Illinois, and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include 

foster care transition youth as members of targeted 

groups for purposes of the work opportunity credit. 

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 ‘‘Improved Employment 

5 Outcomes for Foster Youth Act of 2016’’. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5947 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF FOSTER CARE TRANSITION YOUTH 

2 FOR PURPOSES OF WORK OPPORTUNITY 

3 CREDIT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 51(d)(1) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

6 end of subparagraph (I), by striking the period at the end 

7 of subparagraph (J) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by adding 

8 at the end the following new subparagraph: 

9 ‘‘(K) a qualified foster care transition 

10 youth.’’. 

11 (b) QUALIFIED FOSTER CARE TRANSITION YOUTH

12 DEFINED.—Section 51(d) of such Code is amended by 

13 adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

14 ‘‘(16) QUALIFIED FOSTER CARE TRANSITION

15 YOUTH.—The term ‘qualified foster care transition 

16 youth’ means any individual who is certified by the 

17 designated local agency as— 

18 ‘‘(A) not having attained age 27 as of the 

19 hiring date, and 

20 ‘‘(B) having been in foster care (within the 

21 meaning of section 477 of the Social Security 

22 Act), after attaining the younger of— 

23 ‘‘(i) age 16, and 

24 ‘‘(ii) the age specified in subsection 

25 (a)(7) of such section.’’. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5947 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply with respect to individuals who 

3 begin work for the employer after the date of the enact4 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
### Executiv e Orde r 1286 6 an d Congressiona l Revie w Requirement s

RIN : ^ ^ Rulemakin g Documen t

Title : S \. . „ : TT7-T7 1 .j-

_ . ' z

_?r _ 

## 3 ^ . Withrespec t

t o th e attache drulemakin g document(s) : 1 . E.0.12866 : Th e requirement s of sectio n 6(a)(3)(E ) o f

E.O . 1286 6 hav e bee n me t i n accordanc e withth e followin g [initia l appropriat e line] :

Th e rulemakin g document(s ) wa s not reviewe db y th e Offic e of hiformatio n an d Regulator y Affair s (OIRA) . N o substantiv e change s wer e mad e t o th e document(s ) after it wa s submitte dt o OIRA . Th e require dinformatio n i s attached . 2 . Congressiona l Review : Th e requirement s o f th e Smal l Busines s Regulator y Enforcemen t Fairnes s Ac t for th e submissio n o f

final rule s t o Congres s an dGA O ( § 801 ) hav e bee n me t i n accordanc e withth e followin g [initia l appropriat e line] :

Thi s documen t

i s not afinal rule . Thi s documen t

i s no t arul e unde r

( § 804) . Th e documen t

ha s bee n submitte dt o C-5 0 for transmissio n t o Congres s an dGAO . Signatur e 

# /^i>a# - C

- AU r Title/Offic e . C''^ ^ Dat e
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                       HEALTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CORPORATION
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    THREE MONTHS ENDED           NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                         JUNE 30,                     JUNE 30,
                                                                --------------------------  ----------------------------
                                                                    1998          1997          1998           1997
                                                                ------------  ------------  -------------  -------------
<S>                                                             <C>           <C>           <C>            <C>
Net income (loss).............................................  $    294,410  $    (87,274) $  (1,257,691) $  (1,620,796)
                                                                ------------  ------------  -------------  -------------
                                                                ------------  ------------  -------------  -------------
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
  Basic.......................................................     6,607,282     6,495,558      6,566,232      6,462,673
                                                                ------------  ------------  -------------  -------------
                                                                ------------  ------------  -------------  -------------
  Fully Diluted...............................................     6,825,712     6,495,558      6,566,232      6,462,673
                                                                ------------  ------------  -------------  -------------
                                                                ------------  ------------  -------------  -------------
 
Net income (loss) per common share............................  $       0.04  $      (0.01) $       (0.19) $       (0.25)
                                                                ------------  ------------  -------------  -------------
                                                                ------------  ------------  -------------  -------------
</TABLE>
 
                                       12
#### Troy L. PEARSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cecilia REYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7464

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: June 8, 2017

Troy L. Pearson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Troy L. Pearson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28' U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition and advised Pearson that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Pearson waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*