alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FAA-l.o;O-05SQ

P"1; hOn <-r '5 iAJ.+1, A."'<.A.v~i

To:

Cc:

Bee:

Subjecf: Fw: EWIS leA Exemption for HZ-HMl

To: Steve Slotle/ANM/FAA@FAA, Franco Pieri/AENFAA@ITAA

From: "Creager, Mark" <Mark.Creager@jetaviationeng.com>

Date: 08/31/2010 02:16PM I

cc: Douglas Wagner/AEAJFAA@FAA, Ezra Sasson/AEAJFM@FAA, "Svoboda, Julie"

<Julie.Svoboda@jetaviationeng.com>, Daniel Kutz/ANM/FAA@FAA, Larry Kujawski <kujawski@wcc.net>

Subject: RE: EWIS leA Exemption for HZ-HMl

Steve,

Since the program schedule has shifted, we have been able to

complete an EWIS reA, document 87478383-150-02 revision IR. This

is attached. The zonal evaluation for the reA, document

DOR-486-10.035, revision IR, exceeds the allowable attachment

size for email. We have uploaded this document to the FAA

project Share Point site and are also sending a CD with the data

directly to yourself.

At this I believe it would be appropriate to withdrawal the

exemption petition.

Best regards,

Mark Creager

Jet Aviation Engineering Services

Mark Creager

Manager, Certification

116 Kestrel Dr.

Spring Branch, TX 78070 United States

Tel. +1 830 438 7486 x7108

Fax +1 830 438 7811

Mark.Creager@jetaviationeng.com
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 967 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit Members 

to vote by proxy in certain cases, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2024 

Mrs. LUNA (for herself, Ms. JACOBS, Mr. CLEAVER, Ms. TLAIB, Mr. VARGAS, 

Mr. PHILLIPS, Mr. LIEU, Ms. UNDERWOOD, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. TAKANO, 

Mrs. CHAVEZ-DEREMER, Mr. KILMER, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Ms. 

TOKUDA, Ms. CHU, Mr. MOULTON, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. GAETZ, 

Mr. MOSKOWITZ, Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. 

JACKSON of Illinois, and Mr. EVANS) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

permit Members to vote by proxy in certain cases, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. PERMITTING PROXY VOTING FOR MEMBERS IN 

3 CERTAIN CASES. 

4 Clause 2 of rule III of the Rules of the House of Rep5 resentatives is amended— 

2 

•HRES 967 IH 

1 (1) in paragraph (a), by striking ‘‘A Member 

2 may not’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in para3 graph (c), a Member may not’’; 

4 (2) in paragraph (b), by striking ‘‘No other per5 son may’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in 

6 paragraph (c), no other person may’’; and 

7 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

8 paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(c) In the case of a Member who has given birth, 

10 the Member may, during the period that begins on the 

11 date of such birth and ends 6 weeks after such date, des12 ignate another Member as a proxy who may cast the vote 

13 of such Member, but in no case may another Member 

14 record the presence of such Member for the purposes of 

15 establishing a quorum in the House or the Committee of 

16 the Whole House on the state of the Union.’’. 

Æ
#### Rudy Gandi SUPARMAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-74454.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2004.

Decided May 7, 2004.

Eugene C. Wong, Esq., Robert G. Ryan, Law Offices of Eugene C. Wong, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., Anh-Thu P. Mai, Isaac R. Campbell, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Rudy Gandi Suparman, a citizen of Indonesia, appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of the I J’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision that Suparman did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. The events upon which the petitioner relies do not rise to the level of past persecution, and he has not shown a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (persecution is an extreme concept that goes beyond treatment that society finds simply unpleasant.)

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
----

| Date:  | August                11, 2006 |   |                                              |
|--------|--------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |                           | By:    | /s/                John W. Alvey                  |
|   |                           |   | John                W. Alvey                      |
|   |                           |   | Vice                President and Chief Financial |
|   |                           |   | and                Accounting Officer of          |
|   |                           |   | Maxus                Realty Trust, Inc.           |
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 63 (Friday, April 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 15315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7529]

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

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. ACR2008]

Postal Service Oversight

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Availability of report.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharman, General Counsel, 
at 202-789-6820 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) has issued its Annual Compliance Determination addressing 
the United States Postal Service's financial and service performance in 
fiscal year 2008. The Commission's determination, dated March 30, 2009, 
responds to a directive in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement 
Act (PAEA) of 2006. See 39 U.S.C 3653. It was prepared after review of 
the Postal Service's 2008 Annual Compliance Report, public comments, 
and supplemental data and information provided in response to 
Commission requests.
    The Commission's report, as well as related documents, can be 
accessed on the Commission's Web site, http://www.prc.gov.

    Dated: March 31, 2009.
Steven W. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-7529 Filed 4-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
```
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 952 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require the Clerk 

to read the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of any bill immediately after the reading of the title of the bill. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2024 

Mr. BURCHETT (for himself, Mr. NORMAN, and Mr. CRENSHAW) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

require the Clerk to read the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of any bill immediately after the reading of the title of the bill. 

1 Resolved, That clause 2 of rule II of the Rules of the 

2 House of Representatives is amended by inserting at the 

3 end the following new paragraph: 

4 ‘‘(l) After the reading of a bill title, the Clerk shall 

5 read the estimated cost, if any, of such bill as determined 

6 by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.’’. 

Æ
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11449 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ROBERT BAGGOTT , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 21

- 9

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert Baggott appeals the 188

- month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance , namely methamphetamine. Baggott argues that the district court clearly erred in calculating the drug quantity attributable to him because (1) two of his suppliers were incarcerated during some of the time he participated in the conspiracy and (2) there was no evidence to support the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 2, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11449 Document: 00514099712 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2017No. 16

- 11449

2 extrapol ation of drug purity from the samples of methamphetamine seized at the time of his arrest

. We review t he district court’s determination of the quantity of dru gs attributable to a defendant, which is a factual finding, f or clear error. United States v. Betancourt , 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005). The incarceration records purporting to sho w that the sources of Baggott’s methamphetamine were incarcerated at relevant periods and the interview excerpt from one of the sources are insufficient to show that the district court’s drug quantity determination, which was amply supported by reliable in formation in the presentence report, was clearly erroneous. See Betancourt , 422 F.3d at 248. We also reject Baggott’s contention that the court erred by extrapolating the drug purity from the samples seized when he was arrested. See United States v. Rod riguez , 666 F.3d 944, 947 (5th Cir. 2012).
The district court’s findings regarding the drug quantity attributable to Baggott, as well as the purity level, were “plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Betancourt , 422 F.3d at 246 . Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 16-11449 Document: 00514099712 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2017
Earon L. TYLER, DOC #547389, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1134

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>


                    SURGE COMPONENTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                 Three Months Ended           Nine Months Ended
                                                      August 31,                   August 31,
                                                 2 0 0 1       2 0 0 0       2 0 0 1        2 0 0 0
                                              -----------    -----------   -----------    -----------

<S>                                           <C>            <C>           <C>            <C>
Basic earnings:

Net (loss) income                             $  (645,101)   $   299,810   $(4,358,423)   $ 1,511,374
                                              ===========    ===========   ===========    ===========

Shares:
    Weighted common shares outstanding          7,654,845      4,984,207     7,020,385      4,949,049
                                              ===========    ===========   ===========    ===========

Basic earnings per common share               $      (.08)   $       .06   $      (.62)   $       .31
                                              ===========    ===========   ===========    ===========

Diluted earnings:

Net (loss) income                             $  (645,101)   $   299,810   $(4,358,423)   $ 1,511,374

Add:  interest expense on convertible debt,
net of tax                                           --          123,900          --          287,049
                                              -----------    -----------   -----------    -----------

Net income and assumed conversion             $  (645,101)   $   423,710   $(4,358,423)   $ 1,798,423
                                              ===========    ===========   ===========    ===========

Shares:
    Weighted common shares outstanding          7,654,845      4,984,207     7,020,385      4,949,049
    Convertible debt                                 --          914,942          --          865,926
    Employees stock options                          --        1,452,300          --        1,501,316
                                              -----------    -----------   -----------    -----------

Total weighted shares outstanding               7,654,845      7,351,449     7,020,385      7,316,291
                                              ===========    ===========   ===========    ===========

Diluted earnings per common share             $      (.08)   $       .06   $      (.62)   $       .25
                                              ===========    ===========   ===========    ===========

</TABLE>
## SERVED: Aprill,2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF SKYWEST AIRLINES FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013

- 0292
POST HEARING BRIEFING SCHEDULE Complainant and Respondent have conferred and agreed onthe following briefing schedule. WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Federal AviationAdministration (hereinafter "Complainant") shall file its Post-Hearing Briefon orbefore May 7, 2014; and 2. SkyWest Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") shall file its PostHearing Briefon orbefore June 6, 2014; and 3. Complainant shall file its Rebuttal Brief, ifany, on or before June 16, 2014.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List

1SERVICE LIST

.ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl000 1

Todd C. Emerson, Respondent's Counsel Director

- Government and Legal Affairs SkyWest Airlines 444 South River Road St. George, UT 84790 TEL: 435-634-3530 FAX: 435-634-3505 Robert Spitzer, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-1417 FAX: 425-227-1007 ONE COPY

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0292 (Civil Penalty Action)

· 1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,162
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,488
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,650
<PP&E>                                         402,347
<DEPRECIATION>                                 147,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,667,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          846,866
<BONDS>                                      1,977,576
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      6,723
<COMMON>                                        10,967
<OTHER-SE>                                     825,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,667,267
<SALES>                                      1,802,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,883,067
<CGS>                                        1,799,513
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,241,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             181,979
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (541,779)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (541,779)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 215,744
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (326,035)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
STATE EX REL. Donald Ray MAGEE, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2016-KH-2214

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 2018

Denied. Moot.

JOHNSON, C.J., would remand matter to court of appeal.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Fletcher Louis OGLETREE, Jr., aka Fletcher Louis Ogletree, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-50273.

D.C. No. CR-02-00089-RSWL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 19, 2004.

Ronald L. Cheng, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Gregory A. Lesser, USR — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kathryn A. Young, FPDCA — -Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Fletcher Louis Ogletree Jr. appeals the district court’s revocation of supervised release and imposition of an 18-month term of imprisonment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review *210for abuse of discretion the district court’s revocation of a term of supervised release. *See United States v. Daniel,*209 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir.2000). We review de novo the application of sentencing guidelines to facts and the legality of a sentence. *See United States v. Phillips,*356 F.3d 1086, 1099 (9th Cir.2004); *United States v. Jackson,*176 F.3d 1175, 1176 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). We affirm.

Ogletree first contends that the district court erred in imposing a sentence consecutive to the sentence for a bank robbery conviction, which was one of the bases for the instant revocation. He contends that the district court failed to consider the relevant sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 in deciding to sentence consecutively. We disagree. The district court reviewed the presentence report and the sentencing memoranda which address several of those sentencing factors. Moreover, bank robbery is the same offense for which Ogletree was originally convicted. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. *See Jackson,*176 F.3d at 1178 (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion where, although specifically noting one factor, the record reflected adequate justification for imposing consecutive sentences).

Next Ogletree contends that the district court erroneously believed that it lacked the authority to sentence him to concurrent sentences. This contention is belied by the record because the district court was aware of and exercised its discretion under the Guidelines in choosing to sentence Ogletree consecutively rather than concurrently. *See id.; United States v. Lockard,*910 F.2d 542, 544 (9th Cir.1990) (deciding that when revoking supervised release the district court does not need to address each element of § 3553 if the record as a whole demonstrates that the court did consider the factors).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Official Journal C 444/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 444 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6322 December 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 444

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6322 December 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2020/C 444/01 | Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 16 December 2020 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament | 1 |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 444/02 | Euro exchange rates — 21 December 2020 | 3 |
| 2020/C 444/03 | Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) ( OJ C 396, 30.12.2006 )
   (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2020/C 444/04 | New national side of euro coins intended for circulation | 5 |
| 2020/C 444/05 | New national side of euro coins intended for circulation | 6 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Parliament

2020/C 444/01

Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 16 December 2020 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament

1

European Commission

2020/C 444/02

Euro exchange rates — 21 December 2020

3

2020/C 444/03

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) ( OJ C 396, 30.12.2006 )
   (
  1
  )

( OJ C 396, 30.12.2006 )

1

4

2020/C 444/04

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

5

2020/C 444/05

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report of Divine Skin, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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 financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



Date: April 15, 2011

| |        |                        
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | By:    | /s/Daniel Khesin       
| | Name:  | Daniel Khesin          
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentications, 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 Divine Skin, Inc. and will be retained by Divine Skin, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Jeffrey RUSHING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-1738

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.