alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The public benefit is served by the additional level of safety provided by employing an actual airplane to

conduct the required training and check rides versus the use of a simulator. The currently available approved flight simulators do not match the level of avionics systems in the actual aircraft , thus the actual aircraft provides an effective, “more real world” training platform. A more effectively trained pilot is a safer pilot once qualified and in the cockpit. The public safety will not be compro mised by the issuance of this exemption. The aircraft in question are dual certificated, both in the standard and restricted categories. The aircraft are maintained in accordance with the aircraft manufacturers recommendations and are operated in accordanc e with FAA issued operating limitations as part of the restricted category certificate. The following aircraft would be used for the training and check rides: **Aircraft Make Aircraft Model**  **Registration Number Serial Number**  Beechcraft B200C N4456A BL
- 143 Beechcraft B200C N5139A BL
- 144 Beechcraft B200C N4489A BL
- 145 Beechcraft B200C N5155A BL
- 146 Beechcraft B200C N299AL BB
- 1823
#### State, Respondent, v. Manajares, Petitioner,

No. 90160-1.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 31271-2-III, March 17, 2014. *Granted*and *remanded*to the Court of Appeals November 4, 2015.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1798]

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Dkt. C-3724]

Progressive Mortgage Corp., et al.; Prohibited Trade Practices, 
and Affirmative Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent order.

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

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of 
competition, this consent order prohibits, among other things, the 
Ohio-based mortgage corporation and its president from misrepresenting 
any terms or conditions of financing, such as, the annual percentage 
rate and finance charges of consumer loans; the number, amount and 
timing of mortgage payments; and the total number of payments to repay 
consumer loans.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued March 10, 1997.\1\

    \1\ Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Mendenhall, FTC Cleveland 
Regional Office, Eaton Center, Suite 200, 1111 Superior Ave., 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland, Ohio 44114. (216) 522-4210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Tuesday, December 10, 1996, there was 
published in the Federal Register, 61 FR 65061, a proposed consent 
agreement with analysis In the Matter of Progressive Mortgage 
Corporation, et al., for the purpose of soliciting public comment. 
Interested parties were given sixty (60) days in which to submit 
comments, suggestions or objections regarding the proposed form of the 
order.
    No comments having been received, the Commission has ordered the 
issuance of the complaint in the form contemplated by the agreement, 
made its jurisdictional findings and entered an order to cease and 
desist, as set forth in the proposed consent agreement, in disposition 
of this proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interprets or applies sec. 5, 
38 Stat. 719, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 45)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1798 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
```
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32


                            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 amendment to the Annual Report of Emerson Radio
Corp., (the "Company") on Form 10-K-A for the period ended March 31, 2006, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Adrian Ma, Chief
Executive Officer, and John Florian, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, of the
Company each hereby certifies 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 as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates
presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the
periods presented.


Dated: July 31, 2006
                                      By: /s/ Adrain Ma
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Adrian Ma
                                      Chief Executive Officer


                                      By: /s/ John D. Florian
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      John D. Florian
                                      Deputy Chief Financial Officer and
                                      Controller


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form
10-K/A or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Emerson Radio Corp. and will be
retained by Emerson Radio Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 10-11088.

#### Mario Alberto Ciriza-Saenz, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 866, 132 S. Ct. 212,

181 L. Ed. 2d 115,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6534.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 419 Fed. Appx. 459.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40074

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Eric Eliel Pena-Martinez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-92-1

Before King, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eric Eliel PenaMartinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Pena-Martinez has not filed a response. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 17, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40074 Document: 00515746159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2021
No. 20-40074

2

During the pendency of this appeal, Pena-Martinez completed the

sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release and was released from 

custody. Because Pena-Martinez has not shown that he will suffer collateral 

consequences as a result of the revocation of his supervised release and 

because no additional term of supervised release was imposed, the instant 

appeal does not present a case or controversy, and this court lacks 

jurisdiction. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); United States 

v. Clark, 193 F.3d 845, 847-48 (5th Cir. 1999). 

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT, and counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary.

Case: 20-40074 Document: 00515746159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2021
#### James B. LATTA, Appellant, v. Hilbert S. SABIN, Appellee.

No. 17664.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Jan. 8, 1964.

Decided Feb. 20, 1964.

*898Mr. Earl H. Davis, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Donald S. Caruthers, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. J. Joseph Barse, Washington, D. C., with *whom*Messrs. H. Mason Welch and J. Harry Welch, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. James A. Welch, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before Danaher, Bastían and McGowan, Circuit Judges.

DANAHER, Circuit Judge.

 The District Judge directed a verdict in favor of the appellee on the issue of negligence in a malpractice action. The appellant did not sustain his burden of proving that the surgeon had failed to exercise that degree of care and skill required by the standard of practice which the appellee was bound to afford to the appellant as his patient.1 The appellant’s claims as to breach of warranty and unauthorized operation were submitted to the jury pursuant to adequate instructions, adapted to the issues.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellant awarding damages equal to the amount of the surgeon’s charge for his services. The award is now attacked, as grossly inadequate.

The jury might have decided that except for a comparatively minor phase of the surgery, the special damages claimed by appellant were actually attributable to a later operation by other surgeons. The jury might also have concluded that no credence could be placed in the appellant’s claim that the doctor had warranted a particular result. In any event, no special interrogatories had been submitted to the jury, and its general verdict is not without support in the record. The trial judge denied the appellant’s motion for a new trial. Our review of the record does not disclose such abuse of discretion as to require reversal.2

We have examined other contentions of the appellant in respect of certain rulings on evidence as to which we find no error.

The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

1

. Rodgers v. Lawson, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 170 F.2d 157 (1948); and see Brown v. Keaveny, 117 U.S.App.D.C. -, 326 F.2d 660 (rehearing en banc denied).

2

. Hulett v. Brinson, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 139, 140, 229 F.2d 22, 23, cert. denied, 350 U.S. 1014, 76 S.Ct. 659, 100 L.Ed. 874 (1956) ; cf. Muldrow v. Daly, 117 U.S.App.D.C. -, -F.2d- (1964) ; Association of Western Railways v. Riss & Company, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 49, 52, 299 F.2d 133, 136, cert. denied, 370 U.S. 916, 82 S.Ct. 1555, 8 L.Ed.2d 498 (1962).
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00321-CV

IN RE LUETIA ACORD

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Relator’s Motion for 

Emergency Stay is dismissed as moot. 

JOHN E. NEILL

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Petition Denied

Opinion delivered and filed September 26, 2019

[OT06]
No. 10-1528.

#### The National Association of Home Builders, Petitioner v. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, et al.

565 U.S. 930, 132 S. Ct. 369,

181 L. Ed. 2d 234,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7069.

October 3, 2011.

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

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 627 F.3d 730.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18841]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application to Withdraw From Listing 
and Registration; (Financial Federal Corporation, Common Stock, $.50 
Par Value) File No 1-14237

July 9, 1998.
    Financial Federal Corporation (``Company'') has filed an 
application with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange 
Act of 1934 (``Act'') and Rule 12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to 
withdraw the above specified security (``Security'') from listing and 
registration on the American Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Amex'' or 
``Exchange'').
    The reasons cited in the application for withdrawing the Security 
from listing and registration include the following:
    The Company submitted an application to list the Security on the 
New York Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'') and the NYSE approved such 
application. The Company believes that listing the Security on the NYSE 
will create better visibility for the Company and its securities, thus 
enhancing shareholder value.
    The Company has complied with Amex Rule 18 by filing with the Amex 
a certified copy of the resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors 
of the Company authorizing the withdrawal of the Security from listing 
and registration on the Amex and a statement from the Company setting 
forth in detail the reasons and facts supporting such proposed 
withdrawal.
    By letter dated June 12, 1998, the Amex raised no objection to the 
Company's filing its application with the Commission to remove the 
Security from listing on the Amex.
    Any interested person may, on or before July 30, 1998, submit by 
letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, facts bearing upon whether 
the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the 
Exchange and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission 
for the protection of investors. The Commission, based on the 
information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the 
application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission 
determines to order a hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18841 Filed 7-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
No. 11M16.

#### Janet A. Adams, Petitioner v. Judith A. Goldsmith.

565 U.S. 808, 132 S. Ct. 78,

181 L. Ed. 2d 11,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6894.

October 3, 2011.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Same case below, 48 So. 3d 835.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: R.E.R.S., A MINOR

PETITION OF: K.S., III, FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 691 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of December, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
No. 11-5444.

#### Drexell Ellis, Petitioner v. Illinois.

565 U.S. 907, 132 S. Ct. 312,

181 L. Ed. 2d 192,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5752.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 403 Ill. App. 3d 1101, 373 Ill. Dec. 148, 993 N.E.2d 148.
No. 11-5231.

#### Marvin Flemings, Petitioner v. Illinois Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 896, 132 S. Ct. 284,

181 L. Ed. 2d 170,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5654.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SEARCH

(This form will be completed in accordance with instructions on the reverse)

1. I

(ORGANIZATION OR ADDRESS)

having been duly sworn, on oath despose and state that

2. The affiant further states that

DLA FORM 1743, MAY 2000 (EG) PDF (DLA)

(NAME)
1. In paragraph 1, set forth a concise factual statement of the offense that has been committed or the probable cause to believe that it has been committed. Use

additional page if necessary.

2. In paragraph 2, set forth facts establishing probable cause for believing that the person, premises, or place to be searched and the property to be seized are

connected with the offense mentioned in paragraph 1, plus facts establishing probable cause to believe that the property to be seized is presently located on the person,

premises, or place to be searched. The facts stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 must be based on either the personal knowledge of the person signing the affidavit or on

hearsay information which he has plus the underlying circumstances from which he has concluded that the hearsay information is trustworthy. If the information is based

on personal knowledge, the affidavit should so indicate. If the information is based on hearsay information, paragraph 2 must set forth some of the underlying

circumstances from which the person signing the affidavit has concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, or his information was trustworthy. Use

additional pages if necessary.

3. In paragraph 3, the person, premises, or place to be searched and the property to be seized should be described with particularity and in detail. Authorization for a

search may issue with respect to a search for fruits or products of an offense, the instrumentality or means of committing the offense, or contraband or other property the

possession of which is an offense, and under certain circumstances for evidentiary matters.

 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of , 20 at

DLA FORM 1743, MAY 2000 (BACK)

3. In view of the foregoing, the affiant requests that a Commander's authorization to search

(THE PERSON)

(AND) (THE QUARTERS)

(THE AUTOMOBILE) ( )

and seizure of

(ITEM SEARCHED FOR)

(SIGNATURE, TYPED NAME, AND ORGANIZATION OF AFFIANT)

(SIGNATURE, TYPED NAME, ORGANIZATION, AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY OF

AUTHORITY ADMINISTERING OATH)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING DLA FORM 1743

AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SEARCH

.
No. 11-5537.

#### Jesus Rodolfo Duran, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 913, 132 S. Ct. 326,

181 L. Ed. 2d 202,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6440.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2015262EN.01001801.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — SACE and Sace BT v Commission

(Case T-305/13) (1)

1

((State aid - Export credit insurance - Reinsurance granted by a public undertaking to its subsidiary - Capital contributions to cover the subsidiary’s losses - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Private investor test - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 262/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE) (Rome, Italy); and Sace BT SpA (Rome) (represented by: M. Siragusa and G. Rizza, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Intervener in support of the applicants:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/525/EU of 20 March 2013 on the measures SA.23425 (11/C) (ex NN 41/10) implemented by Italy in 2004 and 2009 for SACE BT S.p.A. (OJ 2014 L 239, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 2(2) of Commission Decision 2014/525/EU of 20 March 2013 on the measures SA.23425 (11/C) (ex NN 41/10) implemented by Italy in 2004 and 2009 for SACE BT S.p.A; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 2(2) of Commission Decision 2014/525/EU of 20 March 2013 on the measures SA.23425 (11/C) (ex NN 41/10) implemented by Italy in 2004 and 2009 for SACE BT S.p.A;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE) and Sace BT shall bear their own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE) and Sace BT shall bear their own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;

| 4. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

4.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;

| 5. | The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1

---
No. 11-5670.

#### Jeremy Todd Brown, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 918, 132 S. Ct. 339,

181 L. Ed. 2d 212,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6203.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 423 Fed. Appx. 264.
Exhibit 32.2



Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer of Regency Centers Corporation, the general partner of Regency Centers, L.P.(the
Partnership), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.



Date: May 9, 2005



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Bruce M. Johnson   
|Bruce M. Johnson       
|Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-5698.

#### Michael S. Arnold, Petitioner v. Ohio.

565 U.S. 919, 132 S. Ct. 341,

181 L. Ed. 2d 214,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6869.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Franklin County, denied.