alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 145 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40542-40543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20175]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Application

    Pursuant to Sec. 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 13, 1998, American 
Radiolabeled Chemicals, Inc., 11624 Bowling Green Drive, St. Louis, 
Missouri 63146, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the 
basic classes of controlled substances listed below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimethyltryptamine (7435)..................  I                          
Dihydromorphine (9145).....................  I                          
Cocaine (9041).............................  II                         
Morphine (9300)............................  II                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The firm plans to bulk manufacture small quantities of the listed 
controlled substances as radiolabeled compounds.

[[Page 40543]]

    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the proposed registration.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistance Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Admistration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than September 28, 1998.

    Dated: July 16, 1998.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-20175 Filed 7-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION

(Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350)



The undersigned hereby certifies
that, to his knowledge (i) the Form 10-Q filed by ECB Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the
information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|Date: August 12, 2003 |  | /s/ Arthur H.
Keeney IIIArthur H. Keeney
III President & CEO
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: August 12, 2003 |  | /s/ Gary M.
AdamsGary M.
Adams Senior Vice President & CFO
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
August 27, 2015

Mr. Mark Carmonne 

2453 Eastwood Drive

Carson City, NV 89701

Dear Mr. Carmonne:

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 exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2340 on June 17, 2015, 

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, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 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) requirements 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

Enclosure
3
No. 11-6693.

#### Cesar Acosta-Gallardo, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 994, 132 S. Ct. 540,

181 L. Ed. 2d 378,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7724.

October 31, 2011.

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

Same case below, 656 F.3d 1109.
<html>
	<head>
		<meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow" /><meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=https://www2.cdc.gov/nip/adultimmsched/?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fvaccines%2Fadultquiz%2Findex.html" />	</head>
	<body></body>
	</html>
No. 11-6771.

#### Jorge Moya-Feliciano, Petitioner v. Kenneth S. Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 1068, 132 S. Ct. 780,

181 L. Ed. 2d 499,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8544,

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20420]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families


President's Committee on Mental Retardation; Meeting

AGENCY: President's Committee on Mental Retardation.

TIME AND DATE: August 28, 1998, 8 a.m.-2 p.m.

PLACE: Renassaince Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC. 20036.

STATUS: Full Committee Meetings are open to the public. An interpreter 
for the deaf will be available upon advance request. All meeting sites 
are barrier free.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Committee plans to discuss critical 
issues concerning Federal Policy, Federal Research and Demonstration, 
State Policy Collaboration, Minority and Cultural Diversity and Mission 
and Public Awareness, relating to individuals with mental retardation.
    The PCMR acts in an advisory capacity to the President and the 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on a 
broad range of topics relating to programs, services, and supports for 
persons with mental retardation. The Committee, by Executive Order, is 
responsible for evaluating the adequacy of current practices in 
programs and supports for persons with mental retardation, and for 
reviewing legislative proposals that impact the quality of life that is 
experienced by citizens with mental retardation and their families.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Gary H. Blumenthal, 352-G Hubert 
H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. 
20201-0001; (202) 619-0634.

    Dated: July 24, 1998.
John L. Pride,
Deputy Executive Director, PCMR.
[FR Doc. 98-20420 Filed 7-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 02284 STANDARD 58.47 4.25 15.67

Tolerance

1 1 FULL BLUE 

LIMIT 57.73 4.33 14.91 -0.74 0.08 -0.76 0.69

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF

DLA/NAVY SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT December 29, 2017

Fabric Nomenclature CLOTH, TWILL, POLYESTER/COTTON 

(DURABLE PRESS)

PD 2-90B

(CLASS 2)

Shade Number KHAKI 3729 Piece/Roll Number 02284
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         6,553
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         331
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               6,268
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    12,674
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         21,863
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           21,886
<LOANS>                                        163,275
<ALLOWANCE>                                    1,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,027
<DEPOSITS>                                     185,083
<SHORT-TERM>                                   7,600
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            7,131
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       23,187
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,974)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 220,027
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                9,023
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2,050
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               68
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               11,141
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             4,204
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,986
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          6,155
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  813
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             17
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                5,197
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                918
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     556
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   556
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 4.86
<LOANS-NON>                                    175
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1,017
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  87
<RECOVERIES>                                   3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              1,746
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           1,746
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0



</TABLE>
Order entered December 23, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 01288
- CV JAY NORDSTROM, Appellant
V. ROBERT GORDON D/B/A STUTTGART AUTO GROUP , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 14
- 02276
- C 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s December 18, 2014 motion for substitution of counsel. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to substitute Ronald E. Holub and the Law Firm of Ronald E. Holub as counsel for appellant in t he place of Martin Allen Brown and Ronald Vickery with the Law Firm of Basinger Leggett Clemons Bowling & Shore, PLLC.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18914]



[[Page 38216]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

Governors Vote to Close Meeting

    In person and by telephone vote on May 12, 1998, a majority of the 
Governors contacted and voting, the Governors voted to close to public 
observation a meeting held in Washington, D.C. The Governors determined 
that prior public notice was not possible.
    Item Considered: 1. Appointment and Compensation of the Postmaster 
General.
    General Counsel Certification: The General Counsel of the United 
States Postal Service has certified that the meeting was properly 
closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
    Contact Person for More Information: Requests for information about 
the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Thomas 
J. Koerber, at (202) 268-4800.
Thomas J. Koerber,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18914 Filed 7-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
SCPW-23-0000072 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
PAUL A. GARCIA and KIRAH-SHANTEL GARCIA, Petitioners,

vs. THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN N.A. WATANABE, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit,

State of Hawai # i, Respondent Judge.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE. NO. 5CC151000158) O RDER DENYING PETITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the February 14, 2023 submission from Paul Garcia, on behalf of the Defendants in 1900 Capital Trust III, et al v. Garcia, 5CC151000158, we construe the submission as a petition for a writ of mandamus from this court for interlocutory review of the proceedings in the Fifth Circuit Court and conclude that the Petitioners have failed to demonstrate a right to such review. We further conclude that the record does not support the conclusion that the Respondent Judge has exceeded her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-23-0000072 21-FEB-2023 10:11 AM Dkt. 5 ODDPmanifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject

properly before the court in which the judge is subject to a legal duty to act. See State ex rel . Kaneshiro v. Huddy, 82 Hawai , i 188, 193, 921 P.2d 108, 113 (1996). Finally, alternate remedies exists in both the Circuit Court and upon a filing of an appeal, pursuant to Rules 59(e), 60(b), 62(b), 62(d), and 62(g) of the Hawai # i Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 3 and 4 of the Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Straub Clinic & Hospital v. Kochi, 81 Hawai # i 410, 414, 917 P.2d 1284, 1288 (1996). Therefore,

It is ordered that the petition is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, February 21, 2022. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Address

City, State Zip Code

 REPLY TO

 ATTENTION OF

EXAMPLE LETTER

DATE

MEMORANDUM FOR: Army Intermodal Distribution Platform Management Office

SUBJECT: Container Control Officer Appointment

1. Effective (ENTER DATE), the personnel mentioned below are assigned the following 

duty: Container Control Officer (CCO) - PLEASE CHECK (√) ONE.

 Primary Container Control Officer (CCO): is a designated official within a 

command, installation, or activity who is ultimately responsible for control, reporting, 

use, and maintenance of DOD-owned and controlled ISO containers and equipment. 

Report functions include all updates to ACAMS i.e., container inventory, movements and 

receipts, status, inspection, maintenance, and condition. 

 Alternate Container Control Officer: is designated within a location that assists 

the Primary CCO with maintaining control and reporting DOD-owned and controlled 

intermodal containers and equipment.

 

2. (Name of User)____________________ assigned to the following

DODAAC(s) , Activity_________________ 

 . Commercial phone #________________, DSN , 

fax number___________________, email address , 

mailing address .

3. Authority: DOD 4500.9-R, Part VI, Chapter 601, Page VI-601-3, Para 2i. Page 

VI-601-8, Para 11a.

4. Purpose: To provide property control, usage reporting, and maintenance of all 

Government owned and controlled intermodal containers and equipment (ANSI/ISO 

containers, flatracks, Container Roll In/Out Platforms (CROPs) and Internal 

Airlift/helicopter Slingable Container Units (ISUs).

5. Period: Until officially relieved or released from this appointment.

FOR THE COMMANDER:
Bryant Blank

3204 Crestwood Ln. 

Columbia, MO 65203

Email: bjb34b@gmail.com

Section 333 Exemption

I would like to seek an exemption for my UAS (DJI Phantom 3) so that I may fly over farms and other 

parcels of land to take pictures and videos of landowner’s property with their permission and sell them 

copies of the photograph or videos. Doing so, while still having an awareness of my surroundings and 

keeping public safety as my number one priority.

I have spoken to many landowners in my area who have shown a great interest in getting aerial 

photographs of their property. 

This exemption would not affect the safety of others. Every time my UAS would be flown would only be 

over one property and the entire family or persons living there would be well aware of the actions 

taking place. Also, the UAS would not be flown much over the limitations already set into place, keeping 

the UAS within the distance of sight over the specified property.

In summary:

I am seeking a section 333 exemption so that I may sell photographs and videos to landowners who 

allow me to fly my UAS over their property while maintaining a safe and comfortable environment for 

the public, the landowners, and myself.

Again, the UAS would never leave my line of sight and public safety will be the number one priority.

Bryant Blank
No. 10-10987.

#### Jack Furman Dean, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1058, 132 S. Ct. 755,

181 L. Ed. 2d 481,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8474.

November 28, 2011.

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

Same case below, 635 F.3d 1200.
No. 11-5687.

#### Paul Alonzo Ewing, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1037, 132 S. Ct. 576,

181 L. Ed. 2d 425,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8181.

November 14, 2011.

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

Same case below, 410 Fed. Appx. 611.
No. 11-6057 (R46-002).

#### Roger Lynn Loyd, Petitioner v. Georgia.

565 U.S. 971, 132 S. Ct. 474,

181 L. Ed. 2d 309,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7595.

October 20, 2011.

The petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia in the above-entitled case was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Same case below, 288 Ga. 481, 705 S.E.2d 616.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,190
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              11
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                11,918
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      9,189
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,002
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             4,961
<LOANS>                                         70,868
<ALLOWANCE>                                        698
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,424
<DEPOSITS>                                      87,474
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                494
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,765
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,309)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 107,424
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,533
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  317
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   316
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,166
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 853
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 853
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,313
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       72
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,588
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    168
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         168
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        57
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.80
<LOANS-NON>                                        109
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   602
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                        25
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  698
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               698
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
No. 11-7026.

#### Derrick Adrian Johnson, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1071, 132 S. Ct. 791,

181 L. Ed. 2d 505,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8315,

November 28, 2011.

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