alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LT Simon Greene

611 Airport Road

Sitka, AK 99835

W: 907-966-5560

C: 207-653-9304

Simon.c.greene@uscg.mil

1. Specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek an exemption.

Request exemption from 14 CFR §61.157 Flight Proficiency, specifically as it applies 

to FAA-S-8081-20: Airline Transport Pilot and Aircraft Type Rating Practical Test 

Standards for Helicopter. 

2. The extent of relief you seek, and the reason you seek the relief:

Request exemption of the “two precision approach” requirement for the practical test 

portion of the ATP check. Sitka, Alaska does not have precision approaches to the 

airport, with the closest precision approach 200+ NM away. That distance is 

prohibitive for the completion of eight practical ATP tests spread out over multiple 

days. Because of the scarcity of precision approaches in Southeast Alaska, the Coast 

Guard semi-annual precision approach minimum requirement has been waived by 

Coast Guard Headquarters for Sitka pilots (Enclosure 1). 

3. The reasons why granting your request would be in the public interest; that is, how it 

would benefit the public as a whole: 

Granting this request would allow eight military pilots from Coast Guard Air Station 

Sitka the ability to complete their full ATP practical tests in Sitka, AK. The Coast 

Guard simulator in Mobile, AL is not FAA certified for check rides, and it would be 

prohibitively expensive and impractical due to operational tempo to fly eight pilots to 

another Coast Guard unit to conduct the practical exam. 

4. The reasons why granting 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 exemption:

This exemption would have no adverse affect on safety. All pilots completing the ATP 

practical are instrument rated and complete comprehensive annual instrument checks 

conducted in actual instrument meteorological conditions during which standard 

precision approaches are executed.

5. Summary:

Coast Guard Air Station Sitka, AK seeks exemption from 14 CFR §61.157 Flight 

Proficiency, specifically as it applies to FAA-S-8081-20: Airline Transport Pilot and 

Aircraft Type Rating Practical Test Standards for Helicopter for shooting two 

precision approaches during the practical test portion for ATP certification. Due to the 

scarcity of standard precision approaches in Southeast Alaska Air Station Sitka has 

been granted a Coast Guard exemption to the requisite semi-annual precision approach 

minimums for helicopter pilots. Exemption from the two precision approach 

requirement for the ATP practical check ride would allow for multiple pilots at Air 

Station Sitka to achieve their ATP rating.

6. Additional views: 

Due to the lack of precision approaches in Southeast Alaska, the Coast Guard waived 

the requirement for semi-annual performance of precision approaches for Air Station 

Sitka pilots. We request that this waiver continue in force during the practical portion 

of the ATP test.
# C_2016242EN.01000601.xml

| 2.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/6

---

Special Report No 16/2016

‘EU education objectives: programmes aligned but shortcomings in performance measurement’

(2016/C 242/05)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 16/2016 ‘EU education objectives: programmes aligned but shortcomings in performance measurement’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu

---
No. 11-7190.

#### Julio C. Ontiveros-Perez, Petitioner v. Colorado.

565 U.S. 1126, 132 S. Ct. 1033,

181 L. Ed. 2d 761,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 258.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.
ITEM: Beans And Rice in Tomato Sauce (BRT) MONOGRAPH NO.: KB1

APPROXIMATE CALORIC VALUE: 515 Kilocalories,

CHARACTERISTICS OF ITEM:

APPEARANCE: Thick, congealed light tan/cream sauce with small, medium brown beans,
off-white rice; a few carrot pieces.

ODOR: Mild tomato and spice with cooked beans.
FLAVOR: Mild tomato and spice with bland, cooked beans,
TEXTURE: Firm bean and rice; thick, congealed sauce with oily mouth feel.

DEFECTS LIKELY TO OCCUR:

APPEARANCE: Darkening of sauce and beans; decreased oiliness.
ODOR: Strong tomato.
FLAVOR: Increased bitterness and tomato flavor.

TEXTURE: Excessively thick, starchy sauce.

UNIQUE EXAMINATION/TEST PROCEDURES: Heating of the entree will aid in detection of
the bitterness and determination of the true consistency of the sauce.

SPECIAL NOTES: Dry rice (evidence of under-rehydrated areas) is a quality factor that should
not be scored as a deteriorative condition during cyclic inspections. It should be reported during
receipt and warranty inspections. The skin of the bean may be separate from the bean, but should
not be considered a defect.

32
(logo)Rialto 

         CAPITAL

 

 

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)** 

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as ofOctober 1, 2017 by and among UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization, Corp. asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, AEGON USA Realty Advisors, LLC asFairmount at Brewerytown Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC asOperating Advisor, and as Asset Representative Reviewer, Wilmington Trust,National Association, as Trustee and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association asCertificate Administrator relating to the UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust2017-C4, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2017-C4 **(UBS2017-C4)**

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.     Allservicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.     Areview of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of October 18, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.     Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/AdamSinger                                                                       Date: March 1, 2018

      AdamSinger, Managing Director
### -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/11 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 11 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.06 N 76.88 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SANDEEP SINGH,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10288

D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00369-AWI

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Sandeep Singh appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute MDMA, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(c). We have jurisdiction under 

FILED

MAY 18 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-10288

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Singh contends that the district court erred in calculating the advisory

Guidelines range by relying on the testimony of a co-defendant to determine

Singh’s relevant conduct and to establish his base offense level. The district court

did not clearly err, because its factual finding regarding the number of ecstasy pills

for which Singh was responsible is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 

See United States v. Asagba, 77 F.3d 324, 325-26 (9th Cir. 1996). The district

court adequately explained its decision, and the sentence imposed is procedurally

sound. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

IN RE ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN

__________________________ 

2013-1258 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 13-CV-1124, Judge 

Loretta A. Preska. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Anthony Brian Mallgren moves for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, which is also treated as a motion to 

reinstate. 

Mr. Mallgren filed a complaint in the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of New York 

alleging that he was unable to obtain a patent because he 

could not pay the application fee. 

According to Mr. Mallgren’s complaint, the fee constituted a violation of the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution, which provides: “The enumeration in the 

Case: 13-1258 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 09/16/2013
IN RE MALLGREN 2

Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to 

deny or disparage others retained by the people.” 

Mr. Mallgren moved to proceed in forma pauperis, 

which was granted by the district court. Shortly after the 

filing of the complaint, however, the court dismissed the 

suit as frivolous. The court explained that Mr. Mallgren 

had failed to establish any Ninth Amendment violation, 

and thus presented no legal theory in support of his 

complaint. 

The district court further certified that any appeal 

from its order would not be taken in good faith. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). When a district court has so certified, 

a litigant may still file a motion for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis with the appellate court. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 24(5). In evaluating such requests, however, the court

entitles “great weight” to the district court’s decision that 

an appeal should not be taken. Coppedge v. United 

States, 369 U.S. 438, 455 (1962) (citing Johnson v. United 

States, 352 U.S. 565, 566 (1957). 

Based on this court’s own review, the motion for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. To the extent that 

Mr. Mallgren wishes to pursue his constitutional challenges it may be the better course for him to seek review

from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office 

denying his patent applications. To the extent that he 

still wishes to pursue this current case, the appeal will 

only be reinstated if Mr. Mallgren pays the regular court 

filing fee within 60 days from the date of this order. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is denied. 

Case: 13-1258 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 09/16/2013
3 IN RE MALLGREN

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk

s19

Case: 13-1258 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 09/16/2013
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of Shamrock Grove Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2017 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James Cassidy
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 4, 2018
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2569

PAUL J. BLOOM; YVONNE BLOOM; JOSEPH SCOTT BLOOM, Minor, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versusSCHOOL BOARD OF THE COUNTY OF STAFFORD, VIRGINIA; DORIS TORRICE, School Board Chairwoman; RUSSELL WATSON, Superintendent; ANDREIABENGIER, Director of Special Education Programs; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-95-661-A) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul J. Bloom, Yvonne Bloom, Joseph Scott Bloom, Appellants Pro Se.Kathleen Shepherd Mehfoud, HAZEL & THOMAS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Alison Paige Landry, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's order declining to assert jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1400-1485 (West 1990 & Supp. 1995). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Bloom v. School Bd. Stafford , No. CA-95-661-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 1995). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 37 (Thursday, February 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 8794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4078]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Agency Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:30 a.m. on 
Friday, February 27, 2009, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's 
Board of Directors will meet in closed session, pursuant to section 
552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and 
(c)(10) of Title 5, United States Code, to consider matters relating to 
the Corporation's supervisory and corporate activities.
    The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of 
the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be 
directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the 
Corporation, at (202) 898-7043.

    Dated: February 20, 2009.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-4078 Filed 2-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
# C_2016409EN.01000601.xml

| 5.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/6

---

Corrigendum to the annual report of the Court of Auditors on the activities funded by the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th European Development Funds (EDFs) concerning the financial year 2015, together with the Commission's replies

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 375 of 13 October 2016
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 375 of 13 October 2016

(2016/C 409/07)

On page 306 and 307, in the right-hand column ‘The Commission’s replies’, those replies numbered as paragraphs 42, 43 and 44 should be numbered as replies to the paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 of the Court’s observations.

On page 308, in the right-hand column ‘The Commission’s replies’, the reply numbered as paragraph 48 should be numbered as reply to paragraph 45 of the Court’s observations.

---
No. 11-6865.

#### Dvoira Roizman, Petitioner v. Barkan Management Company, Inc.

565 U.S. 1069, 132 S. Ct. 783,

181 L. Ed. 2d 501,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8604.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.

Same case below, 79 Mass. App. 1123, 947 N.E.2d 1154.
APP J 

DSCPH 4155.2 

************************* 

 MONOGRAPH NO: BD14 

 ************************* 

ITEM: Sweet Rolls, Packaged in a Polymeric Tray, Shelf Stable, Raspberry Swirl, 

Style II 

SPECIFICATION: PCR-S-007 NSN: 8920 01 510 7767 

COMPONENT CLASSIFICATION: Secondary 

CHARACTERISTICS OF ITEM: 

APPEARANCE: spiral baked golden brown pastry bun, topped with white icing glaze, wound 

around light maroon colored seeded red raspberry filling; off white to light yellow 

crumb (raspberry filling may have bled a little into the layers of dough) 

ODOR: moderate raspberry, baked pastry odor 

FLAVOR: sweet, moderate raspberry, slightly sweet pastry flavor dough 

TEXTURE: moist, tender, chewy pastry, slightly dry outer surface 

ESTIMATED SHELF-LIFE AT: 80 DEGREES F: 18-36 months 

 100 DEGREES F: 3-6 months 

 

POSSIBLE DETERIORATIVE CHANGES: 

APPEARANCE: darkening of roll; darkening of icing; browning of raspberry filling, loss of 

raspberry filling into matrix; compression streaks 

ODOR: loss of raspberry odor, stale, rancid/oxidized, musty 

FLAVOR: loss of raspberry flavor, stale, rancid/oxidized, heat storage flavor, pronounced 

bitterness 

TEXTURE: staling, dry, crumbly 

UNIQUE EXAMINATION/TEST PROCEDURES: None 

SPECIAL NOTES: None
No. 11-7439.

#### Phillippe Padieu, Petitioner v. Texas.

565 U.S. 1166, 132 S. Ct. 1112,

181 L. Ed. 2d 994,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 898.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, denied.
No. 11-7564.

#### Harold Oliver, Petitioner v. Marcus Hardy, Warden.

565 U.S. 1167, 132 S. Ct. 1115,

181 L. Ed. 2d 997,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 894.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
No. 11-7118.

#### Leon Devon Dizzley, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1085, 132 S. Ct. 828,

181 L. Ed. 2d 536,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8757.

December 5, 2011.

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

Same case below, 434 Fed. Appx. 227.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3418 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3418

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reinstate the authority of 
  the Secretary of Education to make Federal Direct Stafford Loans to 
                  graduate and professional students.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 21, 2019

 Ms. Judy Chu of California (for herself, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Schakowsky, 
  Ms. DelBene, Mr. Soto, Mr. Peters, Mr. Vargas, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. 
 Grijalva, Mrs. Lawrence, Ms. Brownley of California, Mr. Swalwell of 
California, Ms. Moore, Mr. Kilmer, Ms. Titus, Ms. Sanchez, and Ms. Lee 
of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reinstate the authority of 
  the Secretary of Education to make Federal Direct Stafford Loans to 
                  graduate and professional students.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Our Students by 
Terminating Graduate Rates that Add to Debt Act'' or the ``POST GRAD 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE FEDERAL DIRECT STAFFORD 
              LOANS TO GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS.

    Section 455(a)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1087e(a)(3)) is amended--
            (1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``Temporary'' 
        before ``Termination''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
        (i), by inserting ``, and ending on or before June 30, 2019'' 
        after ``2012''.

SEC. 3. INAPPLICABILITY OF RULEMAKING REQUIREMENTS.

    Sections 482(c) and 492 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
U.S.C. 1089(c); 1098a) shall not apply to the regulations under this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
<html>
	<head>
		<meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow" /><meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/teenvaxview/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fvaccines%2Fvaxview%2Fteenvaxview%2Findex.html" />	</head>
	<body></body>
	</html>
No. 11-7660.

#### Douglas S. McGlohon, Petitioner v. Campbell University, Inc.

565 U.S. 1168, 132 S. Ct. 1117,

181 L. Ed. 2d 998,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 850.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
No. 11M52.

#### Kenneth Lee Taylor, Petitioner v. Robert Ayers, Warden.

565 U.S. 1108, 132 S. Ct. 1071,

181 L. Ed. 2d 729,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 330.

January 9, 2012.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
<page> EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Morgan Stanley Charter
WCM L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter Davis,
President of Demeter Management LLC, the general partner of the
Partnership, certify, 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 my knowledge:
(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 Partnership.









By:   /s/ Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President of Demeter Management LLC,
			the general partner of the Partnership

Date:		August 12, 2009