alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 295 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 23, 1999.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1875) to amend title 28, United States Code, to allow the application 
of the principles of Federal diversity jurisdiction to interstate class actions. 
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under 
the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the 
bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the portion of 
the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII 
and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so 
printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his 
designee and shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) 
reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed 
question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, 
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series 
of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill 
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Application of 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

 

for a frequency allocation 

(U.S. - Brazil) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0162

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to: 

 

Glen Hauenstein 

Executive Vice President – 

Network Planning and Revenue Management 

Robert J. Cortelyou 

Senior Vice President – Network Planning 

Andreas Renner 

Director – International Network Planning 

Chris Kennedy 

General Manager – International 

Network Analysis 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

1030 Delta Boulevard 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

Andrea Fischer Newman 

Senior Vice President – Government Affairs 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

1212 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director – Government Affairs 

 & Associate General Counsel 

Jeff Morgan 

Regional Director – Government Affairs 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

1212 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 842-4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

July 20, 2010 

 
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Application of 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

 

for a frequency allocation 

(U.S.-Brazil) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0162

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) hereby withdraws its application submitted on June 

24, 2010 in the above-captioned docket. 

 Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________ 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director, Government Affairs 

 & Associate General Counsel 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 A copy of the foregoing Document has been served this 20th day of July, 2010, 

upon the following persons via email: 

 

carl.nelson@aa.com 

howard_kass@usairways.com 

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com 

hkamen@coair.com 

dan.weiss@coair.com 

rbkeiner@crowell.com 

jeffrey.manley@united.com 

robert.land@jetblue.com 

jhill@dlalaw.com 

dkirstein@yklaw.com 

jyoung@yklaw.com 

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov 

brian.hedberg@dot.gov 

byerlyjr@state.gov 

john.allen@faa.gov 

mike.orr@airlineinfo.com
### §2350r. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Headquarters

(a) Authorization.—Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year for operation and maintenance for the Army, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use up to $50,000,000, to be derived from amounts made available for support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (referred to in this section as "NATO") operations, for each such fiscal year for the purposes set forth in subsection (b).

(b) Purposes.—The Secretary shall provide funds for the NATO Special Operations Headquarters—

(1) to improve coordination and cooperation between the special operations forces of NATO countries and countries approved by the North Atlantic Council as NATO partners;

(2) to facilitate joint operations by the special operations forces of NATO countries and such NATO partners;

(3) to support special operations forces peculiar command, control, and communications capabilities;

(4) to promote special operations forces intelligence and informational requirements within the NATO structure; and

(5) to promote interoperability through the development of common equipment standards, tactics, techniques, and procedures, and through execution of a multinational education and training program.

(Added Pub. L. 117–263, div. A, title XII, §1271(a), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 2860.)
#### § 2.605 May I appeal continued inaction by the decision-maker or the next official in the decision-maker's chain of command?

Yes. If the official fails to timely direct the decision-maker to respond to the request for decision, or if the decision-maker fails to respond within the time frame identified by the official pursuant to § 2.604, you may appeal the continued inaction by either agency official to the next highest officer in the chain of command above both agency officials. Your appeal must be submitted as provided for in §§ 2.602 and 2.603. The official will respond as provided for in § 2.604.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Silent over Watch: Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, Marines Fire Snipers at Forest Light 16-1

By Cpl. Devon Tindle III Marine Expeditionary Force

**CAMP IMAZU, TAKASHIMA, Japan -- **

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
EXHIBIT 31.1


CERTIFICATION


I, Julia A. Sloat, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of AEP Texas Central Transition Funding III LLC (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 period covered by this report;





3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by AEP Texas Inc., as Servicer, and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Transition Property Servicing Agreement dated as of March 14, 2012 between AEP Texas Central Transition Funding III LLC, as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer, in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and the related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





6. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee.





Date: March 29, 2019/s/ Julia A. SloatName:  Julia A. SloatTitle: Treasurer and Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function, AEP Texas Inc., as Servicer
§ 168.8 Grazing fees. ( a ) The rental value of all uses of Hopi Partitioned lands by persons who are not members of the Hopi Tribe, including eligible holders of interim permits, will be determined, and assessed by the Area Director and paid in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 640d-15.
( b ) The Hopi Tribe has established an annual grazing fee to be assessed all range users on Hopi Partitioned Lands. The annual Hopi grazing fee shall be paid in full in advance of the annual effective date of the permit, prior to the issuance of a grazing permit. All interim permits will expire at the end of the period provided for completion of relocation, Pub. L. 99-190. Failure of the permittee to make payment in full in advance will be cause to deny issuance of the grazing permit.
[47 FR 39817, Sept. 10, 1982, as amended at 51 FR 23052, June 25, 1986]
*Pursuant to 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5

TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60300

Summary Calendar

LARRY R. KEGLEY, City of Grenada Manager,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

J.W. ABEL, Councilman, Individually and in His Official

Capacity as Grenada City Council Member; CALVIN NEELY,

Councilman, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Grenada

City Council Member; LEWIS JOHNSON, Councilman, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Grenada City Council Member;

WILLIAM O. WILLIAMS, JR., Councilman, Individually and in

His Official Capacity as Grenada City Council Member; J.B

FLOWERS, JR., Councilman, Individually and in His Official

Capacity as Grenada City Council Member; BILLY COLLINS,

Councilman, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Grenada

City Council Member; GEORGE THORNTON, Councilman,

Individually and in His Official Capacity as Grenada City Council

Member; CITY OF GRENADA,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Mississippi

(3:96-CV-221-B)

November 19, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, EMILIO M. GARZA and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry R. Kegley appeals an adverse summary judgment on his claims of
2

wrongful termination, breach of contract, and denial of due process, contending that the

district court erred in its ruling that he lacked a property interest in his continued

employment by the City of Grenada, Mississippi. Having considered the briefs and

record, and on the basis of the facts as detailed, authorities cited, and analysis made by

the district court in its Memorandum Opinion signed, dated, and entered on April 17,

1998, we conclude that the judgment appealed should be and the same is hereby

AFFIRMED.
#### § 152.15 Judicial review of removal of restrictions, Five Civilized Tribes, without application.

When an order removing restrictions is issued, pursuant to § 152.14, a copy of such order will be delivered to the Indian, to any person acting in his behalf, and to the Board of County Commissioners for the county in which the Indian resides. At the time the order is delivered written notice will be given the parties that under the terms of the Act of August 11, 1955 (69 Stat. 666), the Indian or the Board of County Commissioners has, within 6 months of the date of notification, the right to appeal to the State district court for the district in which the Indian resides for an order setting aside the order removing restrictions. The timely initiation of proceedings in the State district court will stay the effective date of the order removing restrictions until such proceedings are concluded. If the State district court dismisses the appeal, the order removing restrictions will become effective 6 months after notification to the parties of such dismissal. The effect of the issuance of such order will be as prescribed in § 152.16.
§ 167.6 Carrying capacities. ( a ) The Commissioner of Indian Affairs on June 26, 1943, promulgated the authorized carrying capacity for each land management district of the Navajo Reservation.
( b ) Recommended adjustments in carrying capacities shall be referred by the Superintendent to District Grazing Committee, Central Grazing Committee, and the Navajo Tribal Council for review and recommendations prior to presentation to the Area Director and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for approval.
( c ) Upon the request of the District Grazing Committee, Central Grazing Committee and Navajo Tribal Council to the Superintendent; recommendations for future adjustments to the established carrying capacities shall be made by Range Technicians based on the best information available through annual utilization studies and range condition studies analyzed along with numbers of livestock and precipitation data. The recommendations of the Range Technicians shall be submitted to the Superintendent, the Area Director and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
( d ) Carrying capacities shall be stated in terms of sheep units yearlong, in the ratio of horses, mules, and burros 1 to 5; cattle 1 to 4; goats 1 to 1. The latter figure in each case denotes sheep units. Sheep, goats, cattle, horses, mules, and burros one year of age or older shall be counted against the carrying capacity.
#### AnCor, Inc., Respondent, v BSB Bank & Trust Company, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[824 NYS2d 860]

*1283Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Edward D. Garni, J.), entered June 13, 2005. The order, among other things, granted in part plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim asserting a violation of the lien law of Minnesota.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant and counterclaimant, BSB Bank & Trust Company (BSB), appeals from an order insofar as it granted that part of the motion of plaintiff, AnCor, Inc. (AnCor), for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim asserting a violation of the hen law of Minnesota, and denied the cross motion of BSB for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for summary judgment on its counterclaim. In appeal No. 2, BSB appeals from an order that granted AnCor’s motion for leave to further amend the complaint to add claims asserting violations of the hen laws of Arizona and Michigan. BSB contends that Supreme Court should have denied AnCor’s motion in appeal No. 2 and denied, in its entirety, AnCor’s motion in appeal No. 1. BSB further contends, in appeal No. 1, that the court should have granted its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for summary judgment on its counterclaim.

Leave to amend pleadings generally is granted as long as “the opponent is not surprised or prejudiced by the proposed amendment, and the proposed amendment appears to be meritorious” *(Paolano v Southside Hosp.,*3 AD3d 524, 524 [2004]). “Prejudice to the nonmoving party is shown where that party is ‘hindered in the preparation of its case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of its position’ ” *(Rothberg v Reichelt,*5 AD3d 848, 849 [2004]). Prejudice is not found in the mere exposure of a party to greater liability *(see Silvin v Karwoski,*242 AD2d 945 [1997]). As a general rule, motions for leave to amend a complaint are addressed to the discretion of the trial court *(see Rothberg,*5 AD3d at 849). Contrary to BSB’s contention with respect to both appeals, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing AnCor to amend the complaint to assert violations of the lien laws of the various states. The language of the statutes in those states is similar to that of the New York Lien Law in that the diversion of funds payable to a subcontractor constitutes a violation of the statutes. Thus, the proposed amendments to the complaint are meritorious on their face. In addition, BSB did not establish that the proposed amendments would result in any prejudice to its position.

*1284Contrary to the further contention of BSB in appeal No. 1, the court properly denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for summary judgment on its counterclaim. There are questions of fact whether the parties agreed to extend the terms of the loan and whether BSB’s setoff violated the New York Lien Law. Present—Scudder, J.E, Martoche, Centra and Pine, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of General Metals Corporation  (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel J. Forbush, Chief Financial Officer, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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, as amended; and,



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



Date:  September 18, 2009



| |                                                                                      
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Daniel J. Forbush                                                                
| | Daniel J. Forbush                                                                    
| | Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer



The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
§ 166.400 Who establishes grazing rental rates? ( a ) For tribal lands, a tribe may establish a grazing rental rate that is less or more than the grazing rental rate established by us. We will assist a tribe to establish a grazing rental rate by providing the tribe with available information concerning the value of grazing on tribal lands.
( b ) We will establish the grazing rental rate by determining the fair annual rental for: ( 1 ) Individually-owned Indian lands; and
( 2 ) Tribes that have not established a rate under paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Indian landowners may give us written authority to grant grazing privileges on their individually-owned Indian land at a grazing rental rate that is: ( 1 ) Above the grazing rental rate set by us; or
( 2 ) Below the grazing rental rate set by us, subject to our approval, when the permittee is a member of the Indian landowner's immediate family as defined in this part.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Kenneth Wylie, Appellant

No. 06-21-00083-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 4th District Court of Rusk

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR-90-001). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Kenneth Wylie, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 14, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources : Electric Utility Generating Units Page 1491 of 1611 LisL of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control , Intergovernmental relations , Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

.