alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 8, 2016

Mr. Jeremy Salo Jeremy Salo
26652 Wilton Court New Hudson, MI 48165

Re: FAA–2015–8448

Dear Mr. Salo:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and
have determined that we will con tinue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov , we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request. We have determined that your request requires further regulatory relief (T ier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federa l Register for public comments, if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final deci sion on your petition as s oon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,
/s/
Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
No. 10-7150.

#### Rashaan A. Hall, Petitioner v. Maryland.

562 U.S. 1095, 131 S. Ct. 804,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9449.

178 L. Ed. 2d 538,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.

Same case below, 188 Md. App. 728.
# C_2013079EN.01002701.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/27

---

Action brought on 22 January 2013 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)

(Case T-30/13)

2013/C 79/47

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Villiger Söhne GmbH (Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2012 in Case R 731/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2012 in Case R 731/2012-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘LIBERTE american blend’ for goods in Class 34 — Community trade mark application No 7 481 252

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Villiger Söhne GmbH

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ and the figurative mark including the word elements ‘La LIBERTAD’ for goods in Classes 14 and 34

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
No. 10-495.

#### L.E.K., Petitioner v. D.R.S.

562 U.S. 1045, 131 S. Ct. 612,

178 L. Ed. 2d 436,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8853.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, denied.

Same case below, 33 So. 3d 428.
ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES, INC. and SUBSIDIARY
                  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSSES) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                   1999           1998           1997
                                                ----------     ----------     ----------
<S>                                           <C>            <C>            <C>    <C>
BASIC
     Weighted average number of shares
        outstanding                             13,019,657     11,116,619     10,729,802

     Net loss                                 $(13,777,589)  $(16,664,999)  $(17,954,612)

BASIC NET LOSS PER SHARE                      $      (1.06)  $      (1.50)  $      (1.67)
                                              =============  =============  =============

DILUTED
     Weighted average number of shares
         outstanding                            13,019,657     11,116,619     10,729,802
     Weighted average shares for dilutive
        securities                                       0              0              0
                                              ------------   ------------   ------------

          Average number of shares
               Outstanding and potential
                    dilutive shares             13,019,657     11,116,619     10,729,802

     Net loss                                 $(13,777,589)  $(16,664,999)  $(17,954,612)

DILUTED NET LOSS PER SHARE                      $    (1.06)    $    (1.50)    $    (1.67)
                                                ===========    ===========    ===========


</TABLE>
No. 10-7787.

#### Lorenzo Rainer, aka Reno Rainer, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1161, 131 S. Ct. 968,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 63.

178 L. Ed. 2d 796,

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 616 F.3d 1212.
#### Com. v. Ibrahim 13

04/27/2016

634 EAL (2016)

13

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

Denied

Pa.Super., 127 A.3d 819
Exhibit 31

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth J. Eaken, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Lexon Technologies, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2003  /S/Kenneth J. Eaken
                         Principal Executive Officer
                         Principal Financial Officer
# C_2013141EN.01001902.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/19

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Communicaid Group v Commission

(Case T-4/13 R)

(Interim measures - Public services contracts - Tendering procedure - Language training services - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer - Application for suspension of operation and interim measures - Loss of opportunity - Lack of serious and irreparable damage - Lack of urgency)

2013/C 141/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Communicaid Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Brennan, Solicitor, F. Randolph QC and M. Gray, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, Agents, and by P. Wytinck, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of decisions of the Commission rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicant in respect of several lots in a call for tenders relating to framework contracts for the provision of language training to staff of the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union in Brussels (Belgium) and, further, for an order prohibiting the Commission from entering into contracts for the lots at issue with the successful tenderer.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
No. 10-7130.

#### Dante Ricardo Boyd, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1074, 131 S. Ct. 673,

178 L. Ed. 2d 501,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9308.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.

Same case below, 998 A.2d 866.
# C_2015398EN.01003401.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-358/13) (1)

1

((EAFRD - Clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAFRD - Decision declaring a certain amount to be non-reusable in connection with the Basilicata Region Rural Development Plan - Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 398/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and B. Tidore, acting as Agents, and M. Salvatorelli, avoccato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/209/EU of 26 April 2013 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2012 financial year (OJ 2013 L 118, p. 23), in so far as it classifies as a ‘non-reusable amount’ the amount of EUR 5 0 06  487,10 relating to the Basilicata Region (Italy) Rural Development Plan.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

1

---
Tips From Former Smokers® 2022 New TV Spots

Rebecca C “You’re Really There” :30 – URL CTA 

ISCI Code VCDC1190000H

The spot opens on the A Tip From A Former Smoker® logo and cuts to a shot of Rebecca C.’s 

foot against a blue tile wall. Her little toe is purple. 

REBECCA C: The smoking restricts the blood flow. 

The spot cuts to a spot of Rebecca C. in her living room. Text appears on the bottom righthand corner of the screen that reads “Rebecca, California” and “Diagnosed with Buerger’s 

disease at 42.”

REBECCA C: It wasn’t until after they had done the surgery to remove all the toes that it really 

hit me. 

The spot cuts to a shot of Rebecca C.’s foot—her toes have been amputated. 

REBECCA C: You see the commercials. You never really put yourself in that person’s shoes 

until you’re there. 

The spot cuts to a shot of Rebecca C. putting on her sneakers. 

REBECCA C: And then when you’re there, you’re really there. 

The spot cuts to an art card that reads “Smoking causes Buerger’s Disease.”

ART CARD: 

You can quit. For free help, visit CDC.GOV/TIPS

CDC Logo

Sponsored by the U.S. department of Health and Human Services.

#CDCTIPS 

ANNCR: You can quit. For free help, visit CDC.GOV/TIPS
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet Kentucky Division for Air Quality



# -------------------------------------------

Appendix L.10 Other Sources Exempted From BART Based on BART Guidelines and EPA Guidance[This page intentionally left blank.][This page intentionally left blank.][This page intentionally left blank.][This page intentionally left blank.][This page intentionally left blank.][This page intentionally left blank.]
No. 10-6931.

#### James C. Pierce, Petitioner v. Burl Cain, Warden.

562 U.S. 1113, 131 S. Ct. 829,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9826.

178 L. Ed. 2d 565,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
### Andrew D. Moore

to:

Allison Wiedeman, Jack Faulk

03/03/2010 05:13 PM

Show Details

Hi Allison and Jack,

I just wanted to let you both know that we worked closely with John Thorne in helping put together aerial

numbers for CropLife America’s NOI threshold document that it sent to you today. We, too, recommend that

decisions

‐ makers be the entity responsible for NOI submissions, not for

‐ hire applicators, because of the

differences in available resources and advanced knowledge as we explained in the letter we sent to the Agency

in November of 2009 (attached).

Also, attached is a document we provided CLA for its letter that we put together estimating aerial acres treated

that may be of some assistance as you move through this challenging issue of writing a permit system for

pesticide applications. Accompanying the document is our 2004 Pesticide Use Survey.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

‐‐ Andrew—

Andrew D. Moore

Executive Director

National Agricultural Aviation Association

1005 E Street, SE

Washington, DC 20003

202

‐ 546

‐ 5722

‐ phn

202

‐ 546

‐ 5726

‐ fax

www.agaviation.org 

### Page 1 of 1

5/11/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web2558.htm
EXHIBIT 10.1



 






Exhibit 10.1



The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation

Non-Employee Director Compensation Program




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	2005
	 	2004

	Board member annual retainer
	 	 	 	 
	Cash1
	 	$50,000	 	$35,000
	Restricted share units2
	 	$60,000	 	$40,000
	Committee chair retainer (cash)1
	 	$15,000	 	$5,000
	Annual stock option grant value3
	 	$60,000	 	$80,000
	One-time stock option grant
value (upon election)3
	 	$35,000	 	$35,000
	Stock ownership guidelines
	 	Required to hold no less than 50% of all shares or restricted share units obtained through the program throughout their tenure	 	Required to hold no less than 50% of all shares or restricted share units obtained through the program throughout their tenure











     1 Payable in equal semi-annual installments on the first business day in March
and July of each year. Cash may be deferred pursuant to The Dun & Bradstreet
Corporation Directors’ Compensation Plan. Cash may be converted into
restricted share units the shares underlying which have a fair market value of
110% of the retainer.



     2 Payable in equal semi-annual installments on the first business day in March
and July of each year. Represents the right to receive shares of the Company’s
common stock on the earlier of the third anniversary of the date of grant and
the date on which the director ceases to perform services as a director of the
Company. Restricted share units may be deferred pursuant to the terms of the
applicable Restricted Share Unit Award Agreement.



     3 Vesting requirements are determined by the Company’s Board of Directors.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Henning, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 394]

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of *980Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered June 26, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree in satisfaction of a three-count indictment. Under the terms of the plea agreement, he was to be sentenced to a nine-year prison term to be followed by a five-year period of postrelease supervision, and waive his right to appeal. At sentencing, however, defendant made a pro se motion to withdraw his plea on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. County Court denied the motion and sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, we note that defendant’s voluntary waiver of the right to appeal precludes him from asserting ineffective assistance of counsel except to the extent that it allegedly impacted the voluntariness of his plea *(see People v Clifford,*295 AD2d 697, 698 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 709 [2002]; *People v Grant,*294 AD2d 671, 672 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 730 [2002]). In this regard, defendant contends that his trial counsel misled him and coerced him to plead guilty. Our review of the record, however, does not substantiate defendant’s assertions.

During the plea colloquy, defendant indicated to County Court that he understood the rights he was relinquishing by entering a guilty plea and had not been coerced or threatened to do so. He further stated that he had discussed the case with his attorney, including potential defenses, and was satisfied with counsel’s representation. The record also reveals that defense counsel made appropriate discovery requests and secured a favorable plea bargain. Under these circumstances, we conclude that defendant was provided meaningful representation *(see People v Collins,*306 AD2d 695 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 619 [2003]; *People v De Berardinis,*304 AD2d 914, 916 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 580 [2003]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
No. 10-7523.

#### Alberto Fuentes-Moreno, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1118, 131 S. Ct. 846,

178 L. Ed. 2d 574,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9673.

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 393 Fed. Appx. 549.
EXHIBIT 32.3



Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 on Form 10-K of
Duquesne Light Company (the Company) for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Morgan K. OBrien, as Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WITNESS the due execution hereof this 15thday of March, 2004.



/s/ Morgan K. OBrienMorgan K. OBrienPresident and Chief Executive Officer




This
certification accompanies this 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.



A signed original
of this certification required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company, who will retain it and furnish a copy to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.