alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AAM-13-233-E 

March 07, 2013 

 Exemption No. 10717 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0168 

Mr. Ronald E. Carroll 

Blue Ridge Helicopters, Inc. 

850 Airport Road 

Lawrenceville, GA 30046 

Dear Mr. Carroll: 

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

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated February 14, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Blue Ridge Helicopters, Inc. (Blue Ridge Helicopters) for an exemption from 

part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow 

Blue Ridge Helicopters to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol 

testing program. 

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 Blue Ridge Helicopters. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing 

programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of 
2 

safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was 

unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

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

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is 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 grant Blue Ridge Helicopters, Inc. an exemption from 

14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Blue Ridge Helicopters to cover its safetysensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and 

limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Blue Ridge Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol 

regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of 

the Blue Ridge Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

EGU BART 19,621 22,344 25,152 30,214 31,611 38,586 38,586 38,586 38,586 38,586 38,586 38,586 38,586 38,586

Non-EGU BART 2,952 2,952 2,952 2,952 2,952 3,464 4,201 4,201 4,201 4,201 4,201 4,201 4,201 4,201

Long Term Strategy (LTS) - - - - - - 4,494 8,988 11,034 11,034 11,034 11,034 15,528 20,022

EGU BART & LTS Total 19,621 22,344 25,152 30,214 31,611 38,586 43,080 47,574 49,620 49,620 49,620 49,620 54,114 58,608

Total BART & LTS 22,573 25,296 28,104 33,166 34,563 42,050 47,281 51,775 53,821 53,821 53,821 53,821 58,315 62,809

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

NOxEmission Reductions (tons)

Long Term Strategy

Non-EGU BART

EGU BART
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.2**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

 

Thecertification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

May10, 2005

 

BruceN. Warner, the Chief Financial Officer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.certifies:

 

a.     that this periodic report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

b.     that information contained in thisperiodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ Bruce  N. Warner                                  |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Bruce N.  Warner                                           |   |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer and  Principal Accounting 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 this amended
annual report of Medicine Man Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022 (the “Report”), we, the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the date indicated below, 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 our knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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.





|Dated: May 2, 2022 | /s/ Justin Dye                      
|------------------ | ------------------------------------
|                   | Justin Dye, Chief Executive Officer 
|                   |                                     
|                   |                                     
|Dated: May 2, 2022 | /s/ Nancy Huber                     
|                   | Nancy Huber, Chief Financial Officer
NUMBER 13-11-00357-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

RICHARD ALVAREZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Richard Alvarez, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion to 

dismiss his appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having 

dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, 
2

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

20th day of October, 2011.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DEPUY SYNTHES PRODUCTS, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.,

Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-1136

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 90/009,378, 

95/000,468.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

PAUL J. CRONIN, Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP, of 

Boston, Massachusetts, argued for appellant. With him on 

the brief were HEATHER B. REPICKY and LISA J. ADAMS. 

 JOSEPH R. RE, Knobbe, Martens, Olson, & Bear, LLP, 

of Irvine, California, argued for appellee. With him on the 

brief were CHRISTY G. LEA; BRADLEY T. LENNIE, Hunton & 

Williams, LLP, of Washington DC; and ROBERT A. KING 

and DAVID A. KELLY, of Atlanta, Georgia.

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 January 14, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT ITEM 31.1**

 

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

 

I, Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr. certify that:

 

1.               I have read this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 quarterly report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this annual report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for theregistrant and have:

 

a)              designed such disclosure controls andprocedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;

 

b)             evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period(the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c)              presented in this quarterly report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and proceduresbased on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee or registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

2.               all significant deficiencies in the design oroperation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and haveidentified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and

 

3.               any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significantchanges in internal controls or in other factors that could significantlyaffect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.

 

 
| Date: August  11, 2004 | /s/ Charles  T. Chrietzberg, Jr. |   |
|------------------------|----------------------------------|--------|
|                   | Charles T.  Chrietzberg, Jr.     |
|                   | Chairman of  the Board &     |
|                   | Chief Executive  Officer         |

 

----
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 30, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00346-CV 

TIFFANNY JONES M.D. AND TJONESIVDMD, PLLC, Appellants 

V. 

FRISCO FERTILITY CENTER, PLLC D/B/A/ DALLAS IVF, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 471st Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 471-02739-2020 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Pedersen, III, and Justice Carlyle 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Before the Court is appellants’ July 25, 2024 unopposed motion to dismiss 

this appeal. No other party has filed a notice of appeal, and no opinion has issued. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c). Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss 

the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

240346F.p05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

TIFFANNY JONES M.D. AND 

TJONESIVDMD, PLLC, Appellants 

No. 05-24-00346-CV V. 

FRISCO FERTILITY CENTER, 

PLLC D/B/A/ DALLAS IVF, 

Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 471st Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 471-02739-

2020. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Pedersen, III and 

Carlyle participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

 Subject to any agreement of the parties, it is ORDERED that each party 

bear its own costs of this appeal. 

Judgment entered July 30, 2024
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-85,300-01

EX P ARTE ADRIAN D . CURRY , Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1127146-A IN THE 338TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleade d guilty to possession of less than one g ram of coca ine and was sentenc ed to 150 day s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends, among other things, that his guilty plea was involuntary beca use he did not in fac t posse ss a controlled substance. The trial court made f indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law and rec ommended that we g rant relief
. Ex p a r t e Mabl e , 443 S.W .3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App.2

2014). Relief is grante d. T h e j udg ment in cause number 1127146 in the 338th District Court of Har ris County is set aside. I f in custody , Applicant is rema nded to the custody of t h e S h er i ff of Har ris County to answe r the charg es in the information. The trial co u rt s hall issue any nece ssary bench w arr ant within 10 day s after the mandate of this Court issues. Copie s of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ecti o n a l Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: Jul y

27, 2016 Do not publish
NUMBER 13-23-00090-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE TEODORO GUERRERO JR.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1

Relator Teodoro Guerrero Jr. filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting 

through four issues that the trial court erred by concluding that real party in interest Ana 

Maria Gutierrez-Salinas possesses standing in a suit regarding grandparent access to 

minor children. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 102.004(a)(1).

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 

47.1 (requiring the appellate courts to “hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that 

addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and 

memorandum opinions).
2

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. 

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial 

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re 

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two 

requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. Because a trial court’s temporary 

orders are not appealable, mandamus is an appropriate vehicle for review. See In re 

Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327, 334–35 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re 

Walser, 648 S.W.3d 442, 445 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2021, orig. proceeding); In re 

Strickland, 358 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, orig. proceeding); In re 

Ostrofsky, 112 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the record, the response filed by Gutierrez-Salinas, and the applicable law, is of the 

opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus. 

JAIME TIJERINA

Justice 

Delivered and filed on the

28th day of April, 2023.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor HUIJON-LEON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40278 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

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

Victor Huijon-Leon, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and ■ GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Huijon-Leon 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). Hui-jon-Leon 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.
# C_2014178EN.01002001.xml

| 12.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/20

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 June 2014

2014/C 178/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3547 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,19 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4615 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80700 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0467 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2179 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1085 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,445 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 305,62 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1138 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3958 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8460 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4419 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4749 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5012 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5831 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6936 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 377,96 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,5603 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,4376 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5810 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 000,89 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3540 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,363 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 46,5863 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,041 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0194 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,6653 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,3554 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3547

JPY

Japanese yen

138,19

DKK

Danish krone

7,4615

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80700

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0467

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2179

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1085

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,445

HUF

Hungarian forint

305,62

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1138

RON

Romanian leu

4,3958

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8460

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4419

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4749

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5012

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5831

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6936

KRW

South Korean won

1 377,96

ZAR

South African rand

14,5603

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,4376

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5810

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 000,89

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3540

PHP

Philippine peso

59,363

RUB

Russian rouble

46,5863

THB

Thai baht

44,041

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0194

MXN

Mexican peso

17,6653

INR

Indian rupee

80,3554

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### Charles G. KINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roger W. BOREN; David Lane, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-17255

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*411Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 28, 2017

Charles G. Kinney, Pro Se

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Kinney's request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Charles G. Kinney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing sua sponte his action arising from a state appellate court order requiring Kinney to post a security bond. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine. *Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kinney’s action as barred by the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine because Kinney’s claims amount to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment or are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. *See id.*at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kinney’s motion for a temporary restraining order. *See id.; Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv.,*351 F.3d 1291, 1298 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. *Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *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.