alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AAM-13-263-E

March 18, 2013

 Exemption No. 10729

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0225

Mr. Frank A. Ortega

Executive Director/DER

Stratus Helicopters, LLC

654 Wilmer Avenue

Cincinnati, OH 45226

Dear Mr. Ortega:

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 date posted February 28, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Stratus Helicopters, LLC (Stratus Helicopters) for an exemption from part 120 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow 

Stratus Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, 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 Stratus 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 testing programs into 

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

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 Stratus Helicopters, LLC an exemption from 14 CFR part

120 to the extent necessary to allow Stratus Helicopters, which is operating under separate 

parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, 

subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Stratus 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 testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Stratus Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                     
|View History: Annual                                               
|View History: Annual                                               
|View History:                                                      
|                                                                   
|New Mexico Natural Gas % of Total Residential Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                   
|                                                                   
|New Mexico Natural Gas % of Total Residential Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 0.64   | 0.64   | 0.59   | 0.64   | 0.74   | 0.79   | 0.75  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0.72   | 0.73   | 0.69   | 0.62   | 0.71   | 0.69   | 0.70   | 0.71   | 0.69   | 0.68  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0.74   | 0.73   | 0.78   | 0.74   | 0.64   | 0.72   | 0.75   | 0.68   | 0.69   | 0.84  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0.78   | 0.75   | 0.74   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
SCWC

- 18

- 0000898

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I, Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

ROMAN SEMES, Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 18

- 0000898; CASE NO. 2PC151 001014 (3))

ORDER DISMISSING CERTIORARI PROCEEDING (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.,
and Circuit Judge Ashford, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)

Upon further consideration of the records and files in

this case, it appearing that the writ of certiorari herein was

improvidently granted,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this certiorari proceeding

is dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, June 12 , 2020.

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ James H. Ashford

Electronically Filed Supreme Court
SCWC-18-0000898

12-JUN-2020
09:53 AM
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Rehabilicare Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, W. Glen
Winchell, 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:

         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/ W. Glen Winchell
                                                ----------------------------
                                                W. Glen Winchell
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                November 14, 2002
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1072 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, as the ‘‘Spencer Byrd Powers, 

Jr. Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2011 

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, as 

the ‘‘Spencer Byrd Powers, Jr. Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SPENCER BYRD POWERS, JR. POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mis6 sissippi, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Spencer 

7 Byrd Powers, Jr. Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1072 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Spencer Byrd Powers, 

3 Jr. Post Office’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11950]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket Nos. 94-76, 94-77, and 95-51, RMs-8470, 8477, 8523, 8524, 
and 8591]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Chester, Shasta Lake City, Alturas, 
McCloud, Weaverville, and Shingletown, California.

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission denied the petitions for reconsideration, filed 
by JAYNE sawyer d/b/a m. JAYNE enterprises of the Report and Order in 
MM Dockets No. 94-76 and 94-77, 61 FR 24242, published May 14, 1996, 
and of the Report and Order in MM Docket 95-51, 61 FR 40746, published 
August 6, 1996. It also affirms both Report and Orders and their 
respective allotting of FM channels to six California communities, 
which accommodated all requests for FM channels made by each of the 
petitioners for rule making. With this action, the proceeding is 
terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Bertron Withers, Jr., Mass Media 
Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket Nos. 94-76, 94-77, and 95-51, 
adopted April 15, 1998 and released April 24, 1998. The full text of 
this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 
M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision 
may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Services, 1231 20th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
Charles W. Logan,
Chief, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 98-11950 Filed 5-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Exhibit 99.1
                                                                  ------------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWABS, INC.
                   ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES TRUST 2005-BC5
                  ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-BC5


     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

(ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                         Dated: March 27, 2006
----------------

CRAIG BAINGO
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT



/s/ Kevin Meyers                                         Dated: March 27, 2006
----------------

KEVIN MEYERS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER, LOAN ADMINISTRATION
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20434-20435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10926]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-423]


Central Maine Power Company; Millstone Nuclear Power Station, 
Unit 3, Notice of Consideration of Issuance of an Order Regarding 
Restructuring of Central Maine Power Company

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(the Commission) is considering the issuance of an Order approving, 
under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 
50.80, an application regarding the proposed corporate restructuring of 
Central Maine Power Company (CMP), which holds a partial ownership 
interest in Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3. By application 
dated March 4,1998, CMP, by and through its counsel, Morgan, Lewis, and 
Bockius, informed the Commission that it is proposing to become a 
wholly owned subsidiary of a newly created holding company, HoldCo, 
which will be renamed later. Northeast Nuclear Energy Company will 
remain the licensed operator of Millstone Unit 3 and is not involved in 
the transaction. No direct transfer of the license or any interest 
therein will occur. Under the restructuring, the holders of CMP common 
stock will become the holders of the common stock of the holding 
company. After the restructuring, CMP will continue to be a public 
utility providing the same utility services as it did immediately prior 
to the restructuring, and will continue to be an ``electric utility'' 
under Commission regulations. According to the application, there will 
be no effect on the management, or sources of funds for operation, 
maintenance, or decommissioning, of

[[Page 20435]]

Millstone Unit 3 as a result of the corporate restructuring.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, the Commission may approve the transfer 
of control of a license after notice to interested persons. Such 
approval is contingent upon the Commission's determination that the 
holder of the license following the transfer is qualified to hold the 
license and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable 
provisions of law, regulations, and orders of the Commission.
    For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the 
application dated March 4, 1998. This document is available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers 
Community-Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, 
Connecticut, and at the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope 
Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of April 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Phillip F. McKee,
Deputy Director for Licensing, Special Projects Office, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-10926 Filed 4-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
#### NWC CREDIT SERVICE, LLC, Appellant, v. SHIPWORKS MARKETING, LTD., John M. Roth, Irene Jung, and Irene Roth, Appellees.

No. 4D16-3094

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[October 5, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael L. Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-11-09663 (12) and CACE-16-002881 (12).

Affirmed.
No. 12-171.

#### Brantley et al. *v.*NBC Universal, Inc., et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
Mercury General Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                                                             
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: August 4, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ THEODORE STALICK                                        
|                     |  |  |  | Theodore Stalick, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
**EXHIBIT 15.1**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 

Mercury General Corporation: 

We have reviewed the consolidated balance sheetof Mercury General Corporation and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2006, the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statementsof cash flows for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2006 and 2005. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. 

We conducted our reviews in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analyticalprocedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States),the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. 

We have previously audited, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet of MercuryGeneral Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our reportdated March 7, 2006, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. 

KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California 

May 9, 2006
##### 



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 Morton Industrial Group, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
William D. Morton, Chairman and 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 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 results of operations of the
Company.

/ s / William D. Morton

William D. Morton
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### STATE EX REL. Abdullah MUHAMMAD v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2016-KH-1573

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

1/9/2018

*544ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. JAMES

PER CURIAM:

h Denied. Relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated multiple applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La. C.Cr.P, art. ,930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La. C.Cr.P. art. 930,6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
#### SAWYER, D. v. SAWYER, R.

809 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/14/2017

Reargument Denied 10/24/2017

2005-00136

(Lebanon)

Affirmed