alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lavinia Lally, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.

—Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollazs costs. Present — Jenks, Hooker, Gaynoi, Rich and Miller, JJ.
### §8767. Equipment for instruction in seamanship: loan to military schools

(a) Upon the application of the governor of any State having a seacoast or bordering on any of the Great Lakes, the President may direct the Secretary of the Navy to lend to one well-established military school in that State that desires to instruct its cadets in elementary seamanship one fully equipped cutter for every 25 cadets attending the school, and such other equipment adequate for instruction in elementary seamanship as may be spared.

(b) To be eligible for a loan under this section a school must—

(1) have adequate facilities for cutter drill;

(2) have at least 75 cadets—

(A) at least 15 years of age;

(B) in uniform;

(C) receiving military instruction; and

(D) quartered in barracks under military regulations; and

(3) have the capacity to quarter and educate 150 cadets at one time.

(c) Whenever a loan is made under this section, the Secretary shall require a bond in double the value of the property for its care and return when required.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 466, §7547; renumbered §8767, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(d)(8), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7547 | 34 U.S.C. 1128. | Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 863, 31 Stat. 1440; June 29, 1906, ch. 3612, 34 Stat. 620; June 24, 1910, ch. 378, 36 Stat. 613 (1st par.). |

In subsection (a) the word "lend" is substituted for the word "furnish" because of the provision for return of the equipment. The words "man-of-war's" are omitted as obsolete. The words "attending the school" are substituted for the words "in actual attendance".

In subsection (b) the words "To be eligible for a loan under this section" are added, and the subsection is phrased as a condition.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7547 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
§ 39.1002 Allotment of education administrative funds. The total annual budget for agencies/areas shall be allotted to the Director and through him/her to agency and area education offices. This total budget shall be distributed to the various agency and area education offices as follows: ( a ) Each agency or area education office as defined above shall receive a base amount of $50,000 for basic administrative costs; and
( b ) Each agency or area education office as defined above shall receive an amount under these funds equal to two percent of the total higher education, Johnson-O'Malley and adult education funds administered by each office, except that the Navajo Agencies are restricted to a maximum of $50,000 for administering the Johnson-O'Malley and higher education programs; and
( c ) Eighty percent of the remaining funds shall be distributed proportionately based on the number of schools operated under the jurisdiction of each agency or area education office, with Bureau-operated schools counting as 1 and contract/grant schools counting as 0.6; and
( d ) The remaining twenty percent shall be distributed proportionately based on the total weighted student units generated by all schools under the jurisdiction of each agency or area education office.
SERVED JUNE 24, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

TREVOR MILLER 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09SW0004 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS FAA-2009-0735 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On February 12, 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred 

to as "Complainant") filed a Complaint. Trevor Miller (hereinafter referred to as 

"Respondent") had earlier filed a Request for Hearing. 

On June 23, 2010, Complainant withdrew its Complaint. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a 

hearing without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency 

attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing 

and the answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings 

under this subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Request to Withdraw Complaint having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Complainant's Request to Withdraw Complaint be and is hereby granted; 
2. The hearing, scheduled to begin on August 23, 2010, in St. Louis, MO, is 

cancelled; and 

3. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachments - Service List 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

. 
/ 

FAA Docket No. CP09SW0004 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Trevor Miller, Respondent 

2319 Simdance Drive 

O'Fallon, MO 63368 

TEL: 314-497-3602 

Yolanda A. Bemal, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5070 

FAX: 817-222-5945 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000, 

Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

- 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 Quarterly Report of Link Plus Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
L. Jones, Jr., Chairman/CEO, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ Robert L. Jones
-----------------------------
Robert L. Jones, Chairman/CEO
#### Edward P. Mullen, Respondent, v. J. J. Quinlan & Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
----

|                                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      |  |  |
| Leverage Ratio:                                      | ABRSpread (%) | EurodollarSpread (%) |
| Category 1> 4.50 to 1.00                          | 1.25 | 2.25 |
| Category 2> 3.00 to 1.00 but ≤ 4.50 to 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 |
| Category 3> 1.75 to 1.00 but ≤ 3.00 to 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.75 |
| Category 4≤ 1.75 to 1.00                       | 0.50 | 1.50 |

----

----

----

----

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| By:    | /s/ Douglas E. Coltharp |
| Name:  | Douglas E. Coltharp |
| Title: | Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer |

----

----

|     |                                                            |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------|
| By: | Continental Medical of Kentucky, Inc., its General Partner |

|     |                                                                           |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By: | Continental Rehabilitation Hospital of Arizona, Inc., its General Partner |

|     |                           |
|-----|---------------------------|
| By: | Western Neuro Care, Inc., |

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |  |
| 2014A Incremental Lender              | 2014A Term Commitment |
| Barclays Bank PLC                     | $29,250,000.00 |
| SunTrust Bank                         | $45,250,000.00 |
| Bank of America, N.A.                 | $29,250,000.00 |
| Citibank, N.A.                        | $29,250,000.00 |
| Goldman Sachs Bank USA                | $29,250,000.00 |
| JP Morgan Bank, NA                    | $29,250,000.00 |
| Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A.             | $29,250,000.00 |
| Wells Fargo Bank National Association | $29,250,000.00 |
| Royal Bank of Canada                  | $24,000,000.00 |
| Regions Bank                          | $16,000,000.00 |
| Iberiabank                            | $7,500,000.00 |
| Cadence Bank NA                       | $2,500,000.00 |
| TOTAL                                 | $300,000,000.00 |
§ 166.706 Will the BIA's regulations concerning appeal bonds apply to cancellation decisions involving permits? ( a ) The appeal bond provisions in § 2.5 of part 2 of this chapter will not apply to appeals from permit cancellation decisions made under § 166.705 of this subpart. Instead, when we decide to cancel a permit, we may require the permittee to post an appeal bond with an appeal of the cancellation decision. The requirement to post an appeal bond will apply in addition to all of the other requirements in part 2 of this chapter.
( b ) An appeal bond should be set in an amount necessary to protect the Indian landowners against financial losses that will likely result from the delay caused by an appeal. Appeal bond requirements will not be separately appealable, but may be contested during the appeal of the permit cancellation decision.
§ 67.13 Preparation, certification and approval of the roll. ( a ) The Superintendent shall prepare a minimum of three (3) copies of the roll of those persons determined to be qualified for enrollment as an Independent Seminole Indian of Florida. The roll shall contain for each person a roll number or identification number, name, address, sex, date of birth, date of death (when applicable), and the name and relationship of the ancestor on the annotated Seminole Agency Census of 1957 through whom eligibility for enrollment was established.
( b ) A certificate shall be attached to the roll by the Superintendent certifying that to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, the roll contains only the names of those persons who were determined to meet the qualifications for enrollment.
( c ) The Area Director shall approve the roll.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 324

Supporting National Civility Week, Inc. in its efforts to restore civility,

honesty, integrity, and respectful consideration in the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 7, 1999

Mr. LANTOS (for himself, Mr. SAWYER, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. CONDIT, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr.

INSLEE, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr.

OXLEY, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mrs.

MCCARTHY of New York, and Mr. SCARBOROUGH) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government

Reform

RESOLUTION

Supporting National Civility Week, Inc. in its efforts to

restore civility, honesty, integrity, and respectful consideration in the United States.

Whereas our civilization is founded upon the values of honesty, courtesy, and respectful consideration among its

citizens;

Whereas we seek to teach and reaffirm these fundamental

values of civility;

Whereas a lack of civility in recent years has become frighteningly apparent, as seen in media tales of road rage and

school violence, of personal deceit and public corruption;
2

HRES 324 IH

Whereas common courtesy has become bewilderingly uncommon;

Whereas a large part of many Americans’ behavior can be

traced to a failure to honor the codes of civil conduct that

have governed society for many generations;

Whereas the teaching of courtesy has declined while the celebration of vulgarity and effrontery has increased;

Whereas many Americans have ceased to honor the good examples that surround them;

Whereas in this context, too many people find it easy to

manifest disrespect for other age groups, races, and religions;

Whereas National Civility Week, Inc. is a nonpartisan and

nonprofit corporation devoted to reintroducing civility in

our Nation;

Whereas National Civility Week, Inc. has encouraged the establishment of Civility Weeks in a number of states in an

effort to reaffirm society’s commitment to adhere to wellestablished rules of civil conduct;

Whereas National Civility Week, Inc. will honor those who

practice common decency and simple honesty; and

Whereas National Civility Week, Inc. will draw attention to

the behaviors and standards that we respect as a people,

and will celebrate the conduct that ties together the

threads of our social fabric: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports

2 these efforts to restore civility, honesty, integrity, and re3 spectful consideration in the United States.

Æ
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 64

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Science in the

One Hundred Sixth Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 12, 1999

Mr. SENSENBRENNER submitted the following resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on

Science in the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Science (here4 inafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’),

5 including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be

6 paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House of Rep7 resentatives for Committee salaries and expenses, not

8 more than $9,018,326.30 for the One Hundred Sixth Con9 gress.
2

•HRES 64 IH

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

2 Of the amount specified in section 1—

3 (1) not more than $4,453,860.90 shall be avail4 able for expenses incurred during the period begin5 ning at noon on January 3, 1999, and ending imme6 diately before noon on January 3, 2000; and

7 (2) not more than $4,564,465.40 shall be avail8 able for expenses incurred during the period begin9 ning at noon on January 3, 2000, and ending imme10 diately before noon on January 3, 2001.

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

14 chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration.

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by

19 the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.20 What does this subpart cover?

This subpart explains how and under what circumstances the Secretary may decline a proposal to contract, to amend an existing contract, to renew an existing contract, to redesign a program, or to waive any provisions of these regulations. For annual funding agreements, see § 900.32.
# C_2006331EN.01001802.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-48/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/90/EC - Facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 331/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (OJ 2002 L 328, p. 17)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---
#### Virginia Claps, Appellant, v Animal Haven, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[825 NYS2d 125]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated December 23, 2005, which granted the motion of the defendant Animal Haven, Inc., and the separate cross motion of the defendant Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., doing business as Petco, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when one of several dogs being shown for adoption by the defendant Animal Haven, Inc. (hereinafter Animal Haven), on the sidewalk in front of a *716retail store of the defendant Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., doing business as Petco (hereinafter Petco), allegedly attacked her, biting down on her coat and thigh, and causing her to fall to the ground.

To recover in strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog, or person in control of the premises where the dog was, knew or should have known of such propensities *(see Bard v Jahnke,*6 NY3d 592 [2006]; *Collier v Zambito,*1 NY3d 444, 448 [2004]). Vicious propensities include the “propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation” *(Collier v Zambito, supra*at 446, quoting *Dickson v McCoy,*39 NY 400, 403 [1868]).

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the second cause of action sounding in strict liability by presenting evidence that the dog previously had been shown approximately 30 times and was a “sweet” and “easily shown” dog who had never bitten or jumped on anyone or exhibited any aggressiveness. As such, the defendants did not have notice of any vicious propensities *(see Bard v Jahnke, supra; Collier v Zambito, supra; Cohen v Kretzschmar,*30 AD3d 555 [2006]; *Slacin v Aquafredda,*2 AD3d 624 [2003]). In response, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the dog had vicious propensities *(see Bard v Jahnke, supra; Collier v Zambito, supra; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Cohen v Kretzschmar, supra; Slacin v Aquafredda, supra).*

The plaintiff cannot recover on the first cause of action sounding in common-law negligence *(see Bard v Jahnke, supra*at 599; *Morse v Colombo,*31 AD3d 916 [2006]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
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		 

Home : Media : Photos

slide show module

JPMRC-X | 2-27th Infantry Regiment assaults simulated opposing forces

F-22s arrive in Guam for Valiant Shield 24

PMRC-X | Philippine Army Special Forces engage simulated opposing forces

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) conducts night flight operations in support of Valiant Shield 2024

Tiger Strike 24: VMM165 Refuels

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) steams in formation with 7th Fleet ships, Japan Maritime Self Defense Force ships, as U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force and Japan Air Self-Defense Force aircraft fly over in support of Valiant Shield 2024

Lt. Rachel Lee Performs Preflight Checks

84th Engineer Battalion builds warehouse in Itbayat

Tiger Strike 24: Amphibious Assault

MRF-D 24.3 U.S. Marines, Sailors embark HMAS Adelaide for Wet and Dry Exercise Rehearsal
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VOS International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis LaVorgna, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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.
|   

|\s\ Dennis LaVorgna
|-------------------

Dennis LaVorgna

Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

|February 19, 2007
|-----------------

---