alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October	7,	2015

Docket	Operations,	M-30

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation

1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	SE.,	Room	W12-140	West	Building	Ground	Floor

Washington,	DC	20590-0001

Subject:	 Request	for	Amendment	to	Exemption	No.	11835

Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA-2015-1161

Dear	Staff:

Pursuant	 to	Section	 333	 of	 the	 FAA	Modernization	and	Reform	Act	 of	 2012	and	 14	 C.F.R.	 §11.81,	

Wohnrade	Civil	Engineers,	Inc.	(the	“Petitioner”)	hereby	submits	its	request	for	the	amendment	to	

its	Section	333	Exemption	No.	11835,	granted	on	June	16,	2015,	to	include	the	Event	38	E384	fixed	

wing	aircraft.

The	E384	UAS	is	manufactured	by	Event	38.	All	manufacturers	recommendations	related	to	safety	

guidelines	will	be	referenced	to	ensure	the	safe	operation	of	the	small	UAS	in	the	national	airspace,	

which	shall	include	all	Event	38	instructional	videos	and	written	or	published	safety	guidelines	for	

the	E384	aircraft.	

Attached	 are	 the	 Operations	 Manual	 and	 Spec	 Sheet	 for	 the	 E384	 aircraft,	 which	 contains	 the	

following:

● General	Information,

● Operating	Limitations,

● Normal	Procedures,

● Aircraft	and	Systems	Description,	

● Handling,	Service	and	Maintenance	Procedures.

The	 findings,	 rationale,	 conclusions,	 conditions	 and	 limitations	 contained	 in	 the	 Federal	 Aviation	

Administration’s	Grant	of	Exemption	No.	11835,	in	addition	to	the	operational	procedures	outlined	

by	 the	 Petitioner’s	 original	 Petition	 for	 Exemption	 dated	 March	 27,	 2015,	 apply	 to	 the	 herein	

request	 to	include	 the	Event	38	E384	aircraft	in	Exemption	 to	No.	11835.	Furthermore,	 there	has	

been	 no	 change	in	 the	 conditions	 and	 reason	 relative	 to	 public	interest	 and	 safety	 that	 were	 the	

basis	for	granting	the	original	exemption.	

Wohnrade Civil Engineers, Inc.
Request	for	Amendment	to	Exemption	11835

Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA-2015-1161

October	7,	2015

Page	2

11582 Colony Row, Broomfield, Colorado 80021

Phone: 720-259-0965

Fax: 720-259-1519

Wohnrade	Civil	Engineers,	Inc.

Thank	 you	 for	 your	 consideration	 of	 this	 request.	 Please	 advise	 Wohnrade	 of	 any	 additional	

information	that	may	be	required.	

Very	respectfully,

WOHNRADE	CIVIL	ENGINEERS,	INC.

Mary	B.	Wohnrade,	P.E.	- Principal	

Registered	Engineer	- CO,	IL,	NV	

mary@wcecivil.com
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.

MARVIN G. SCHARFF,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-10286

D.C. No. 1:94-cr-00059-FMTG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Guam

Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 10, 2013** 

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Marvin G. Scharff appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 100-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for two

counts of importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

JUN 13 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-10286

Scharff contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

respond to his mitigating arguments and by failing to explain adequately why it

denied his request for a downward variance. We review for plain error, see United

States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. 

The record reflects that the district court considered Scharff’s mitigating arguments

and adequately explained the sentence in light of the seriousness of the offense and

other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. 

AFFIRMED.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0000394 30-MAY-2014 08:21 AM
<TABLE>

EXHIBIT 11.  COMPUTATION RE EARNINGS PER SHARE
<CAPTION>
                                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Three Months Ended,
                                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             March 31, 1998                              March 31, 1997
                                 ----------------------------------------     --------------------------------------
                                                 Weighted        Per                        Weighted        Per
                                                 Average        Share                        Average       Share
                                    Income        Shares       Amount           Income       Shares       Amount
                                 ------------- ------------- ------------     ----------- ------------- -------------
<S>                              <C>           <C>           <C>              <C>         <C>           <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER
   COMMON SHARE
Income available to
   common shareholders                 $1,922         6,387        $0.30       $2,054          6,393          $0.32
                                                             ============                                ===========

EFFECT OF DILUTIVE SHARES
Options issued to
   management                               -            75                            -             74
                                 ------------- -------------                  ----------- --------------

DILUTED EARNINGS PER
   COMMON SHARE                        $1,922         6,462        $0.30       $2,054          6,467          $0.32
                                 ============= ============= ============     =========== ============== ============

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
10(a)


 


 


 


 


                                                                                                                                                January 31,
2008


 


TO:  CRAIG A. SHELDON


 


Dear
Craig:


 


This
letter confirms that the term of your Employment Agreement dated November 1,
2004, as amended (the “Agreement”), is hereby amended to extend the term of the
Agreement for a one year period ending October 31, 2009. As such, (i) Section 1
of the Agreement is amended to provide that the term “Employment Period” means
the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending October 31, 2009
and (ii) Section 4.10(i) of the Agreement is amended to change
the date therein to October 31, 2009.


 


Please
acknowledge and confirm your agreement to the extension by signing and
returning a copy of this letter to Joanna Albrecht.


 


Sincerely,


 


	
  /s/
  R. Scott Jones

  	
   

  
	
  R.
  Scott Jones

  
	
  President
  and CEO

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  ACKNOWLEDGED
  and CONFIRMED:

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/
  Craig A. Sheldon

  	
   

  
	
  Craig
  A. Sheldon
# REFRIGERANT SOLUTIONS LIMITED

8 Murieston Road, Hale, Altrincham, Cheshire WA15 9ST

Tel: (+44)(0)161 926 9876 Fax: (+44)(0)161 926 9875

Mob: 07785 242552 E

- mail: rs@refsols.com

Web: www.refsols.com

Our ref: JEP/ nb

Date: 10 April 2013

M elissa Fiffer

A lternatives & Emissions Reduction Branch Stratrospheric Protection Division

U nited States Environmental Protection Agency Washington D.C. 20 460

USA

By e

- mail and post

Dear M s Fiffer,

SNAP SUBMISSION FOR RS

- 50 (R442A)

As you are aware, we submitted an application for our refrigerant RS

- 50, with an ASHRAE number of R442A, to be added to the US SNAP list on 26 July 2011

.

According to your letter dated 30 November 2011, our submission “was complete as of October 26, 2011 . EPA has 90 days from this da te to render a decision concerning the substitute’s acceptability in the specified end

- uses. Pending EPA’s decision, RS

50 may be sold in the U.S in the specific end

- uses listed above as of January 24, 2012. EPA expects to issue a preliminary determination , and will notify you in a letter.”

Despite several reminders & requests by e

- mail, we have not yet received the preliminary determination letter from EPA that RS

- 50 will be added to the SNAP list, and we are nearly 18 months from when you confirmed that our submission was complete. You say that EPA is mandated to give a decision within 90 days, so I do not understand why this is taking so long.

I would also remind you that, as I have previously advise by e

- mail (1 December 2011) RS

- 50 is not only a repl acement for R22 but also a low global warming & highly energy efficient alternative to R404A and R507. You have said that you will

consider RS

- 50 in comparison not just to ODS, but also to all available alternatives in these refrigeration uses. In addition , you said EPA, when the listing is published in the Federal register, will include a comparison to other alternatives such as R404A and

R507.2

2 Please can you explain to me why you have not as yet issued the preliminary determination letter, and when RS

- 50 will be formally added to the SNAP list with publication in the Federal R egister.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

J E Poole
vc_8k1101ex101.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


 


Warrick Unit 4 Coal Supply Agreement Amendment No. 1


 


CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS OMITTED


 



	
LEGEND:

	
[**] REPRESENTS CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT


 







This Amendment to the January 1, 2009 Warrick Unit 4 Coal Supply Agreement between Vectren Fuels (VF), Inc, and Vectren Power Supply (VPS) evidences as follows:


 


WHEREAS, VPS annually buys 480,000 tons of coal from VF to supply Warrick Unit 4 under a contract entered into effective January 1, 2009, and having a term ending December 31, 2014; and


 


WHEREAS, the Warrick Unit 4 Contract provides for a price re-negotiation period pursuant to section 4.3 for 2013 and 2014; and;


 


WHEREAS, VPS has 301,322 tons of stored coal at Prosperity Mine which will be delivered by VF to Warrick 4, or other units, during 2011 and/or 2012;


 


Now, therefore, the parties agree to amend the Warrick Unit 4 Contract as follows:


 


1.  Under section 4.1, the FOB Mine prices for 2013 and 2014 are [**].


 


2.  Section 1.1 is amended to provide that the source of the coal for 2012-2014 shall be the Oaktown Mine, unless the parties mutually agree to an alternative source.


 


3.  Exhibit A is amended to provide for a monthly weighted average of chlorine of .10% and .06ug/g of mercury. To the extent coal is shipped in excess of this specification, VPS may reject such shipments.


 


4.  VPS' stored coal pile of 301,322 tons located on Prosperity Mine may, based on instructions from VPS to VF, be moved to any of VPS' plants. VF will be reimbursed for transport costs but will waive the previously agreed upon handling fee of [**].


 


5.  No other terms of the Warrick Unit 4 Contract have been modified by this Amendment.


 


WHEREFORE, the parties have caused this Amendment to be effective as of October 31, 2011.


 


 



	
Vectren Power Supply

	  	
Vectren Fuels


	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	
By

	
Wayne Games

	  	
By

	
Randy L. Beck


	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	
Its

	
VP – Power Supply

	  	
Its

	
President
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 16, 2018

No. 04-18-00704-CR

Lissette FUENTES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-CRS-318

The Honorable Everardo Garcia, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court imposed sentence on June 12, 2018. Because appellant timely filed a 

motion for new trial on July 11, 2018, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on September 10, 

2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). A notice of appeal was not filed until September 27, 2018, 

and appellant did not timely file a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See

id. R. 26.3. 

We therefore ORDER appellant to file a written response in this court on or before 

November 15, 2018 showing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that timely notice of 

appeal is necessary to invoke court of appeals’ jurisdiction). If appellant fails to satisfactorily 

respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. If a 

supplemental clerk’s record is required to show jurisdiction, appellant must ask the trial court 

clerk to prepare one and must notify the clerk of this court that such a request was made. All 

deadlines in this matter are suspended until further order of the court.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel and the court 

reporter.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Intersil Corporation (Intersil), that the quarterly report of Intersil on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Intersil.



|                        |  |     |  |                                           
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: November 10, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard M. Beyer                      
|                        |  |     |  | Richard M. Beyer Chief Executive
Officer  
|                        |  |    
|Date: November 10, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Daniel J. Heneghan                    
|                        |  |     |  | Daniel J. Heneghan Chief Financial
Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 74 (Monday, April 20, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8834]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1073; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-28]


Amendment to Class E Airspace; Summersville, WV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date, technical 
amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a final rule 
published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2008, amending Class 
E airspace at Summersville, WV (73 FR 75938). This action also corrects 
the misspelling of the airport name and town from Summerville to 
Summersville.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, April 20, 2009. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual 
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support 
Group, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30320; Telephone (404) 305-5610, Fax 404-305-5572.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for 
comments in the Federal Register on December 15 (73 FR 75938) amending 
Class E airspace to provide adequate controlled Class E airspace for 
aircraft executing Instrument Flight Rule operations at Summersville, 
WV. The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-
controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse 
public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no 
adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on March 12, 2009. No adverse comments were received, 
and thus this notice confirms that effective date.

Technical Amendment

    After publication, it was observed that the airport name and town 
were misspelled. Therefore, in the Federal Register Docket No. FAA-
2008-1073; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-28, published on December 15, 
2008 (73 FR 75938), change the following: on page 75938, columns 1 and 
2, and page 75939, columns 1 and 2, change referenced spelling from 
Summerville Airport and Summerville, WV, to ``Summersville Airport and 
Summersville, WV.''
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 1, 2009.
Myron A. Jenkins,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air 
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. E9-8834 Filed 4-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
navi-ex10241_236.htm



EXHIBIT 10.24.1

 

List of States that are a party to the Consent Judgment and Orders (“Agreement”) dated January 13, 2022 between Navient Corporation, Navient Solutions, LLC and Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. (the “Navient Parties”) and State Attorneys General.

 


			
	
Arizona
	
Arkansas
	
California

	
Colorado
	
Connecticut
	
District of Columbia

	
Delaware
	
Florida
	
Georgia

	
Hawaii
	
Illinois
	
Indiana

	
Iowa
	
Kansas
	
Kentucky

	
Louisiana
	
Maine
	
Maryland

	
Massachusetts
	
Michigan
	
Minnesota

	
Mississippi
	
Missouri
	
Nebraska

	
Nevada
	
New Jersey
	
New Mexico

	
New York
	
North Carolina
	
Ohio

	
Oregon
	
Pennsylvania
	
Rhode Island

	
South Carolina
	
Tennessee
	
Vermont

	
Virginia
	
Washington
	
West Virginia

	
Wisconsin
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 27, 2014

No. 04-14-00593-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.E., A Child,

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-01424

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental 

rights. The trial court signed the order on July 3, 2014. Accordingly, appellant’s notice of 

appeal was due to be filed on July 23, 2014. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). A motion for extension of 

time to file the notice of appeal was due on August 7, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant 

filed a notice of appeal on August 15, 2014, but did not file a motion for extension of time. It 

thus appears that the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good 

faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day 

grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). But “once 

the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can 

no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.” Id. 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within fifteen days from 

the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
----

Action brought on 10 February 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Republic of Iceland

(Case E-2/05)

(2005/C 117/08)

An action against the Republic of Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 February 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Bjørnar Alterskjær, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

----
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3093 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on acrylic staple fiber, not 

dyed, not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning, with 

a cut fiber length of 100 mm to 135 mm and a target length of 

120 mm. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2012 

Mrs. HAGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on acrylic staple 

fiber, not dyed, not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning, with a cut fiber length of 100 mm 

to 135 mm and a target length of 120 mm. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3093 IS

1 SECTION 1. ACRYLIC STAPLE FIBER, NOT DYED, NOT 

2 CARDED, COMBED, OR OTHERWISE PROC3 ESSED FOR SPINNING, WITH A CUT FIBER 

4 LENGTH OF 100 MM TO 135 MM AND A TARGET 

5 LENGTH OF 120 MM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.40.31 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 acrylic staple fiber, not dyed, not carded, combed, or oth9 erwise processed for spinning, with a cut fiber length of 

10 100 mm to 135 mm and a target length of 120 mm) is 

11 amended by striking the date in the effective period col12 umn and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

15 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS