alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AAM-12-226-E March 15, 2012

Exemption No. 10478 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0170

Ms. Genevieve A. Woydziak Secretary/Treasurer Elkhorn Aviation, Inc.

43769 Heilner Road Baker City, OR 97814

Dear Ms. Woydziak:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated February 10, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Elkhorn Aviation, Inc. (Elkhorn Av iation), for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Elkhorn Aviation which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Elkhorn Aviation.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that2

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Elkhorn Aviation Inc., an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Elkhorn Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Elkhorn Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Elkhorn Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
Exhibit 10.1


PROMISSORY NOTE








	
$172,364.00

	
September 30, 2011












FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned Maker promises to pay to the order of LANTERN ADVISERS, LLC at such place as the holder of this Note may designate in writing to Maker, the principal sum of One Hundred Seventy-two Thousand, Three Hundred Four and No/100 dollars ($172,364.00), together with simple interest on the unpaid principal balance from the date of this Note paid at the rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum.  Principal and interest are due and payable in lawful money of the United States of America.







Principal payments and accrued interest are due as follows:








	
·  

	
Interest payments shall be due on the last day of each month;








	
·  

	
Principal shall be due on March 31, 2012.












This Note serves to consolidate the previous Notes issued and renewed beginning July 30, 2009 through and including July 15, 2011 as well as interest accrued and remaining unpaid as of the date above.







This Note may not be fully or partially prepaid at any time during the term of this Note.







If default occurs in the payment of any amount due under this Note when due, the entire principal balance and accrued but unpaid interest under this Note shall at once become due and payable, without notice, at the option of the holder of this Note.  Any failure to exercise such option shall not constitute a waiver of the right to exercise it in the event of any subsequent default.







Maker waives presentment, dishonor, protest, demand, diligence, notice of protest, notice of demand, notice of dishonor, notice of nonpayment, and any other notice of any kind otherwise required by law in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default, enforcement or collection of this Note and expressly agrees that this Note, or any payment hereunder, may be extended or subordinated (by forbearance or otherwise) at any time, without in any way affecting the liability of Maker.  Maker agrees to pay on demand Payee’s reasonable collection costs to enforce payment due under this Note.







This Note may not be amended or modified, nor shall any waiver of any provision hereof be effective, except only by an instrument in writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of any amendment, modification, or waiver is sought.  This Note shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Minnesota.








	  	
MAKER:

	
/s/ Joseph A. Geraci, II


	  	  	
Poker Magic, Inc.


	  	  	
By:  Joseph A. Geraci, II


	  	  	  
	  	
PAYEE:

	
/s/ Douglas Polinsky


	  	  	
Lantern Advisers, LLC


	  	  	
By:  Douglas Polinsky
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 29, 2021. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 29, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22D0122. JOHN H. BEMBRY v. ALFREDDLYNE BEMBRY. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2021V16006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRELY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                        27900
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3270
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              31320
<PP&E>                                         1696
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                49582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        362810
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     282953
<OTHER-SE>                                  3406034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  49582
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              94314
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            72335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (166649)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (166649)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.02)






</TABLE>
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 2, 2014

No. 04-13-00707-CR

Julian Lawrence NAVARRO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No 2, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. CCL-12-0325

Honorable Frank Follis, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. 

Appellant’s counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw. However, neither the brief nor the 

motion contain an exhibit showing that counsel has informed appellant that he has the right to 

review the record and file a pro se brief. In Nichols v. State, we explained that “[w]hen an 

appointed attorney determines there are no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal, the attorney has a 

duty to request permission to withdraw as counsel.” 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 1997, no pet.). We further explained that “[t]he motion to withdraw must also be 

accompanied by an exhibit showing that counsel provided the appellant with a copy of the 

Anders brief and informed the appellant that he or she has a right to review the record and file a 

pro se brief.” Id. at 85-86 (emphasis added); see also Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Counsel is reminded that a motion to withdraw filed 

under similar circumstances in any future appeal must be accompanied by an exhibit showing 

that counsel has informed the appellant that he or she has a right to review the record and file a 

pro se brief.

As to this appeal, appellant has a right to review the record and file a pro se brief. If 

appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so within forty-five days from the date of 

this order. See Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. If appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a 

responsive brief no later than thirty days after the date appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this 

court. We ORDER the motion to withdraw, filed by appellant’s counsel, to be HELD IN 

ABEYANCE pending further order of the court.
_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of June, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3208 

To reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal 

Stamp, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2012 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Ms. SNOWE, and Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds 

Semipostal Stamp, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Multinational Species 

5 Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization 

6 Act of 2012’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

8 Section 2(c) of the Multinational Species Conserva9 tion Funds Semipostal Stamp Act of 2010 (39 U.S.C. 416 

10 note) is amended— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3208 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘2 years’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘6 years’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(5) STAMP DEPICTIONS.—The Postal Service 

5 shall make available to the public under this Act— 

6 ‘‘(A) a stamp that depicts an African ele7 phant or an Asian elephant; 

8 ‘‘(B) a stamp that depicts a rhinoceros; 

9 ‘‘(C) a stamp that depicts a tiger; 

10 ‘‘(D) a stamp that depicts a marine turtle; 

11 and 

12 ‘‘(E) a stamp that depicts a great ape.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99.2

CONSENT OF GLJ PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LTD.



|TO: | Pengrowth Energy Corporation
|--- | ----------------------------

| | 2100, 222-3 Avenue SW
| | ---------------------

| | Calgary, Alberta T2P OB4
| | ------------------------

We hereby
consent to the reference to our name and report evaluating Pengrowth Energy Corporations oil and gas reserves as of December 31, 2012 and the information derived from our reports, as described or incorporated by reference in: (i)
Pengrowth Energy Corporations Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 and (ii) the Registration Statement on Form F-3 ( File No. 333-180888) filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as applicable.



Yours truly,GLJ PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LTD.LOGODoug R. Sutton, P. Eng.
Executive Vice-President


Calgary, Alberta

February 28, 2013
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Land-use change, economics, and rural well-being in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States      

      July 17, 2013    

View Document

This fact sheet highlights findings included in a comprehensive new report (see USGS Professional Paper 1800) which investigated land-use change, economic characteristics, and rural community well-being in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States. Once one of the largest grassland-wetlands ecosystems on earth, the North American prairie has experienced extensive conversion to cultivated agriculture, with farming becoming the dominant land use in the region over the last century. Both perennial habitat lands and agricultural croplands retain importance economically, socially, and culturally. Greatly increased oil and gas development in recent years brought rises in employment and income but also stressed infrastructure, cost of living, and crime rates. Research described in these reports focuses on land-use dynamics and illuminates how economic variables and rural development in the Prairie Pothole Region might be influenced as land uses change.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Fort Collins Science Center          

2150 Centre AvenueBldg CFort Collins, CO80526United States

970-226-9100

970-226-9230

### Explore Search

                  - Canada;United States
                  - Prairie Pothole Region
                  - Iowa;Nebraska;Minnesota;Montana;North Dakota;South Dakota;Wyoming
                  - iowa
                  - Nebraska
                  - Minnesota
                  - Montana
                  - North Dakota
                  - South Dakota
                  - Wyoming

View All **
----

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 Northport Investments,  Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September  30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the “Report’), I, Richard Wang, Chief Financial 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: December 19, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Richard Wang                                             |
|--------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   |    Richard Wang  Chief Financial Officer |
| (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 Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| September 9, 2010                                                                                               |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                            |   |
|                                                                                                            |   |
| /s/ Brian F. MacNeill                |   |
| Brian F. MacNeill, Acting Chief Executive Officer                                                               |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7380

CHARLES RAY LESLIE,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:12-cv-00726-JAG)

Submitted: February 28, 2014 Decided: March 7, 2014

Before KING, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Ray Leslie, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Ray Leslie seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Leslie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annaul Report of Reality Wireless Networks, Inc., a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September
30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
Steve Careaga, Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), 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; and

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

/s/ Steve Careaga
----------------------------
Steve Careaga
Principal Executive Officer
February 17, 2005

/s/ Steve Careaga
----------------------------
Steve Careaga
Principal Financial Officer
February 17, 2005

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Reality Wireless Networks, Inc. and will be retained by Reality
Wireless Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Quarterly Report**

 

I, Gerald McMahon, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of NeoRx Corporation (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350 that:

 

a.               the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

b.              the information contained in the Report 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 15, 2006 | By:            | /s/ GERALD MCMAHON |   |
|--------------------|----------------|--------------------|--------|
|               | Gerald McMahon |

 

----
Case 19-16768 Doc 1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 1 of 3
Case 19-16768 Doc 1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 2 of 3
/s/ Gabriela Ruiz 05/22/2019

Case 19-16768 Doc 1 Filed 05/22/19 Page 3 of 3
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 0500 Directorate ID : 2010 - SW - 014 - AD Helicopter Model: A ll Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH model EC135 helicopters, except the EC 135 P2+ 

### and T2+ Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 218 Helicopters in the US Registry. Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to detect shifting of the plain journal bearing, which could limit the movement of the collective control and result in subsequent loss of control of the heli copter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 38,586 (swashplate assembly) Labor per Helicopter ( .25 x $ 8 5 /work- hour for the inspection) (8 x $85/work-hour for the replacement) $ 22 per cycle $680 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ Total US Flee t Cost $ Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD hav e a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Gary Roach