alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2013 - 0881 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2013 - SW - 056 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
# C_2017288EN.01012901.xml

| 31.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/129 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/129

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down management, conservation and control measures applicable in the Convention Area of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO)’

(COM(2017) 128 final – 2017/0056 COD)

(2017/C 288/18)

| Consultation | European Parliament, 03/04/2017
  Council of the European Union, 10/04/2017 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted at plenary | 31/05/2017 |
| Plenary session No | 526 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 181/0/1 |

Consultation

European Parliament, 03/04/2017

Council of the European Union, 10/04/2017

Legal basis

Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted at plenary

31/05/2017

Plenary session No

526

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

181/0/1

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 526th plenary session of 31 May and 1 June 2017 (meeting of 31 May 2017), by 181 votes to none with 1 abstention, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 31 May 2017.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Georges DASSIS

---
1

Cathy Maddasion

From: Enrico Schaefer <enrico@traverselegal.com>

Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:52 AM

To: 333exemptions@faa.gov

Cc: cathy@traverselegal.com

Subject: Amendment to Exemption No. 12910 (FAA-2015-2118) – Submission of Proprietary 

Information 

Attachments: Attachment A-Motion-Picture-Manual _ Flying Media Sept 2015.pdf

Dear FAA Headquarters: 

This email is to provide the FAA with proprietary information pertaining to the amendment (Comment) to 

Exemption No. 12910 (Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-2118) on behalf of the Petitioner and our client, 

Flying Media. We have attached to this email as Attachment A the Motion Picture and Television Operations 

Manual 

(MPTOM) pursuant to the requested change to modify #2 of the Conditions and Limitations to include and 

obtain permission to fly for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming as part of this 

Petition. We have also posted our amendment (Comment) on the FAA regulations.gov website regarding this 

change. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

Enrico Schaefer, Esq. 

Traverse Legal, PLC 

Attorney for Flying Media 

231-932-0411 

Email: enrico@traverselegal.com 

www.dronelaw.pro 

www.traverselegal.com 

231-932-0411 (office) 

231-313-0564 (cell) 

231-932-0636 (fax) 

This email contains confidential information. If you received it in error, please delete it and notify the 

sender.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 11602 and # 11603]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1809-DR), dated 11/13/2008. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms, Flooding, and a Tornado. *Incident Period:*
                         09/11/2008 through 09/24/2008. *Effective Date:*
                         11/13/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         01/12/2009. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         08/13/2009.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to:  U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road,Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,  U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 11/13/2008, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
                    ( print page 1751) The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Adair, Audrain, Barry, Bollinger, Butler, Callaway, Cape Girardeau, Carter, Chariton, Christian, Clark, Crawford,Douglas, Dunklin, Howard, Howell,Knox, Lewis, Lincoln, Linn,Madison, Maries, Marion, Miller,Mississippi, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark,Perry, Ralls, Randolph, Ray,Reynolds, Ripley, Sainte Genevieve, Schuyler,Scotland, Scott, Shannon, Shelby,Stoddard, Stone, Sullivan, Taney,Texas, Wayne, Webster, Wright. The Interest Rates are: PercentOther (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.250Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11602B and for economic injury is 11603B. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. E9-412 Filed 1-12-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Hardesty 

### "c2.40X Parraguirre

(0) 1947A 

### Am. Title Co. of Nev. v. State of Nev., 91 Nev. 804, 806, 543 P.2d 1344,

1345 (1975); 

### see also Woodford, 548 U.S. at 94 (providing that exhaustion of administrative remedies is especially important in relation to actions filed against state corrections systems), the district court was required to dismiss the underlying case. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

cc: Hon. Richard Wagner, District Judge David J. Tiffany Attorney General/Carson City Pershing County Clerk

'Having considered appellant's remaining arguments, we conclude that they lack merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: December 4, 2015

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

PAT KNIGHT, as Trustee for the heirs of *

GARY KNIGHT, deceased, *

* No. 14-485V

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Special Master Roth

* 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Damages Decision Based on Stipulation;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Influenza Vaccine; Guillain-Barre

* Syndrome; “GBS”; Death

Respondent. *

*

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

Randall G. Knutson, Knutson and Casey Law Firm, Mankato, MN, for petitioner.

Linda S. Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Roth, Special Master:

On June 5, 2014, Pat Knight filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine 

Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq.

2

[the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”],

as Trustee for the heirs of Gary Knight, alleging that Mr. Knight developed Guillain-Barre 

Syndrome (“GBS”) and died on July 5, 2014 as a result of the influenza vaccine he received on 

August 16, 2011. Respondent denies that the flu vaccine is the cause of petitioner’s alleged GBS 

and, or any other injury, or his death. Stipulation at ¶¶ 6, 15.

On December 4, 2015, respondent filed a stipulation agreeing to settle this case and 

describing the settlement terms. According to respondent’s stipulation, petitioner agrees to the 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this 

decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 

Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioners 

have 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute 

an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I 

will delete such material from public access.

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 

Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, 

individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. 
2

proposed award of compensation. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached stipulation, 

petitioner is awarded:

A lump sum of $78,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Patricia 

Knight, as Trustee for the Heirs of Gary Knight. This amount represents 

compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

The special master adopts the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and awards 

compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed 

to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Mindy Michaels Roth 

Mindy Michaels Roth 

Special Master

 

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the 

right to seek review.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Entech Environmental
Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for
the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Burr Northrop, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

Dated: September 14, 2006.

                           /s/ Burr Northrop
                           ----------------------------------
                           Burr Northrop, President and Chief Executive Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1597. JOHNSON v. THE STATE.

Appellant has failed to file a brief and enumeration of errors within 20 days

after the appeal was docketed as required by Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a) and as

notified in the Notice of Docketing. As Appellant has abandoned the appeal, the

appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

April 15, 2019

04/15/2019
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT F. KERR,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 00-2370

T. A. MCMULLEN CONSULTANTS,

INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.

(CA-00-143)

Submitted: May 8, 2001

Decided: May 30, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert L. Duecaster, Manassas, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul V.

Waters, Conrad Christopher Ledoux, SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert F. Kerr and T.A. McMullen Consultants, Inc.[TAMCI]

entered into an agreement terminating an employment contract under

which Kerr, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Manager for TAMCI, released

all claims except those for payments due from open invoices. This

appeal follows the award by the district court of"direct fees" and

"consultant commissions" under the terms of the employment contract. We affirm.

TAMCI alleges that a misreading of a sentence in the dissolution

agreement by the district court led to a misinterpretation of the terms

of that agreement. This court reviews the district court's factual findings for clear error and legal principles of contract interpretation de

novo. Hendricks v. Central Reserve Life Ins. Co. , 39 F.3d 507, 512

(4th Cir. 1994). The parties agree that the dissolution agreement preserved Kerr's right to seek payment for "open Invoices." Because the

dissolution agreement did not define the "open Invoices" for which

Kerr's right to payment was preserved, the court concluded that the

dissolution agreement incorporated by reference the compensation

structure set forth in the employment contract. The employment contract addressed the calculation of Kerr's compensation for fees and

commissions and was never modified by agreement of the parties during the life of that contract. We conclude that the district court reasonably interpreted the dissolution agreement in conjunction with the

earlier employment contract in determining the amount of compensation due Kerr for "open Invoices." First American Bank of Virginia

v. J.S.C. Concrete Const., Inc., 259 Va. 60, 66, 523 S.E.2d 496, 500

(2000) (citing Doswell Ltd. Partnership v. Electric and Power Co.,

251 Va. 215, 222, 468 S.E.2d 84,88 (1996)).

The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
No. 11-7861.

#### Hector Cavazos Carreon, aka Hector Carreon Cavazos, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1172, 132 S. Ct. 1128,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1005,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 618.

January 17, 2012.

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

Same case below, 441 Fed. Appx. 269.
No. 11-7457.

#### Robert Smith, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1148, 132 S. Ct. 1051,

181 L. Ed. 2d 792,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 504.

January 9, 2012.

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

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 



### honorableForreeterHancock QrWLml DistrlatAttorney ikxahachle,Term DearSir: Attentlom Mr.

‘

. 

### ,P as follmts¶ date an opinitm tershereinnet
whom prealnat**a** 

### la situatedneeds e a mad Wuak. The aountyat thtsparticular y, butwill have it later e truckpurahaaedvillbe

not the road oad diutriat 

### has IsMonetderivedfromthe sale of road bondsheretoforevotedand sold.

nF Qan theCoxmitlssionere~ t?ou& legally orrow 

### money tram! a bonded readdistriat,tlmtla,bondmoney,andpurebasea truokwith ealcl

momy for the oouixty, andXonorable Borrester Randock, **Page** 2

later pay the money back to this road district out of the general Pund of the county?

n+ l I).We have advised that this borrowing would be a transfer of the fund, and Is prohibited by Article 8, Sectlon 9, Constitution of Texan. ?!he Commissioners'Court is dissatlafled with this opinion and Is appealing to you for your opinion." You state ln your letter as quoted above that the money that the road district has is money derLved from the sale of road bonds heretofore voted and sold. It is 8 well knm prinalple of lav that funds or moneys obtainedby the sales of bonds must be used and expended only for the purpose for vhlah the bonds vere voted and issued, and a diversion of the use of suah funds or moneys for a different purpose vould be unetithorlzed. Texas,

Jurisprudence, Vol. 21, fage 686; (Also see the oases of Aransas County v. Coleman-Fulton Pasture Cod, 191 8.Y. 

### 553;Reathman v. Slngleta~, 12 S.X. (2d) 150; Ruggina v. *den, 259 3-W. 204; and Orayson County v. Rarrell, 202 3.X. 

### 160).

In passing upon a s$milar quest%on,,thisdepartment held in Opinion lo. O-1397 "the aommleaionersl oourt la not authorized to allow Road and Bridge Precincts in need OS funds to opemte pending the oollectlon bf current revenues to borrow funds from the Road Bond Aeaount, to supplement their Road and Bridge Fund Accouut, although suoh transfer Is made with the understanding that suchborroved funds be paid bask to the Road Bond Fund out of colleofions of the borrovlng Road and Bridge Precinct during the ensuing year." We ape enclosing e aopy of this opinion for your lnformatlon.

You are respectfully advised th+t it is the opinion of this department that 'be commissioners~ court could not legally use the bond money for the purpose above mentioned.

This opinion ia not to be construed as holding that the Gomalasioners8 court has legal authority to purchase a truck to be used In connectionvlth the maintemme end construation of public roads of the oounty and pay for the same out of the general fund of the GOuty, provided said fundr fare available.%onorable Forrester %nGOGk, Page 3

Trustfng that the foregoing fully answersyour inquiry, ve are Yours very truly ATTOFQIEY

OEltEW OF TEXAS (&4htzu& BY Ardell Williams Assistant
Date: 9 November 2018 ********************

NSN: 8970-01-675-5305 (BSST) MONOGRAPH M2Z4

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

Item: Beef Strips in a Savory Tomato Sauce

Document: PCR-B-061, Beef Strips in a Savory Tomato Sauce, Packaged in a Flexible Pouch, 

Shelf Stable

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 290 Component Classification: Primary

Estimated Shelf Life: 3 years at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

Cooked whole muscle beef strips in a tomato based sauce.

Beef: Reddish-brown cooked beef strips of random widths and lengths; may have grill 

marks.

Sauce: Glossy, free flowing, moderately thick, reddish-brown color; may have onion 

pieces.

Odor: Cooked beef, cooked tomato, cooked onion, and mild chili powder.

Flavor: Cooked beef, cooked tomato, cooked onion, and mild chili powder.

Texture: Beef: Moist and tender.

Sauce: Smooth, moderately thick; may contain pieces of onion.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Beef: excessive darkening, excessively broken up beef strips.

Sauce: Excessive darkening, excessively thin or runny or thick and/or gelatinous. 

Odor: Scorched, heat stressed, diminished cooked tomato, cooked onion and chili powder

odor.

Flavor: Scorched, heat stressed, low or lacking cooked tomato, cooked onion and chili powder 

flavor.

Texture: Beef: dry, hard.

Sauce: thin or runny or excessively thick and/or gelatinous. 

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

N/A

Special Notes

None
No. 11-7461.

#### Brian L. Brown, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1132, 132 S. Ct. 1052,

181 L. Ed. 2d 772,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 355.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 11-6934.

#### Jerome Phillips, Petitioner v. Dave Dormire, Superintendent, Jefferson City Correctional Center.

565 U.S. 1119, 132 S. Ct. 1013,

181 L. Ed. 2d 749,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 226.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
(logo) GREYSTONE

 

C-III ASSET MANAGEMENT LLCd/b/a

GREYSTONE SPECIAL SERVICING

5221 N. O’Connor Blvd., Suite800

Irving, Texas 75039

Phone: 972-868-5300

Fax: 972-868-5303

 

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

**C-III Asset Management LLC**

 

The undersigned, Barry Davis,Vice President of C-III Asset Management LLC, the current Special Servicerunder that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2017,relating to the **Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2017-C40, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2017-C40** (the “Pooling andServicing Agreement”), hereby certifies as follows:

 

1.  a review of theactivities of the Special Servicer and of its performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement during the calendar year 2019 (the “Reporting Period”) hasbeen made under the undersigned’s supervision;

 

2.  to the best of theundersigned’s knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer maintainedan effective internal control system relating to its servicing of the MortgageLoans serviced by it and has fulfilled in all material respects its obligationsunder the Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout the Reporting Period.

 

Capitalized terms nototherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Pooling andServicing Agreement.

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, as of the 1st day of March, 2020, I have hereuntosigned my name.

 

/s/ Barry Davis

**Barry Davis**, Vice President