alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
July 1, 2015

Mr. John P. Creed

8009 Cooke Road

Elkins Park, PA 19027

Dear Mr. John P. Creed:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 45.27(a), 45.29 (3)(c)-(h), 61.113 (a) and (b), 91.103, 91.105, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 

91.151, 91.405, 91.407, 91.409, 91.417, and part 21 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 

30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your April 22, 2015, exemption request into the public docket 

(No. FAA−2015−1258), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Aircraft and

Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
D.M., Mother of A.M., a child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1674

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - (-)science_science(3)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(37)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(3)
              - alaska(6)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(3)
              - arkansas(4)
              - california(44)
              - colorado(9)
              - florida(5)
              - georgia(5)
              - hawaii(3)
              - idaho(8)
              - kansas(2)
              - (-)louisiana(3)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - mississippi(2)
              - montana(7)
              - nebraska(2)
              - nevada(3)
              - new jersey(4)
              - new mexico(6)
              - new york(3)
              - north carolina(3)
              - north dakota(6)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(4)
              - pennsylvania(2)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south carolina(2)
              - south dakota(4)
              - tennessee(2)
              - texas(3)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(3)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(12)
              - wyoming(7)

## By Year

Research        June 22, 2016        Status and Trends of Emergent Wetlands in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1950-2010

Project        July 5, 2017        Sparta Aquifer Recovery Project

Research        April 30, 2020        Forest Structure Resulting from ‘Wildlife Forestry Silviculture’
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Fr ank, Clements and Haley

ROGER WILLIAM THOMPSON MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1863-05-3 PER CURIAM DECEMBER 6, 2005 INTERNATIONAL COLD STORAGE AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Jaleh K. Slominski, on brief), for appellant. (S. Vernon Priddy III; Sands An derson Marks & M iller, on brief), for appellees.

Roger William Thompson appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that he failed to prove (1) he suffered from asthma; and (2) by clear and convincing evidence that he suffered from a compensable ordi nary disease of life. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Thompson v. International Cold Storage Co. , VWC File No. 216-70-57 (July 1, 2005). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the C ourt and argument would not aid th e decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.
# C_2021362EN.01017001.xml

| 8.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/170 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/170

---

P9_TA(2020)0145

Conclusion of the EU — Moldova Common Aviation Area Agreement ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 June 2020 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Moldova (14205/2019 — C9-0192/2019 — 2012/0006(NLE))

(Consent)

(2021/C 362/29)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (14205/2019), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (14205/2019),

| — | having regard to the draft Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Moldova (08185/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Moldova (08185/2012),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and Article 218 (7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0192/2019), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and Article 218 (7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0192/2019),

| — | having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0084/2020), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0084/2020),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Moldova. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
STATE v. ROBLES—FIRST CONCURRENCE AND DISSENT

D’AURIA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with part I of the majority opinion but respectfully dissent from part II. My dissent from part II of the

majority opinion is based on my agreement with two

parts of Justice Mullins’ concurring and dissenting opinion. First, I agree with Justice Mullins that the record

fairly reflects the parties’ intent to submit the stipulation

in relation to both counts two and three and that the

trial court in fact admitted it for those purposes. Second,

I agree with Justice Mullins that the trial court properly

took judicial notice of General Statutes §§ 29-28 and

29-30 to support its determination that, in light of the

parties’ stipulation that the defendant, Ulises Robles,

had been convicted of two felonies in 2006, he could

not have had a proper permit for the gun that the trial

court found he possessed while occupying a motor vehicle during the incident that led to his conviction. I therefore conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction of possession of a weapon

in a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes (Rev.

to 2017) § 29-38 (a). I would affirm the trial court’s

judgment in all respects and not reach the other issues

discussed in part II of both the majority opinion and

Justice Mullins’ concurring and dissenting opinion.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Cave climate

Filters

              - science_faqs(1)
              - science_science(7)
              - products_data(3)
              - products_publications(20)
              - (-)multimedia_audio(6)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(4)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(2)
              - multimedia_image(11)
              - multimedia_image-141771(7)
              - multimedia_image-141772(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_video(6)
              - multimedia_video-149194(5)
              - multimedia_video-149198(1)
              - news_other_news(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)

## By Location

              - south dakota(1)

## By Year

Podcasts        April 3, 2011        An Unseen World Beneath Our Feet - Caves, Sinkholes and Springs

Podcasts        February 11, 2024        Eyes on Earth Episode 112 - Landsat in Popular Media

Podcasts        April 21, 2008        Is there earthquake weather?

Podcasts        May 22, 2008        What's Killing Bats in the Northeast?

Interviews        July 5, 2011        Earth History of the National Capital Region – Volcanoes, Earthquakes & Dinosaurs... Oh My!

Interviews        March 2, 2010        Public Lecture: Extreme Science: Understanding our Earth
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_science(1)
              - products_publications(13)
              - (-)products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(2)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(3)
              - colorado(2)
              - connecticut(1)
              - delaware(1)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(1)
              - georgia(1)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - illinois(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(2)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(1)
              - new mexico(2)
              - new york(2)
              - north carolina(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - (-)puerto rico(1)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south carolina(1)
              - south dakota(1)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(1)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(2)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(1)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Data Access        March 4, 2019        National Water Information System (NWIS) Mapper
STATE EX REL. Derrick PIERRE v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1786

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 14, 2018

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

*463Relator has now fully litigated several applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

WEIMER, J., recused.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - (-)science_science(8)
              - products_data(1)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(67)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_news-149250(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(3)
              - alaska(6)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(3)
              - arkansas(4)
              - california(44)
              - colorado(9)
              - florida(5)
              - georgia(5)
              - hawaii(3)
              - (-)idaho(8)
              - kansas(2)
              - louisiana(3)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - mississippi(2)
              - montana(7)
              - nebraska(2)
              - nevada(3)
              - new jersey(4)
              - new mexico(6)
              - new york(3)
              - north carolina(3)
              - north dakota(6)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(4)
              - pennsylvania(2)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south carolina(2)
              - south dakota(4)
              - tennessee(2)
              - texas(3)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(3)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(12)
              - wyoming(7)

## By Year

Project        February 29, 2024        A targeted annual warning system (TAWS) for identifying aberrant declines in greater sage-grouse populations

Project        September 22, 2017        Developing Geological Framework - Idaho National Laboratory

Project        January 2, 2017        Wood River Valley Aquifer System - Water Budget

Project        August 21, 2023        Modeling Songbird Density-Habitat Relationships to Predict Population Responses to Environmental Change Within Pinyon-juniper and Sagebrush Ecosystems

Project        January 1, 2014        Coeur d'Alene Lake Water Budget

Project        May 6, 2016        Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative: Rocky Mountain Region

Research        September 16, 2022        Prioritizing Restoration of Sagebrush Ecosystems Tool (PReSET):    A USGS-facilitated Decision-support Tool for Sagebrush Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Actions

Project        January 3, 2011        Columbia Plateau Groundwater Availability Study
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Carol Dore-Falcone, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of InnovativeCompanies, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

 

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

 

5. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operationof internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and 

6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whetheror not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

Dated:  August 14, 2003
   
By:
 
/s/ Carol Dore-Falcone
      
Carol Dore-Falcone
        
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 558 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 259
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 558

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2015

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                            October 8, 2015

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 55 South Pioneer Boulevard in Springboro, Ohio, as the ``Richard 
                `Dick' Chenault Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. RICHARD ``DICK'' CHENAULT POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 55 South Pioneer Boulevard in Springboro, Ohio, shall be 
known and designated as the `` Richard `Dick' Chenault Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Richard 
`Dick' Chenault Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 259

114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 558

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 55 South Pioneer Boulevard in Springboro, Ohio, as the ``Richard 
                `Dick' Chenault Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 8, 2015

                       Reported without amendment
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the quarterly  report of Pacific Fuel Cell Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the three month period  ended March 31, 2005,  as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on May  17,  2005  (the
"Report"), I, the undersigned,  in the capacity and on the date indicated below,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C./ Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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:  May 17, 2005                      s/George Suzuki
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          George Suzuki, Chief Executive Officer