alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SERVED: MARCH 30, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS•

WASHINGTON, DC IN THE MATTER OF PETERHANTZCONWANY DOCKETNO. FAA-2016-4268 (Civil Penalty Action) .



### NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012S0700041) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Douglas M. Rawald. All 

### future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAAHearing Docket, and the other . persons onthe attached Service List. 

### SO ORDERED. 

# ('// r--.t

# v///

Attachment-Service List . nnie



## A.;;~/ Chief

# AIIministratiV•

### SERVICE LIST- BY 

### U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

### ONE COPY Timothy I. McCulloch, 

### Respondent's Counsel HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 2375 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 750 Phoenix, AZ 85016 TEL: 602-631-4400 FAX: 602-631-4404 Ryan Landers, 

### Complainant's Counsel Enforcement Division, Southern Team Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 . FAX: 404-305-5223 The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald,

### Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-20 16-4268 (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: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
Ashley Brooke CRUTCHFIELD v. STATE

CR-15-1098

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 11, 2016

No. 04-16-00207-CV

Antonio JIMENEZ and Mary Louise Jimenez,

Appellants

v.

Carlos GONGORA,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-02692

Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief in this appeal was due October 3, 2016. Neither the brief nor a motion 

for extension of time has been filed. We order appellants Antonio Jimenez and Mary Louise 

Jimenez to file, by October 21, 2016, their appellant’s brief and a written response reasonably 

explaining their failure to timely file the brief. If appellants fail to file a brief and the written 

response by the date ordered, we will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.8(a).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 11th day of October, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable John C. Marburger 

County Attorney 

Feyrtte county 

LaGrange, Texes 

Dear Sir1 

of thir departPlarrf 

quseting the opinion 

Sows: 

oatian -da 'as ;toll tatutas, we faU.to find 

Texas have repeatedly hqld thst tha powers 

Court are 15.mlted to those sxp7~sly grantnatitutlon and statute.6 and suoh powers as 

ose exprassly glxlllted. Shoe our marsh tails 

to reveal the existence of a statute that &res exprass authority to the Cammissioners* Court to expend fts funds in the rimaer stated, we must saa ii auoh authority is istplied by oonalderlag other statutes that do aLthoriee the rfomlssioners' Court 

to provide ald t0'aertal.n Federal Governmeat a6enoiee operating 

within this State. 

Saatlon 17 or Artiole $331, R. C. S., extends the 

authority of ths Ocaunisslonars * Court to include the making of 

appropriations to aid and assist the United States Department of 
Ran. John C. Idarburger - p. 2 

Agriaulture In the distribution of aommadlties to pereona In 

need of assistanoe under the Food and/or Cotton Stamp plan. 

The plain lantyuape of the statute clearly sets out the 

l ddltional powers ertlnted to the Commissioners1 Court and 

#uoh addltansl powers are limited to aid 2lven to thin partiaulsr branah of the United State6 Oorernment. iSe fail to 

find any langua@ implyin& that this authority oould be extended to permit tha rendering of aid to another branch of 

the 2orerIumHIt ldentifled as the Farm Seourity Administration. 

Artlole 23728-2, R. C. S., relates to the authority 

aP the CoPlmisslonere* Court to provide offloe apaoe and to 

pey regular monthly utility bills, eta,, for the purpose oi 

alding and aooperating with the agenaiee of the Federal Oarl rar?nt engaged In the administration of relief ta the unemplayed or needy people of the Stata. 

The Farm Seourity Administration, formally the Remettleme& Admlnietration, prinolpally oaoupiee Itself with 

rehabllltatlon problems aonoerning tarma and housing and though 

rush oifioe ma9 render a valuable rertios to the aonmunlty, we 

08nnot oonstrue ita aotlrltlee to lnalude the ~adminlstrstlon 

of relief to tlm unemployed or needy people of tbs State OS 

Twos." Froa a study OS tba Aote ol Oongrem and enoutin 

orders oresting suoh Farm Seourlty Administration and/or its 

predeoesaor, Resettlement Administration, we fail to flad anything to imply that the dutlea of tha said Farm Seaurity AdmUirtratlon should kt oo-extenslvs with those of the rariouo 

agenolee areeted under the National Emsrgenoy Relief Abt. The 

numerous egunolaa of the Federal Government have their dutle8 

and rerponeiblJ.ltles expressly enumerated, esoh in a separate 

?leld of endeavor. 

Therefore, 5.n the absenoe of any statute either BXQreselp ar by lmpliaatian suthorizir@ the Conmiiseionere* Court 

to expend oounty funds far the above mentioned PurpoBe, it 5.8 

our opinion that the aounty oennot legally pay office IF)ntE, 

light bills, water bille, eta., for th0 Farm Seaurity Mx!~iniStrat1on.r 

Yours very tNly 

ATTORN5Y OEi?PiRAL OF TZXAS 

BY 

Rarrie Tole
UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Michael IGNACIO, Cryptologic Technician (Interpretive) 

First Class (E-6), U.S. Navy, 

Appellant 

No. 12-0202 

Crim. App. No. 201100062 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

Argued April 23, 2012 

Decided May 10, 2012 

PER CURIAM 

Counsel 

For Appellant: Captain Michael D. Berry, USMC (argued). 

For Appellee: Lieutenant Benjamin J. Voce-Gardner, USN 

(argued); Colonel Kurt J. Brubaker, USMC, and Brian K. Keller, 

Esq. (on brief). 

Military Judge: Donald C. King 

This opinion is subject to revision before final publication. 
United States v. Ignacio, No. 12-0202/NA 

2

PER CURIAM: 

Court members sitting as a general court-martial convicted 

Cryptologic Technician First Class Michael Ignacio of abusive 

sexual contact in violation of Article 120(h), Uniform Code of 

Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920(h). The convening authority 

approved the adjudged sentence of a bad-conduct discharge, three 

years of confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and 

reduction to E-1. The United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of 

Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence. United 

States v. Ignacio, No. NMCCA 20110062, slip op. at 2 (N-M. Ct. 

Crim. App. Nov. 8, 2011). 

 When discussing the proposed instructions on evidence of 

consent, the military judge explained on the record why he would 

instruct the panel pursuant to the Military Judges’ Benchbook1

rather than the statutory language. See United States v. 

Prather, 69 M.J. 338 (C.A.A.F. 2011); United States v. Medina, 

69 M.J. 462, 465 (C.A.A.F. 2011). The military judge’s 

instructions included the statement that “[e]vidence of consent 

is relevant to whether the prosecution has proven the elements 

of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt” and that “[t]he 

prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

that consent did not exist.” We granted review of this case to 

 

1

 Dep’t of the Army, Pam. 27-9, Legal Services, Military Judges’ 

Benchbook (2010). 
United States v. Ignacio, No. 12-0202/NA 

3

determine if the military judge erred in so instructing the 

panel. 

 “Whether a panel was properly instructed is a question of 

law reviewed de novo.” United States v. Ober, 66 M.J. 393, 405 

(C.A.A.F. 2008). “If [evidence of consent] is presented, the 

judge must ensure that the factfinder is instructed to consider 

all of the evidence, including the evidence raised by the 

defendant that is pertinent to the affirmative defense, when 

determining whether the prosecution established guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” United States v. Neal, 68 M.J. 289, 304 

(C.A.A.F. 2010). Here the instructions correctly conveyed the 

Government’s burden to the members. The decision of the United 

States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is therefore 

affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2









CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Year End Report of Luna Medical Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brent Shaw, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/ Brent Shaw



Brent Shaw

Acting Chief Executive Officer

February 26, 2003
Exhibit 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection  with the Annual Report of Poseidis,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  February  28,  2003,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Louis
Pardau dit Pardo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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/ Louis Pardau dit Pardo
                                  Louis Pardau dit Pardo
                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                  (or the equivalent thereof)
                                  June 16, 2003
EXHIBIT 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We have issued our report dated September 8, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule included in the Annual Report of Collectors Universe, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of that report in Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-34554 effective April 11, 2000, No. 333-34558 effective April 11, 2000, No. 333-85962 effective April 10, 2002, No. 333-121035 effective December 7, 2004, No. 333-137375 effective September 15, 2006, and No. 333-139513 effective December 20, 2006) of Collectors Universe, Inc. and subsidiaries, each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.








/s/  GRANT THORNTON LLP





Irvine, California


September 8, 2010
Exhibit 13.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer
pursuant to

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002



I, John Robertson, Chief Executive Officer of Linux Gold Corp.,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:



1. The Annual Report on Form 20-F of Linux Gold Corp. for the year
ended February 28, 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and



2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Linux Gold Corp.



|Date: July 5, 2012 | /s/ John Robertson     
|------------------ | -----------------------
|                   | John Robertson,        
|                   | Chief Executive Officer
# L_2004336EN.01002301.xml

| 12.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 336/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 336/23

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1948/2004

of 11 November 2004

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 12th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) and in particular the second indent of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 of 19 July 2004 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2004/2005 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 of 19 July 2004 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2004/2005 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 12th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 the maximum amount of the export refund shall be 46,402 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 November 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 November 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 246, 20.7.2004, p. 23. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1685/2004 (OJ L 303, 30.9.2004, p. 21).

2

---
```

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 accompanying Amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A
(the "Report") of Quick-Med Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2004, I, David S. Lerner, President and Principal Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

Dated:  October 20, 2004

/s/ DAVID S. LERNER
David S. Lerner
President (and Principal Executive Officer)
```
Exhibit 10.3

 

EXHIBIT 2.13-2

[FORM OF]

SWINGLINE NOTE

 

 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned (the “Borrower”), hereby promises to pay to            or its registered assigns (the “Swingline Lender”), in accordance with the provisions of the Credit Agreement (as hereinafter defined), the principal amount of each Swingline Loan from time to time made by the Swingline Lender to the Borrower under that certain Amended and Restated Senior Secured Credit Agreement, dated as of February 29, 2012 (as amended, restated, extended, supplemented or otherwise modified in writing from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”), among the Borrower, the Lenders identified therein and Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent and Collateral Agent.  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings provided in the Credit Agreement.

 

The Borrower promises to pay interest on the unpaid principal amount of each Swingline Loan from the date of such Swingline Loan until such principal amount is paid in full, at such interest rates and at such times as provided in the Credit Agreement.  All payments of principal and interest shall be made to the Administrative Agent for the account of the Swingline Lender in Dollars in immediately available funds at the Administrative Agent’s Office.  If any amount is not paid in full when due hereunder, such unpaid amount shall bear interest, to be paid upon demand, from the due date thereof until the date of actual payment (and before as well as after judgment) computed at the per annum rate set forth in the Credit Agreement.

 

This Swingline Note is the Swingline Note referred to in the Credit Agreement, is entitled to the benefits thereof and may be prepaid in whole or in part subject to the terms and conditions provided therein.  This Note is also entitled to the benefits of the Collateral Agreement and is secured by the Collateral.  Upon the occurrence and continuation of one or more of the Events of Default specified in the Credit Agreement, all amounts then remaining unpaid on this Swingline Note shall become, or may be declared to be, immediately due and payable all as provided in the Credit Agreement. Swingline Loans made by the Swingline Lender shall be evidenced by one or more loan accounts or records maintained by the Swingline Lender in the ordinary course of business.  The Swingline Lender may also attach schedules to this Swingline Note and endorse thereon the date, amount and maturity of its Swingline Loans and payments with respect thereto.

 

The Borrower, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby waives diligence, presentment, protest and demand and notice of protest, demand, dishonor and nonpayment of this Swingline Note.

 

THIS SWINGLINE NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

 

	
 
    	
MAC-GRAY CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
Adrian MCKENNEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-0116

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 04, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Conference Papers 

#           Preparing for THEMIS controlled global Mars mosaics      

      March 20, 2004    

We have begun work to prepare for producing controlled 2001 Mars Odyssey THEMIS infrared (IR) and visible (VIS) global mosaics of Mars. This effort is being coordinated with colleagues from Arizona State University and on the THEMIS team who plan to address radiometric issues in making such mosaics. We are concentrating on geometric issues. Several areas of investigation are now in progress, including: a) characterizing the absolute pointing accuracy of THEMIS images; b) investigating whether automatic tie point matching algorithms could be used to provide connections between overlapping THEMIS images; c) developing algorithms to allow for the photogrammetric (bundle) adjustment of the THEMIS IR (line scanner) camera images. Our primary goal in this pilot study effort will be to make several test control THEMIS mosaics and better determine which methods could be used, which require development, and what level of effort is required, in order to make large regional or global controlled THEMIS mosaics.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Randolph L Kirk, Ph.D.

##### Scientist Emeritus

Astrogeology Science Center

rkirk@usgs.gov

#### Laurence  Soderblom, PhD

##### Geophysicist 

Astrogeology Science Center

astro_outreach@usgs.gov

555-555-5555

## Related Content

#### Randolph L Kirk, Ph.D.

##### Scientist Emeritus

Astrogeology Science Center

rkirk@usgs.gov

#### Laurence  Soderblom, PhD

##### Geophysicist 

Astrogeology Science Center

astro_outreach@usgs.gov

555-555-5555

### Contact

####               Astrogeology Science Center          

2255 N. Gemini DriveFlagstaff, AZ86001United States

928-556-7000

928-556-7014

### Explore Search

                  - Mars
                  - Cartography
                  - Geographic Information System (GIS)
                  - Geology
                  - Maps and Mapping
                  - Planetary Science
                  - Mars
                  - Planetary Geologic Mapping Program

View All **
Herbert JERRIDO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4396

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Writ of mandamus is denied.