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

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTAifON 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLV,\NIA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17101·1900 -· .{"';,_ c· 

The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Foxx: 

-- ~) t 

July 22, 2014 

This letter is to inform you that PennDOT is still in support of our previously letter dated 

June 19, 2014. I write to express my full support for the granting of the waiver process 

regarding Essential Air Service at both Franklin's Venango County Regional Airportand 

Bradford Regional Airport. On April 24, 2014, the Department of Transportation issued 

Order 2014-4-26 proposing to eliminate subsidized service at these two markets due to their 

being under 10 enplanements per service day during the period from October 1, 2012 thru 

September 30, 2013. 

Pennsylvania has invested significant capital funds over time in these two airports. 

If EAS service is cancelled, those investments will have been wasted. The communities 

and Pittsburgh International Airport have spent nearly three years and a significant amount 

of money studying the issue with current air service, and have identified a viable solution to 

improve passenger traffic and allow both communities to fully satisfy EAS minimums of not 

only the 10 enplanement rule, but also the $200 subsidy per passenger rule. The result has 

been the addition of three new carriers applying for bids to PIT with greater frequency, 

reduced costs and strong model of efficiency. 

Air service within the state is an important economic generator and in some cases of 

Pennsylvania EAS airports, a direct business relationship to the burgeoning Marcellus 

natural gas sector. As a result of discussions, I am committed to fund a marketing effort to 

advertise and promote new connections between PA EAS airports and PIT to help rhake the 

service successful 

I appreciate your time and consideration, and believe a positive model has been 

brought forth to better the EAS system ensuring access to the National Transportation 

System. If you have any questions please contact Toby Fauver, Deputy Secretary for 

Multimodal Transportation, at 717.787.8197. 

cc: Mr. Kevin Schlemmer, USDOT 

PA Congressional Delegation 

Sincerely, 

ftu'J j Jt4e~ 

Barry J. Schoch, P.E. 

Secretary of Transportation
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

      ( print page 14045)    
                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 4, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Cooperative Research Group on Energy Storage for Electric Grid (“ESEG”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), Kanagawa, JAPAN; EN BW Energie Württemberg AG, Karlsruhe, GERMANY; CEZ, a.s., Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC; Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Inc., Tokyo, JAPAN; and ENGIE SA, Courbevoie, FRANCE. The general area of ESEG's planned activity is to have as its major goal testing and modeling specific aspects of performance degradation and fire potential in a generic battery energy storage system.

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-05179 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 11
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                         CATSKILL FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                 (In thousands, except share and per share data)


                                                     Three Months Ended December 31,
                                                     -------------------------------
                                                           1998           1997
                                                       ----------     ----------
<S>                                                    <C>            <C>       
Net income per common share - basic
   Net income applicable to common shares ........     $      981     $      958
   Weighted average common shares outstanding ....      3,839,278      4,250,413
   Net income per common share - basic ...........     $      .26     $      .23
                                                       ==========     ==========

Net income per common share - diluted
   Net income applicable to common shares ........     $      981     $      958
   Weighted average common shares outstanding ....      3,839,278      4,250,413
   Dilutive common stock options (1) .............         40,612        126,991
                                                       ----------     ----------
   Weighted average common shares and
         common share equivalents outstanding ....      3,879,890      4,377,404
                                                       ==========     ==========
   Net income per common share - diluted .........     $      .25     $      .22
                                                       ==========     ==========

</TABLE>

(1) Dilutive common stock options (includes  granted,  but unvested,  restricted
stock under the Company's MRP plan and options granted,  but unexercised,  under
its stock  option plan) are based on the  treasury  stock  method using  average
market price.  The treasury stock method  recognizes the use of assumed proceeds
upon the exercise of options, and the amount of unearned compensation attributed
to future services under the Company's  restricted stock plan, including any tax
benefits,  to purchase the  Company's  common stock at the average  market price
during the period.
Exhibit 15.1





Graphic
Tel: 604 688 5421

Fax: 604 688 5132

www.bdo.ca
BDO Canada LLP

600 Cathedral Place

925 West Georgia Street

Vancouver BC  V6C 3L2  Canada
 
 
 
 June 23, 2011
 
 
 Keegan Resources, Inc.
 600-1199 West Hastings Street
 Vancouver, B.C.
 V6E 3T5
 
 Attention: Mr. Peter Rees
 
 
 Dear Peter:
 
 As stated in Note 2 (k) to the consolidated financial statements of Keegan Resources, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2011, the Company changed its method of accounting for short-term investments by considering all such instruments as cash equivalents and states that the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances because the new policy provides reliable and more relevant information because it better presents the nature of these investments in the fact that they may be liquidated before maturity. In connection with our audit of the above mentioned financial statements, we have evaluated the circumstances and the business judgment and planning which formulated your basis to make the change in accounting principle.
 
 It should be understood that criteria have not been established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board for selecting from among the alternative accounting principles that exist in this area. Further, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants has not established the standards by which an auditor can evaluate the preferability of one accounting principle among a series of alternatives. However, for purposes of the Company’s compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter.
 
 Based on our audit, we concur in management’s judgment that the newly adopted accounting principle described in Note 2(k) is preferable in the circumstances. In formulating this position, we are relying on management’s business planning and judgment, which we do not find to be unreasonable.
 
 
 Very truly yours,
 
 (signed) “BDO CANADA LLP”
 
 Chartered Accountants
 
 
 BDO Canada LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership, is a member of BDO International Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, and forms part of the international BDO network of independent member firms.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Advanced ID Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30,
2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Dan Finch
                                 ----------------------
                                 Dan Finch
                                 Chief Executive Officer

November 20, 2009

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Advanced ID Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30,
2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Seymour Kazimirski
                                 ----------------------
                                 Seymour Kazimirski
                                 Chief Financial Officer

November 20, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy MULL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-3691

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2017

Filed: May 1, 2017

*590Catherine A. Connelly, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for-Plaintiff-Appellee

Randy Mull, Pro Se

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Randy Mull directly appeals the 30-year sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to producing child pornography, pursuant to a written plea agreement that contained a waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Mull’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel challenges the sentence as substantively unreasonable.

We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case, because our review of the record demonstrates that Mull entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily. The only argument presented falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. *See United States v. Andis,*333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Having independently reviewed the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Santiago SANDOVAL, also known as Ramiro Sandoval, also known as Ramiro Amador Sandoval, also known as Sandoval Ramiro, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10523 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 26, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Santiago Sandoval, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Santiago Sandoval 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). Sandoval has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Sandoval’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Sandoval’s request for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Sandoval’s' response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the 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.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 740

For the relief of Inslaw, Inc., and William A. Hamilton and Nancy Burke

Hamilton.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 1, 1995

Mr. HATCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Inslaw, Inc., and William A. Hamilton

and Nancy Burke Hamilton.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay,

4 out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro5 priated, the sum due, if any, jointly to Inslaw, Inc., a

6 Delaware Corporation, and William A. Hamilton and

7 Nancy Burke Hamilton for damages incurred arising from

8 claims relating to the furnishing of computer software and

9 services to the United States Department of Justice.
2

•S 740 IS

1 SEC. 2. (a) The payment made pursuant to the first

2 section of this Act shall constitute full settlement of all

3 legal and equitable claims by Inslaw, Inc., and William

4 A. Hamilton and Nancy Burke Hamilton against the Unit5 ed States, or any agency, official, officer, employee, or

6 agent thereof.

7 (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as an infer8 ence of liability on the part of the United States.

Æ
#### Edith W. Bayreuther, Appellant *v.*Joel E. Reinisch et al., Respondents.

Argued January 4, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*555
      *Winfred C. Allen*for appellant.

*William A. Smith*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION
OF OFFICERS


OF
CYBERDEFENDER CORPORATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 USC § 1350





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) each of the
undersigned officers of CyberDefender Corporation (the “Company”) does hereby
certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(a)
            The
      Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
      31, 2008 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and




(b)
            Information
      contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company.





Dated:
October 19, 2009





/s/ Gary Guseinov


Gary
Guseinov


Chief
Executive Officer





/s/ Kevin Harris


Kevin
Harris


Chief
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 IDT Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James A. Courter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

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

2. The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: December 10, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, 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 IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDTCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### IN RE: Paul DEN BESTE; Melody Den Beste, Debtors. Paul Den Beste, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alec Harrington; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-17494

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 27, 2017

*536Paul Den Beste, Pro Se

Rtissell Dale Stanaland, Attorney, Sta-naland & Associates, San Francisco, OA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Paul Den Beste appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees as a sanction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standard of review applied by the district court. *In re AFI Holding, Inc.,*525 F.3d 700, 702 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Contrary to Den Beste’s assertion, a bankruptcy court possesses the authority to sanction a party for bad faith or willful misconduct. *See Price v. Lehtinen (In re Lehtinen),*564 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2009) (inherent power of bankruptcy court allows court to impose sanctions and provide compensation for improper litigation tactics).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning Den Beste because the record supports the bankruptcy court’s finding that Den Beste filed the adversary proceeding in bad faith and for the sole purpose of harassing appellee. *See id.*(bankruptcy court’s sanction decision reviewed for abuse of discretion); *Knupfer v. Lindblade (In re Dyer),*322 F.3d 1178, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (bankruptcy court’s factual finding reviewed for clear error).

To the extent that Den Beste challenges the bankruptcy court’s order granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment, the bankruptcy court’s order annulling the automatic stay rendered the adversary proceeding moot. *See Vegas Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC,*669 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“An appeal is moot if no present controversy exists as to which an appellate court can grant effective relief.”).

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

AFFIRMED.

**

 This Disposition Is Not Appropriate for Publication and Is Not Precedent Except as Provided By Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-01-1998
<CASH>                                       9,622,871
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,282,037
<ALLOWANCES>                                   525,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,461,428
<PP&E>                                       4,881,172
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,694,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,409,082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,473,459
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,555
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,929,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,409,082
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,441,115
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,730,931
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,183,148
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (108,448) <F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (364,516)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    33,597
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (398,113)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
<FN>
<F1> INTEREST INCOME
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
July 9 , 2012

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

Dennis DeVany

Chief, EAS & Domestic Analysis Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Spirit Airlines

– DCA

- FLL Service

D ocket DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182

Dear Mr. DeVany :

In s upplement to ou r prior letter of July 3, 2012, t his is to clarify that effective August 11, 2012,

Spirit will terminate use only of its DCA Air

- 21 slo t s . Spirit will continue to operate its four

other DCA slots through September 5, 2012

.

Sincerely,

Joanne Young

Counsel for Spirit Airlines, Inc.

cc: Brian Meehan

Docket OST

- 2000

- 7182