alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 2, 2015

Mr. Mike Sharp

Space Printing

312 Eureka Avenue

Berryville, AR 72616

Dear Mr. Sharp:

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

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

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

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your July 14, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Space Printing filed in 

Docket No. FAA−2015−2923, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your 

petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider 

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

 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 would not 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.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
# Pearl Harbor’s Bailey awarded Senior Non-Commissioned Officer of the Quarter

/ Published May 3, 2016
PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii, 
Air Force Senior Master Sgt. Christopher Bailey, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, has been awarded the Distribution Senior Non-Commissioned Officer of the Quarter for second quarter, fiscal year 2016 for his leadership in the workplace and the community.

“His enthusiasm for mission accomplishment and unwavering commitment to the employees of DLA Distribution Pearl Harbor are truly remarkable,” said deputy commander Thomas Dillon.

Bailey manages Air Force and Navy personnel readiness programs for 11 geographically-separated warriors, maintaining combat readiness.  Most recently, he led a resiliency in action seminar, during which he facilitated an open discussion on issues affecting the enlisted force, ultimately eliminating fear of asking for help and reinforcing DoD avenues for assistance.

According to Dillon, Bailey’s understanding of DOD, Air Force, Navy, and DLA programs has been instrumental to the distribution center’s success.  This knowledge has enabled Bailey to successfully manage the distribution center’s Continuity of Operations program, coordinate implementation of the new Air Force Evaluations System across all of DLA’s Primary-Level Field Activities, and mentor employees on resiliency.  

Additionally, Bailey authorized the distribution center’s first ever staff duty officer Standard Operating Procedures, codifying response criteria, chain of command, and safety and security protocols in the event of an emergency.  This plan ensures 24/7 support to United States Pacific Command’s 1,600 aircraft, 200 ships and 360,000 warfighters.

To properly secure the distribution center’s financial accountability and audit readiness records, he teamed with DLA Document Services, assisting in the upload of 13,000 items into Electronic Document Management System.

In his personal time, he has partnered with the local Fleet Logistics Center to assist the Kalihi Valley Food Drive, maximizing the efforts of over 20 volunteers, delivering over 1,000 pounds of food to 62 families.

He also serves as the Hawaii Special Olympics basketball coordinator, where he has dedicated 32 hours of his time officiating two tournaments, promoting the physical, mental, social, and spiritual benefits of sports training and competition for more than 870 athletes.

 “Master Sgt. Bailey’s involvement supporting Hawaii Special Olympics, the Kalihi Valley Food Drive, and the DLA enlisted force are truly a testament to his dedication to others,” said Dillon.
#### E.C.K., In re; E.N.K, In re 52

02/01/2016

963 MAL (2015)

52

. Justice EAKIN and Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter; Justice DONOHUE and Justice DOUGHERTY dissent.

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 504
No. 10-7182.

#### Jimmy Augusto Restrepo, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1075, 131 S. Ct. 676,

178 L. Ed. 2d 502,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9129.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2

 

**                                                THE MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY                                                   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 The Monarch Cement Company (the"Company") onForm 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with theSecurities and ExchangeCommission on the datehereof (the "Report"), theundersigned, in the capacity and on the dateindicated below, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects,the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to TheMonarchCement Company and will be retained by The MonarchCement Company and furnishedto the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

Dated:  May 9, 2008

                                                                                              /s/ Debra P. Roe                                                                                                                      Debra P. Roe, CPA                                                                                            Chief Financial Officer and                                                                                            Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00221-CR

Kelly McKinley Shelton

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

207th District Court of Comal County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR2013-534

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 29, 2018
# C_2015073EN.01002801.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Blue Coat Systems (BLUECO)

(Case T-685/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BLUECO - Earlier Community word mark BLUE COAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2015/C 073/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (Sunnyvale, California, United States) (represented by: V. Dalichau, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 2028/2012-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Blue Coat Systems, Inc. and Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

---
Exhibit 23.1: CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

GPS Industries, Inc.
Surrey, B. C.
Canada

       We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
       Statements on Form S-8 (File 333- 99259, 333-73298 and 333-110364) of GPS
       Industries, Inc. of our report dated April 13, 2004 relating to the
       financial statements of GPS Industries, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and
       2002 and for the years then ended, which report is included in this
       Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.

/s/ Sherb & Co. LLP
New York, New York
April 20, 2004
No. 10-7022.

#### Larry W. Ledet, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1051, 131 S. Ct. 618,

178 L. Ed. 2d 448,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8919.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 392.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Ferretti, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 897]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered September 16, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned *723counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Connolly and Christopher, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SS. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350),
the undersigned, David C. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of Network-1 Security
Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify to
his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





                                       /S/ DAVID C. KAHN
                                       -----------------------
                                       CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                       MAY 12, 2006
# C_2014045EN.01001702.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2013 — Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna v Josef Grünewald

(Case C-559/13)

2014/C 45/31

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna

Applicant:

Defendant: Josef Grünewald

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) preclude legislation of a Member State under which private support payments by non-resident taxable persons which are connected with a transfer of revenue-producing domestic assets in the course of a so-called anticipated succession are not tax deductible, whereas such payments are deductible in the case of full liability to taxation, but the deduction results in a corresponding tax liability for a (fully taxable) recipient of the payments?

---
# Distribution Anniston’s Team of the Quarter

/ Published April 5, 2016
ANNISTON, Alabama, 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Anniston, Ala’s., Support Office Team has been awarded the Team of the Quarter award for demonstrating superior performance and attention to detail during various crisis management situations.
The Support Office Team consistently performs their duties in an exemplary and highly professional manner.  Recently, DLA Distribution Anniston was directed to conduct a 100 percent bare metal serial number inventory of its weapons facility.  During the initial planning process, it was determined that having enough supplies on hand to complete inventory in the short amount of time directed would be one of the greatest and most crucial challenges in completing the mission.  The expertise, knowledge and experience possessed by support office personnel allowed DLA Distribution Anniston to order, receive and issue the correct supplies and vital material allowing the wall to wall to begin as scheduled.  The team’s ability and familiarity in dealing with the DLA Distribution Contracting Office and vendors was critical in packaging material and support equipment being delivered before inventory.  

The team is skilled in initiating, processing, researching, tracking and conducting follow up of all requirement justifications for supplies and material which has been a key contributor to the overall success of the mission.  Additionally, the ability of the support office team to work in conjunction with Anniston Army Depot Directorate of Public Works on the maintenance of the material handling equipment has had a positive impact on the mission of the organization.  

Due to the uniqueness of material handling equipment used by DLA Distribution Anniston, it requires precise attention to detail maintenance.  The organization would be unable to complete its mission without this equipment, and the readiness of this equipment is critical to mission.  The support office is also responsible for training all assigned MHE operators and their training program has been continuously recognized as the standard for DLA Distribution.

“The support office is a group of very resourceful professionals with a strong sense of professionalism and willingness to support the organization” said Darryl McMillon, division chief, Services and Support Division.
No. 10-525.

#### In re William E. Orcutt, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1107, 131 S. Ct. 831,

178 L. Ed. 2d 580,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9701.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
SIP - SWCAA - Section 400-107 

SWAPCA 400-107 EXCESS EMISSIONS 

(1) The owner or operator of a source shall have the burden of proving to the Authority 

or the decision-making entity (e.g., Pollution Control Hearings Board) in an enforcement 

action that excess emissions were unavoidable. This demonstration shall be a condition to 

obtaining relief under subsections (4), (5) and (6) of this section. 

(2) Excess emissions determined by the Authority to be unavoidable under the 

procedures and criteria in this section shall be excused and not subject to penalty. 

(3) Excess emissions shall be reported to the Authority as soon as possible. Upon request 

by the Authority, the owner(s) or operator(s) of the source(s) shall submit a full written 

report including the known causes, the corrective actions taken, and the preventive 

measures to be taken to minimize or eliminate the chance of recurrence. 

(4) Excess emissions due to startup or shutdown conditions shall be considered 

unavoidable provided the source reports as required under subsection (3) of this section 

and adequately demonstrates that the excess emissions could not have been prevented 

through careful planning and design and if a bypass of control equipment occurs, that 

such bypass is necessary to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property 

damage. 

(5) Excess emissions due to scheduled maintenance shall be considered unavoidable if 

the source reports as required under subsection (3) of this section and adequately 

demonstrates that the excess emissions could not have been avoided through reasonable 

design, better scheduling for maintenance or through better operation and maintenance 

practices. 

(6) Excess emissions due to upsets shall be considered unavoidable provided the source 

reports as required under subsection (3) of this section and adequately demonstrates 

that: 

(a) The event was not caused by poor or inadequate design, operation, 

maintenance, or any other reasonably preventable condition; 

(b) The event was not of a recurring pattern Indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(c) The operator took immediate and appropriate corrective action in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions during 

the event, taking into account the total emissions impact of the corrective action, 

including slowing or shutting down the emission unit as necessary to minimize 

emissions, when the operator knew or should have known that an emission 

standard or permit condition was being exceeded. 

State effective: 9/21/95; EPA effective: 4/28/97
No. 10-6636.

#### Francisco Barron-Lopez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1016, 131 S. Ct. 537,

178 L. Ed. 2d 395,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8407.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 309.
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-20174 Summary Calendar

LYNISE NICHOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS THE CITY OF SPRING VALLEY; JOHN COOK, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

(H-95-CV-1219) September 5, 1997 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: 1 Plaintiff-Appe llant sued the City and its police chief alleging violations of Title VII, an d 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule
12 (b)(6 ), and, in the alternative, their motion for summary judgment. We affirm. Appellan t is employed by the City as a motorcycle patrol officer, a position she actively sought. She claims, however, that2

she was discriminated against and retaliated against because she was treated differently than the male officers who have held that job. We do not here recite the details of her allegations or of the evidence offered in the summary judgment record. Our review of the evidence fully convinces us that Pl aintiff-Appellant did not create a single issue of fact on the issues necessary for her to make a prima facie case. She does not show either retaliation or discrimination. We therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment. Having affirmed on that basis, we do not address the Rule 12(b)(6) issues.
AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Django K., a Child Alleged to be Abused, Appellant. Carl K., Respondent, et al., Petitioner.

[52 NYS3d 14]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2016, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition brought by petitioner the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) on behalf of the subject child against respondent father on the ground that petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent sexually abused the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record provides no basis to overturn the court’s credibility finding as to the mother’s testimony. Because the child was not called in the proceeding, there are no admissions by the father, and there was no physical evidence of sexual abuse; the only proof offered were hearsay statements. The out-of-court statements of the child were not sufficiently corroborated to establish abuse by a preponderance of the evidence *(Matter of Nicole V.,*71 NY2d 112, 117-118 [1987]). On this record, the court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to qualify a *406witness as an expert child sexual abuse validator *{id.*at 118-120).

In any event, even if the witness had been qualified as an expert, there still was not sufficient proof in the record. The out-of-court video statements made by the child have several inconsistencies, and the child stated he could not remember certain details upon further questioning by the Manhattan Child Advocacy Center interviewer. The mother’s account, which the court doubted, also had many inconsistencies. Moreover, the child’s parents are involved in a custody dispute, and these allegations cannot be separated from the dispute between the parties. Although we recognize the allegations are very serious, and we are concerned about this young child’s familiarity with certain adult sexual terms, on the limited record here, we find no basis to reverse the court’s findings.

Concur— Acosta, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Webber, JJ.