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

- 13

- 263

- E March 18, 2013

Exemption No. 1072 9 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

, 201 3

, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (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 exemptio n, 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 publish ing 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 petiti on. In Grant of Exemption No

. 9 703 (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 A dministrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Stratus Helicopters , LLC an exemption from 14 CFR p art
120 to the extent necessary to allow Stratus Helicopters

, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety

- sensitive empl oyees under one testing program

, subj ect to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. E mployees of Stratus Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 13 5 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.

Sinc erely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
No. 12-501.

#### Cullen *v.*Village of Pelham Manor, New York, et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History:                                                                            
|                                                                                         
|Wisconsin Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers - Transported  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                         
|                                                                                         
|Wisconsin Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers - Transported  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 859    | 1,438  | 1,575 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1,868  | 1,362  | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
No. 12-6749.

#### Linder *v.*Donat, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-370.

#### Coppola *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 12-7246.

#### Ballard *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                             
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|California Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|California Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 31     | 44,764 | 44,680 | 46,243
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 46,048 | 44,865 | 40,528 | 42,748 | 38,750 | 38,457 | 36,613 | 35,830 | 36,235 | 36,435
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 35,391 | 34,893 | 33,725 | 34,617 | 41,487 | 40,226 | 38,637 | 39,134 | 39,591 | 38,746
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 38,006 | 37,575 | 37,686 | 37,996 | 37,548 | 36,853 | 37,242 | 36,833 | 36,060 | 35,625
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 35,517 | 35,498 | 34,860 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00013-CR

NO. 03-03-00014-CR

Jack Garner Wright, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 53,201 & 53,200, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Jack Garner Wright pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a child and indecency with 

a child by contact. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. '' 21.11, 22.011 (West 2003). In both cases, the district court 

adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to eighteen years in prison.

Appellant=s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeals are frivolous 

and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be 

advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 

553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of 
2

counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate 

record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree that the appeals are frivolous 

and without merit. We find nothing in the record of either cause that might arguably support the appeal. 

Counsel=s motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

 

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: April 10, 2003

Do Not Publish
Order entered October 11, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00392-CV

CAROL S. ABLON, ET AL., Appellants

V.

WILLIAM NEAL ABLON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-14902-I

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s October 4, 2013 unopposed motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief. Appellee shall file his brief on or before November 20, 2013. We caution appellee 

that no further extension of time will be granted in this accelerated appeal absent extraordinary 

circumstances.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
No. 12-7385.

#### Cook *v.*Humphrey, Warden.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
January 8, 2013

No. 11-338.

No. 11-347.

#### Decker, Oregon State Forester, et al. *v.*Northwest Environmental Defense Center; and Georgia-Pacific West, Inc., et al. *v.*Northwest Environmental Defense Center.

C. A. 9th Cir. [Cer-tiorari granted, 567 U. S. 933.] Motion of petitioners in No. 11-338 for leave to file supplemental brief after argument granted. Other parties to these eases and the Solicitor General may file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 3,000 words each, addressing the effect of the Environmental Protection Agency’s amendment to its stormwater-discharge rule on or before Tuesday, January 22, 2013.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**and**


**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 Cobra Oil & Gas Company (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Massimiliano Pozzoni,
      Chief Executive and 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/
                Massimiliano PozzoniName:
            Massimiliano
                PozzoniTitle:
            Chief
                Executive and Financial OfficerDate:
            August
                14, 2008
No. 12-688.

#### Autotel *v.*Nevada Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T of Nevada.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-7170.

#### Haynes *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000064892
<NAME> FDS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           54518
<SECURITIES>                                      2331
<RECEIVABLES>                                    38881
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      31371
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                149173
<PP&E>                                           36624
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1744
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  202522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            29302
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         24450
<OTHER-SE>                                        1549
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    202522
<SALES>                                          60144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 60144
<CGS>                                            21520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    50177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  10196
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3220
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               6976
<DISCONTINUED>                                    6937
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     13913
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.2


                      AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


  This Amendment to the original Employment Agreement, dated October 18, 1994,
between Medex, Inc. (the "Company") and Bradley P. Gould (the "Employee") is
hereby effective as of the date of execution herein.

                                    RECITALS
                                    --------

A.   WHEREAS, Employee, who previously served as Senior Vice President of
     European Operations, has recently been elected Chief Executive Officer of
     the Company and the Company recognizes that Employee is a valuable
     resource for the Company and the Company desires to be assured of the
     continued service of Employee; and

B.   WHEREAS, Employee has concerns about the continuation of his employment
     and/or his status and responsibilities with the Company in the event of a
     possible or threatened change in control of the Company; and

C.   WHEREAS, the Company is concerned about the possible effect on Employee of
     the uncertainties created by any proposed or threatened change of control,
     whether approved by the Board of Directors or otherwise, and the
     possibility that Employee may be approached by others with employment
     opportunities.

D.   WHEREAS, Employee is willing to continue to serve as Chief Executive
     Officer but desires assurance that in the event of any such change in
     control, regardless of its approval by the Board of Directors, he will
     continue to have the responsibility and status he has earned.

   THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other valuable
consideration, the parties agree to amend the original Employment Agreement as
follows:
<PAGE>   2

1. Delete Section 1(e) of the Employment Agreement.

2. All other recitals, terms and conditions as set forth in the original
   Employment Agreement dated October 18, 1994, shall remain unchanged and in
   full force and effect.

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed on the    1st    day of
                                                              ---------
November  , 1995.
----------

            Medex, Inc.


            By: Robert E. Boyd, Jr.       
                -----------------------

            Its:  Secretary               
                 ----------------------


            Bradley P. Gould,             
            ---------------------------
            Bradley P. Gould, Employee





                                       2
No. 11-9540.

#### Descamps *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 567 U. S. 964.] Motion of petitioner for leave to file volume II of the joint appendix under seal granted.
#### In the Matter of Wesley Vaughn, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing/Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 415]

— CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court by an order of Supreme Court, Oneida County (Siegel, J.), entered April 1, 2003, seeking review of a determination after a Tier III hearing.

It is hereby ordered that said proceeding be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot *(see Matter of Free v Coombe,*234 AD2d 996 [1996]). Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
No. 11-10831.

#### In re Parker.

Petition for writ of prohibition denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13368]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Gulf War Expert Scientific Advisory Committee, Notice of 
Availability of Executive Summary of Meeting Held on March 30-31, 1998

    Notice is hereby given that the Executive Summary of the Gulf War 
Expert Scientific Advisory Committee meeting held on March 30-31, 1998, 
is available.
    The Executive Summary outlines the activities and recommendations 
of the meeting relative to patient care and medical diagnoses affecting 
Gulf War era veterans. It is available for public inspection at the 
below location:

Dr. Robert Allen (13), Executive Secretary, Department of Veterans 
Affairs, Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards, VA Central 
Office, Room 872, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420.

    Dated: May 11, 1998.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
Heyward Bannister,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-13368 Filed 5-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern 1

District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

2

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2842

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Odel Clay, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 15, 1999

Filed: January 21, 1999

___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, MURPHY, Circuit Judge, and VIETOR, District

1

Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Odel Clay pleaded guilty to a federal crack cocaine charge, preserving for appeal

his claim that the District Court erred by denying his motion to suppress. 2
-2-

Having carefully considered Clay’s appeal, we conclude that the motion to

suppress was correctly denied. Accordingly, Clay’s conviction is affirmed. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Presidential Documents

26419

Federal Register

Vol. 63, No. 91

Tuesday, May 12, 1998

Title 3—

The President

Presidential Determination No. 98–21 of April 28, 1998

Presidential Determination on the Proposed Agreement for

Cooperation Between the United States of America and

Ukraine Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy

Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the Secretary of Energy

I have considered the proposed Agreement for Cooperation Between the

United States of America and Ukraine Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear

Energy, along with the views, recommendations, and statements of the interested agencies.

I have determined that the performance of the agreement will promote,

and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to, the common defense and

security. Pursuant to section 123b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 2153(b)), I hereby approve the proposed agreement

and authorize you to arrange for its execution.

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this determina-

[FR Doc. 98–12816

tion in the 

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, April 28, 1998.

Federal Register.

œ–

Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M