alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2017-0881.

#### In re Scudder.

On certified entry of felony conviction. Steven C. Scudder, Attorney Registration No. 0044134, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.
AAM-13-292-E April 17, 2013

Exemption No. 10284A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0574

Mr. Monte R. Myers Double M Helicopters, Inc. 2429 Pirates Loop, S.E. Mandan, ND 58554

Dear Mr. Myers:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 10284. It explains the basis for our decision, desc ribes its effect, and lists the conditions and

limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 14, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Double M Helicopters, Inc. (Double M) for an extension of Exemption No. 10284. That exemption from § 120.117(a)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)allows Double M, which is operating under separate parts of 14 CFR, to cover its safetysensitive employees under one drug testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

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 Double M.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10284 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the2

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Double M 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 Double M part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2015 unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-31307

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT DIXON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-188-N

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

June 20, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges., 

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Dixon seeks to appeal the denial of his FED. R. CRIM.

P. 12(b)(2) motion in forma pauperis (IFP) and, therefore,

challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal is

not taken in good faith. Our inquiry “is limited to whether the

appeal involves `legal points arguable on their merits (and

therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220

(5th Cir. 1983)(citation omitted). 
No. 01-31307 

-2-

Dixon argues that the district court improperly denied his

motion to reconsider his Rule 12(b)(2) motion because under the

“mailbox” rule his motion was timely. He also argues that his

Rule 12(b)(2) motion was timely because his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion was pending. Dixon further contends that due to

ineffective assistance of counsel the court should find his claim

was not waived under FED. R. CRIM. P. 12(f). In his reply brief,

Dixon asks if this court can reinstate his prior out-of-time

notice of appeal. 

Dixon’s appeal does not involve legal points arguable on the

merits. First, Dixon misunderstands the ruling that he has

appealed. The district court did consider the merits. 

In United States v. Cotton, 122 S. Ct. 1781 (2002), the

Supreme Court considered a challenge to the indictment based on

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), raised on direct

appeal. The Supreme Court held that a defective indictment does

not deprive a court of jurisdiction and overruled prior law to

the contrary. Cotton, 122 S. Ct. at 1785. Consequently, Rule

12(b)(2)’s provision that defenses and objections based on the

indictment’s failure to show jurisdiction or to charge an offense

“shall be noticed by the court at any time during the pendency of

the proceedings” is meaningless where the defendant argues that

the indictment was defective.

This court does not reach Dixon’s request that it

“reinstate” his attempt to file an out-of-time appeal because it
No. 01-31307 

-3-

was raised for the first time in Dixon’s reply brief. See Cinel

v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Thus, Dixon’s appeal does not raise any legal point arguable

on its merits. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, the

motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED as

frivolous pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d

197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997).

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
No. 10-5735.

#### Courtney Omar Boyd, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 936, 131 S. Ct. 340,

178 L. Ed. 2d 221,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7624.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 599 F.3d 360.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6547
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LIONEL RAY HAIRSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:98-cr-00097-sgw-1) Submitted: June 13, 2008 Decided: June 27, 2008 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lionel Ray Hairston, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lionel Ray Hairston appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000), seeking a reduction to his sentence based on an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Goines , 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (motion under § 3582(c) “is subject to the discretion of the district court”); United States v. Legree , 205 F.3d 724, 727 (4th Cir. 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
----

**CONSENT OF EXPERT**

 Thomas Tulp, AusIMM  Hatch,   144 Stirling St. Perth WA 6000, Australia 

 To:              US  Securities and Exchange Commission 

 Re:              Anooraq  Resources Corporation Form on 20F for the Fiscal year ended December 31, 2004

I, Thomas Tulp, AusIMM., hereby certify that I have read the disclosure in connection with the Boikgantsho Joint Venture Property contained in the subject 20F and hereby consent to the reference to myself as a named expert in the written disclosurein the Form 20F of Anooraq Resources Corporation. 

 Dated this 30 day of June, 2005. 

*/s/ Thomas Tulp*  Thomas Tulp, AusIMM  Hatch

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001026459
<NAME>                        ARAMEX INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         10,252
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  20,790
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,452
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               33,107
<PP&E>                                         11,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 41,320
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,999
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       49
<OTHER-SE>                                     25,926
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   41,320
<SALES>                                        83,611
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               83,611
<CGS>                                          44,795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  80,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               40
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             130
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,294
<INCOME-TAX>                                   292
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,001
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,001
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.62



</TABLE>
No. 10-17.

#### Benoit Brookens, Petitioner v. Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor.

562 U.S. 890, 131 S. Ct. 225,

178 L. Ed. 2d 136,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6573.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Exhibit 15.6




CONSENT




We hereby consent to the reference to our “valuation of Series A Debentures of Plaza Centers N.V.” as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elbit Imaging Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2009 and to the incorporation by reference of this Annual Report in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-117509, No. 333-130852, No. 333-136684 and No. 333-152820) filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd. and in the Shelf Prospectus filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd. with the Israeli Securities Authority and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange on July 21, 2009.




This consent is not to be construed as an admission that we are an expert or that we are a person whose consent is required to be filed with the Annual Report under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.




/s/Financial ImmunitiesLtd.

Financial Immunities Ltd.




Rehovot, Israel


May 9, 2010
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Optex Systems, Inc. ) ) Under Contract No. W52H09-06-D-0229 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 58220

Albert B. Krachman, Esq.

Blank Rome LLP Washington, DC Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney MAJ Lawrence P. Gilbert, JA CPT Cali Y. Kim, JA

Trial Attorneys ORDER OF DISMISSAL The appeal has been settled and appellant has requested it be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board's docket with prejudice. Dated: 13 January 2016

Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 58220, Appeal ofOptex Systems, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|Price of Alcan, AK Natural Gas Liquefied Natural Gas Imports (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|Price of Alcan, AK Natural Gas Liquefied Natural Gas Imports (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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 9.90   | 9.68  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 9.10   | --     | 12.07  | 7.99   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### In the Matter of Help Me See, Inc., Respondent, v Wonderwork, Inc., Formerly Known as Surgery for the Poor, Inc., Appellant. Clark Kokich et al., Nonparty Intervenors.

[69 NYS3d 275]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered December 2, 2016, which granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitration award was properly confirmed. Contrary to respondent’s contention, the award did not improperly redirect specific charitable donations based on a determination of donor intent. Rather, it awarded expectation damages sufficient to restore petitioner to the position it would have been in had respondent performed as promised under the parties’ agreement *(see Emposimato v CIFC Acquisition Corp.,*89 AD3d 418, 421 [1st Dept 2011]). As such, New York’s public policy protecting donor intent was not implicated *(see*Not-For-Profit Corporation Law §§513 [b]; 555 [b], [e]; *Alco Gravure, Inc. v Knapp Found.,*64 NY2d 458, 467-468 [1985]; *Matter of Friends for Long Island’s Heritage,*80 AD3d 223, 230-231, 235 [2d Dept 2010]).

Since the damages awarded were compensatory in nature, the award also did not violate New York law holding that arbitrators do not have authority to award punitive damages *(see Garrity v Lyle Stuart, Inc.,*40 NY2d 354, 356 [1976]), assuming that the arbitration was governed by New York law.

Whether or not respondent will be able to pay the award without resort to restricted-purpose funds is irrelevant *(see Board of Educ. of Yonkers City School Dist. v Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers,*46 NY2d 727, 729 [1978]). The award did not designate any particular source from which the damages had to be paid. The issue of what funds may be used may be raised in the bankruptcy court *(Matter of Wonderwork, Inc.,*Bankr SD NY, index No. 16-13607).

*456We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
From: Buckingham, Wendy [mailto:wendy.buckingham@HQ.DHS.GOV] 

Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 9:07 AM

To: Buckingham, Wendy

Subject: National Consultation Proposed DHS Supplemental Ethics Regulation

From: Livoti, Carmen 

Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 8:52 AM

To: 'Colleen Kelley'

Cc: Jonathan Levine

Subject: National Consultation Proposed DHS Supplemental Ethics Regulation

Dear Ms. Kelley,

The Department of Homeland Security’s proposed Supplemental Ethics Regulation is hereby provided in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 7113(b)(1). Please provide your comments and/or recommendations to me by 

April 13, 2015. We are attaching the comments NTEU submitted in response to the Federal Register 

notice. Please advise if NTEU wishes to add anything to the comments provided. If you have any 

questions or require further information, please contact me. You can reach me at 202-357-8175 and via 

e-mail at carmen.livoti@hq.dhs.gov.

Respectfully,

Carmen Livoti

Senior Labor & Employee Relations Advisor

MGMT/OCHCO/ HCPP

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

202-357-8175/202-573-3445(bb)
No. 09-10316.

#### Jimmy Joel Beasley, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 801, 131 S. Ct. 79,

178 L. Ed. 2d 1,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6622.

October 4, 2010.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438, 130 S. Ct. 2229, 176 L. Ed. 2d 1152 (2010).

Same case below, 361 Fed. Appx. 86.
##### 



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
  (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.
 August 12, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Rocco B. CommissoRocco B. CommissoChief Executive Officer By:
    /s/ Mark E. StephanMark E. StephanPrincipal Financial Officer
#### Com. v. Williams

12/16/2015

554 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1126
|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                              
|View History:                                                               
|                                                                            
|Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to France (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to France (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 3,337  | 20,636 | 7,417  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00611-CR

Raymond SANDOVAL,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CR-14433

Honorable Angus McGinty, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 7, 2012

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

On April 14, 2010, appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision 

for a period of three years. On February 7, 2012, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt and 

revoke appellant’s community supervision; it subsequently filed two supplements to the pending 

motion. The trial court entered an order on August 1, 2012 continuing appellant on deferred 

adjudication community supervision, but modifying the conditions of community supervision by 

ordering appellant to enter a residential treatment program. Appellant filed a notice of appeal 

from the trial court’s order modifying the conditions of his community supervision. This court 
04-12-00611-CR

- 2 -

does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order altering or modifying the 

conditions of community supervision. See Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1977); Quaglia v. State, 906 S.W.2d 112, 113 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, no pet.). On 

October 1, 2012, this court issued an order for appellant to show cause within ten days 

explaining why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant’s counsel 

has filed a written response agreeing that this appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, this 

appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH