alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
April 8, 2011 

Mr. Gerald Hail 

H&H Road Boring Company, LLC 

14157 E. 580 Road 

Inola, OK 74036 

Dear Mr. Hail: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§ 21.187 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t 

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can’t Process Your Request 

We entered your January 31, 2011, exemption request on behalf of H&H Road Boring 

Company, LLC into the public docket (No. FAA-2011-0271), but we are unable to process 

your request any further. The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 

14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us 

all of the following: 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to 

send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption. 
2 

If We Don’t Hear From You 

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda D. Courtney 

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division 

Enclosure
#### COM. v. JEFFREY, T.

1787 WDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/14/2017

Reargument Denied 9/19/2017

CP-02-CR-0013390-2014 (Allegheny)

Affirmed
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19754-19755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10540]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,289]


CDR Ridgway, Ridgway, Pennsylvania; Notice of Revised 
Determination on Reconsideration

    The Department, on its own motion, has reconsidered its negative 
determination in United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, and 
United Steelworkers of America, Local 13694 v. Alexis Herman, No. 97-
09-01601, U.S. Court of International Trade. As a result of this 
reconsideration, the Department is now certifying the workers of CDR 
Ridgway in Ridgway, Pennsylvania as eligible to apply for trade 
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act.
    The April 28, 1997, denial of TAA for workers of the subject firm 
was based on the finding that criterion (2) of the group eligibility 
requirements of Section 222 of the Trade Act was not met. Company-wide 
sales of pigments increased in 1996 compared to 1995. Layoffs were 
attributable to the parent company's decision to transfer the Ridgway 
pigment production to three other domestic locations.
    New investigation findings show that although corporate-wide sales 
of pigments increased from 1995 to 1996, sales, production and 
employment at the Ridgway plant declined to zero when the plant closed 
in the first quarter of 1997. Accordingly, criteria (1) and (2) of 
Section 222 of the Trade Act are met.
    On reconsideration, the Department conducted a survey of Ridgway's 
major declining customers. Survey results show that in 1996 compared to 
1995, customers increased reliance on imports of pigments while 
decreasing purchases from CDR Ridgway, Ridgway, Pennsylvania.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the additional facts obtained on remand, it 
is concluded that increased imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with pigments produced at CDR Ridgway, Ridgway, 
Pennsylvania contributed importantly to the decline in sales or 
production and to the total or partial separation of workers at subject 
firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, I 
make the following revised determination:

    ``All workers of CDR Ridgway, Ridgway, Pennsylvania, who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 
19, 1996 through two years

[[Page 19755]]

from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 30th day of March, 1998.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-10540 Filed 4-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and result of operations                of                French Peak Resources, Inc. |

**FRENCH      PEAK RESOURCES, INC.**

| By:    | */s/                Robert Waters*                                                         |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  | ROBERT                WATERS                                                               |
|                  | President,                Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial                Officer, |
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                         
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Arizona Natural Gas Industrial Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Arizona Natural Gas Industrial Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 3.60   | 3.26   | 3.42  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4.79   | 6.23   | 6.49   | 6.54   | 6.91   | 8.53   | 9.90   | 10.49  | 10.47  | 8.19  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 7.54   | 6.86   | 5.78   | 6.29   | 7.52   | 6.78   | 5.79   | 6.47   | 5.98   | 4.12  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3.94   | 6.41   | 7.48   | NA     |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
#### Gerard BROOKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-4692

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed August 8, 2017

Rehearing Denied November 8, 2017

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Russell L. Healey, Judge.

AFFIRMED.
|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                  
|View History:                                                                                   
|                                                                                                
|Washington Natural Gas Price Sold to Electric Power Consumers  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                
|                                                                                                
|Washington Natural Gas Price Sold to Electric Power Consumers  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 3.44   |       
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        | 4.03   | 3.25   | 4.17   | 4.63   | 6.64   | 5.81   | 6.15   | 8.56   | 5.29  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 5.52   | W      | W      | W      | W      | W      | W      | W      | W      | W     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | W      | W      | W      | W      |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
* 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 97-10701

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GOBIND DARYANANI,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:97-CR-31-ALL-T)

February 3, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gobind Daryanani appeals the sentence that the district court

imposed pursuant to his plea agreement for conspiracy to traffic

and attempt to traffic in counterfeit goods. Daryanani argues that

the district court committed clear error in determining the value

of counterfeit merchandise seized and in calculating the value
-2-

attributable to counterfeit goods previously sold. We find that

the district court did not commit clear error in making these

determinations. See United States v. Ismoila, 100 F.3d 380, 396

(5th Cir. 1996) (setting forth the standard for review of loss

determination under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1); United States v. Kim, 963

F.2d 65, 69 (5th Cir. 1992).

Daryanani also argues that the district court committed an

error by failing to give him the three-point reduction pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1. In his plea agreement, he waived his right to

contest the district court’s failure to give him this reduction,

but the government has not raised the issue of waiver. Daryanani

had a storefront called Dallas Jewelry Findings from which

counterfeit goods were sold, and he employed persons to sell these

goods. Testimony at the sentencing hearing established that sales

of counterfeit goods amounted to 80 percent of the total sales of

Dallas Jewelry Findings, and that there were large quantities of

counterfeit merchandise in stock awaiting sale. Accordingly, the

district court did not commit any error when the court found that

it was reasonably certain that there would have been retail sales

of counterfeit goods absent government intervention. See United

States v. Sung, 51 F.3d 92, 95-96 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that

whether defendant is eligible for § 2X1.1 reduction depends upon

how close defendant comes to completing the sale of counterfeit

goods). As a result, the district court did not commit any error
-3-

by not giving Daryanani the three-point reduction pursuant to

§ 2X1.1.

AFFIRMED.
#### Walling v. Kansas Prisoner Review Bd.

114,340

07/15/2016

Denied.

Unpublished
233P16

#### State v. Alonzo Antonio Murrell

1. State’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-1097)

2. State’s Motion to Deem Petition Timely Filed

3. State’s Petition in the Alternative for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Decision of COA

4. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay

5. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

i.

2.

3.

4. Allowed 06/22/2016

5.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 4.34    
    


 
 

BARFAIR LIMITED    
    


 
 

Notice of Assignment  
    



17
March 2003 


To:
Virgin Express Holdings plc ("VEX") 


From:
Barfair Limited ("Barfair") 


Dear
Sirs 


€35,590,457.97 Receivable  


We
refer to the aggregate amount outstanding under a facility agreement dated 27 September 2000 as amended by agreement on 29 March 2001, 23 April 2002 and 5 November 2002
(as so amended, the
"Facility Agreement") being, as at 17 March 2003, €35,590,457.97, which includes accrued but unpaid interest of
€4,664,569.97 (the "Debt"). 


We
further refer to the security granted to us by you under a debenture dated 27 September 2002 (the "Debenture"). 


We
give notice to you that, pursuant to the terms of an Assignment of even date, we have assigned to Virgin Sky Investments (BVI) Limited ("VSIL") all
our right, title and interest in the Facility Agreement, in the Debt and under the Debenture. 


Please
treat this notice as confirmation that the charge registered against you in our favour can be released pursuant to the creation of a substitute charge in VSIL's favour. 


Please
acknowledge receipt of this Notice of Assignment by signing and returning to us and VSIL at 120 Campden Hill Road, London, W8 7AR, an acknowledgement in the form attached hereto. 


Yours
faithfully 


[Illegible] 


For
and on behalf of
 Barfair Limited


Registered
Office: 120 Campden Hill Road, London, W8 7AR. Registered in England No. 3552508 









QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.34


BARFAIR LIMITED

Notice of Assignment
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-14036) of James Hardie Industries N.V. and
Subsidiaries of our report dated May 2, 2003 relating to the financial
statements, which appears in this Form 20-F.

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
-----------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Los Angeles, California
July 1, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

January 7, 2011 

No. 09-3031

United States of America 

v. 

Jerry Whitfield, Appellant 

(D.N.J. No. 1-08-cr-00685-001) 

Present: BARRY, CHAGARES, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

1. Motion by Appellee to Amend Opinion. 

Respectfully, 

 Clerk/slc 

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing motion is GRANTED. 

 By the Court, 

 

 /s/ Maryanne Trump Barry

 Circuit Judge 

Dated: January 19, 2011 

SLC/cc: Norman Gross 

 Maggie F. Moy
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the
balance sheet and statements of operations found on pages 3 and 4
of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in
its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
#### State v. Pennington

112,117

10/07/2015

Denied

Unpublished
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Mark IV Industries, Inc. and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  414,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,100
<INVENTORY>                                    328,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,002,600
<PP&E>                                         857,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 257,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,142,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          576,000
<BONDS>                                        794,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                     537,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,142,400
<SALES>                                      1,001,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,001,300
<CGS>                                          686,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  904,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 69,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             44,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,500
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    800
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    47,400
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .88


</TABLE>
#### COM. v. ELLERBY, D.

1884 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/14/2017

CP-06-CR-0003728-1996, CP-06-CR-0003729-1996, (Berks)

Affirmed
#### State v. Shultz

112,477

09/14/2015

Denied

Unpublished
**Exhibit 99.3******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 on Form 10-Q of Madison Gas and Electric  Company for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gary J. Wolter,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that:

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

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
/s/ Gary J. WolterGary J. Wolter      Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer      November 14, 2002**
#### Joseph Perry COLLINS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-5089, CASE NO.: 2D16-3364

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 19, 2017

L.T. No.: 13-CF-002197-B

Dismissed.