alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AIR-09-298-E 

August 25, 2010 

 Exemption No. 10121 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0591 

Mr. Raphael Celier 

President 

Celier Aviation 

Nowowiejskiego 26a 

96313 Jaktorow-Kolonia 

Poland 

Dear Mr. Celier: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated June 15, 2009, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Celier Aviation for an exemption from §§ 21.191(i)(3) and 21.193(e)(1) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow 

Celier Aviation to produce and sell gyroplanes for certification under § 21.191(i) without 

previously having manufactured and assembled a gyroplane of the same make and model that 

has been issued a special airworthiness certificated in the light-sport category under § 21.190.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Celier Aviation. 

The FAA recently issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material 

respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 10099 (copy 

enclosed), the FAA did not believe it is in the public interest to permit a manufacturer to sell a 

make and model of gyroplane (or aircraft kit), eligible for the issuance of an experimental 

certificate in the light-sport category, if that manufacturer has not yet produced a gyroplane of 

that make and model that meets the accepted consensus standards. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

• they don’t differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed denial of 

exemption; 

• the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby deny your petition Celier Aviation for an exemption from 

14 CFR §§ 21.191(i)(3) and 21.193(e)(1). 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

K.C. Yanamura 

Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service 

Enclosure
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATE 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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10K of Pana-Minerales S.A. (the “Company”) for the year ended August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Hector Francisco Vasquez Davis, Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief Financial Officer and Director, 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 and belief:
 
 a.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 b.The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 Dated: October 29, 2010
 
 
 HECTOR F. A. DAVIS
 Hector F.A. Davis
 Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief Financail
 Officer and Director
 
 
 
 -1-
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 CytoGenix, Inc. (the Company) on Form 1O-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Malcolm H. Skolnick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Malcolm H. Skolnick

Malcolm H. Skolnick

Chief Executive Officer





November 20, 2006
EX-35 (e)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 19, 2007

Ace Securities Corporation
AMACAR GROUP
6525 Morrison Boulevard, Suite 318
Charlotte, NC 28211

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan
Trust, Series 2006-SD3

Per Section 4.15 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 10/31/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(A)  a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
     portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or
     such other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer or
     Servicing Function Participant, has been made under such officer's
     supervision and

(B)  to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer or Servicing
     Function Participant, in all material respects throughout such year or
     portion thereof, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such
     obligation in any material respect, specifying each such failure known to
     such officer and the nature and status thereof.


Certified By:
/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
Kristen Ann Cronin, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

September 29, 1995.

Resolved, That the resolution from the Senate (S. Con.

Res. 27) entitled ‘‘Concurrent resolution correcting the enrollment of H.R. 402’’, do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:

Page 1, line 2, strike all that follows after ‘‘That’’ to the

end of the resolution and insert the following:

1 the action of the Speaker of the House of Representa2 tives and the President pro tempore of the Senate in signing

3 the bill (H.R. 402) is rescinded, and the Clerk of the House

4 of Representatives shall, in the reenrollment of the bill,

5 make the following correction:

6 Strike section 109.

Attest:

Clerk.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 27

AMENDMENT
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 823

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require that the report

accompanying the concurrent resolution on the budget include an analysis, prepared after consultation with the Director of the Congressional

Budget Office, of the concurrent resolution’s impact on revenues and

outlays for entitlements for the period of 30 fiscal years and to require

the President to include a 30-year budget projection and generational

accounting information each year in the President’s budget.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 18 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Mr. KERREY (for himself and Mr. SIMPSON) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred jointly pursuant to the order of August

4, 1977, to the Committees on the Budget and Governmental Affairs,

with instructions that if one committee reports, the other committee have

thirty days to report or be discharged

A BILL

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require

that the report accompanying the concurrent resolution

on the budget include an analysis, prepared after consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget

Office, of the concurrent resolution’s impact on revenues

and outlays for entitlements for the period of 30 fiscal

years and to require the President to include a 30-

year budget projection and generational accounting information each year in the President’s budget.
2

•S 823 RIS

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 ‘‘Long Term Budgeting

5 Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. THIRTY-YEAR BUDGET PLANNING.

7 Section 301(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of

8 1974 is amended by striking paragraph (10) and inserting

9 the following:

10 ‘‘(10) an analysis, prepared after consultation

11 with the Director of the Congressional Budget Of12 fice, for the period of 30 fiscal years beginning with

13 such fiscal year, of the estimated levels of total

14 budget outlays and total new budget authority, the

15 estimated revenues to be received, the estimated sur16 plus or deficit, if any, for each major Federal enti17 tlement program for each fiscal year in such pe18 riod.’’.

19 SEC. 3. PRESIDENT’S BUDGET.

20 Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is

21 amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

22 ‘‘(32) an analysis of the generational account23 ing consequences of the budget including the pro24 jected Federal deficit, at current spending levels, in

25 the fiscal year that is 20 years after the fiscal year
3

•S 823 RIS

1 for which the budget is submitted and the revenue

2 levels (including the increase required in current lev3 els) required to eliminate the projected Federal

4 deficit.

5 ‘‘(33) a projection for the 5th, 10th, 20th, and

6 30th year after the fiscal year for which the budget

7 is submitted of the projected receipts and outlays for

8 each major Federal entitlement program.’’.

Æ
#### Adrien Joshua ESPINOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Unknown STEWART, named as Lt. Stewart 2996; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16032

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 30, 2017

Adrien Joshua Espinoza, Pro Se

Kelli Lynn Olson, Deputy County Attorney, Pima County Attorney’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Adrien Joshua Espinoza, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Espinoza’s retaliation claim because Espinoza failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants took an adverse action against him because of an earlier grievance he filed against defendant Randall. *See Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Espinoza’s “threat to safety” claim because Espinoza failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether defendant Randall knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[T]he official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”).

The district court did .not abuse its discretion by denying Espinoza’s motions to compel and for depositions because Espinoza failed to show what material facts would have been discovered that would have precluded summary judgment. *See Klingele v. Eikenberry,*849 F.2d 409, 412 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting forth standard of review and noting that “[t]he burden is on the nonmoving party ... to show what material facts would be discovered that would preclude summary judgment”).

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); *Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle,*7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th .Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

We do not consider Espinoza’s renewed request for appointment of counsel set forth in his opening brief. In Docket Entry No. 14, this court denied Espinoza’s mo*694tion for appointment of counsel and ordered that no motions for reconsideration, clarification, or modification of the denial shall be filed or entertained.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 21, 2009

p1214 

# Order

December 21, 2009

139453

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139453 COA: 291196 Washtenaw CC: 07-001056-FH GREGORY NATHANIEL MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 18, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### -.
SPA RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 135: Recovered Oil Exclusion (cont'd) 

# • RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 135

Recovered Oil Exclusion 59 FR 38536-38545 July 28, 1994 (RCRA ClusterV, Non-HSWA provisions)

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION

WAC 173-303- STATE ANALOG IS:

EQUIV- LESS MORE BROADER ALENT STRIN- STRIN- IN SCOPE GENT GENT PART261

- IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUSWASTE
SUBPARTA -GENERAL 

# t DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE change "(v) through 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(B) 071(3)(p) X (viii)" to "(iv) through (vi)" 

## t EXCLUSIONS 

# • add new paragraph addressing exclusion for recovered oil from 261.4(a)(12) 071(3)(cc) 

### X

petroleum refining, exploration and production, and from transportation incident thereto, which is inserted in the petroleum**_.~** refining process; applies to recovered oil stored or transported prior to insertion; definition of recovered oil; what "recovered oil" does notinclude 

# •

CL135.16- Revised: 1/31/97 Printed: 10/21198 July 28, 1994 - Page 1 of 2SPA RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 135: Recovered Oil Exclusion (cont'd) 

# G

t REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS after "practices", 261.6(a)(3)(iv) 120(2)(a)(v) 

### X add parethetical phrase "this exemption does not apply to fuels produced from oil recovered from oilbearing hazardous waste, where such

. recovered oil is

already excluded under 

### § 261.4(a)(12)" remove old 261.6(a)(3)(v) Removed 

### X 261.6(a)(3)(v) and redesignate old 120(2)(a)(vi) 261.6(a)(3)(vi) as 120(2)(a)(viii) new 261.6(a)(3)(v) redesignate old 261.6(a)(3)(vi) 120(2)(a)(ix) 

### X 261.6(a)(3)(vii) as new 261.6(a)(3)(vi); replace the phrase "at the same facility at which such wastes were generated"with "by the same person who generated the Waste" 

# G

PART 266 - STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENTOF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES SUBPART H - HAZARDOUSWASTE BURNED IN BOILERS AND INDUSTRIAL FURNACES 

## t APPLICABILITY replace "(v-viii)"with 266.100(b)(3) No analog "(iv) through (vi)" Have not adopted yet 

# ·c\

CL135.16 - Revised: 1/31197 Printed: 10/21198 July 28, 1994 - Page 2 of 2
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Venezuela

On March 8, 2015, the President issued Executive Order 13692, declaring a national emergency with respect to the situation in Venezuela, including the Government of Venezuela's erosion of human rights guarantees, persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms, use of violence and human rights violations and abuses in response to antigovernment protests, and arbitrary arrest and detention of antigovernment protesters, as well as the exacerbating presence of significant government corruption. 

The President took additional steps pursuant to this national emergency in Executive Order 13808 of August 24, 2017; Executive Order 13827 of March 19, 2018; Executive Order 13835 of May 21, 2018; Executive Order 13850 of November 1, 2018; Executive Order 13857 of January 25, 2019; and Executive Order 13884 of August 5, 2019.

The circumstances, as described in Executive Order 13692 and in subsequent Executive Orders issued with respect to Venezuela, have not improved, and they continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13692.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     *Federal Register*                     and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. 2022-04908

Billing code 3395-F2-P
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 Skylyft Media Network, Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory Guido, Chief Financial 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 and belief: (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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Gregory Guido
Gregory Guido 
Chief Financial Officer

October 8, 2008

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00436-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.E.R., a Child

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-02261

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 30, 2022

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

In the case underlying this appeal, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on July 13, 

2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. But she paid no filing fee and filed no docketing statement. 

Contra id. R. 5 (requiring fees in civil cases); id. R. 32.1 (requiring a docketing statement). She 

also failed to pay the clerk’s fee. Contra id. R. 35.3(a)(2).

On November 4, 2022, we ordered Appellant to submit payment or show proof that she is 

entitled to appeal without paying for the clerk’s record or the filing fee by November 14, 2022, or 

the case would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 5, 42.3; In re W.J.C., No. 04-05-

00532-CV, 2005 WL 3477883, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 21, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.).

No response or payment has been provided to this court by Appellant.

We dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c). 

PER CURIAM
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel Ramiro MARTINEZ-RIVERA, also known as Manuel Ramiro S-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41668 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

Manuel Ramiro Martinez-Rivera, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

*839PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Manuel Ramiro Martinez-Rivera 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). Martinez-Rivera 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 nonfrivo-lous 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.
#### Walter PORTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DPSCS; Commissioner of MD Correction; Warden Casey Cambell; Commitment Dept. Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-7462

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 22, 2017

Walter Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Michael O’Connor Doyle, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Walter Porter, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court' denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demon*150strating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Porter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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*