alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: DECEMBER 11, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.t:: ........ __ .,.--, 

In The Matter Of: 

VECTOR USA LLC 

Respondent 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0687 

Case No. 2011S0070002 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On November 14, 2014, an Order Directing Parties to Confer and File an Agreed Briefing 

Schedule was filed. This Order required the parties to file, on or before December 9, 2014, a 

Proposed Agreed Briefing Schedule on the Motion to Dismiss. 

On December 10,2014, the Office ofHearings received the FAA's Withdrawal of 

Complaint, dated December 5, 2014. 

After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, 

statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint, and this 

proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 
Docket No. FAA-2014-0687 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Ms. Andrea Michelle Harper 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia A venue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. James R. Hammerton 

Respondent's Counsel 

169 Ledgemont Dr. 

Edmond, OK 73013 

TEL: 405-562-1867 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Mr. Ken Hammerton, President 

Vector-USA, LLC 

d/b/a Vectair-USA, LLC, Respondent 

11299 Airport Rd. 

Olive Branch, MS 38654 

TEL: 901-351-6311 

1 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 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.227 Can the awarding official change the decision after it has been made? ( a ) The decision of the awarding official is final and conclusive, and not subject to review by any forum, tribunal or government agency, unless an appeal or suit is timely commenced as authorized by the Contract Disputes Act. Once the decision has been made, the awarding official may not change it, except by agreement of the parties, or under the following limited circumstances: ( 1 ) If evidence is discovered which could not have been discovered through due diligence before the awarding official issued the decision;
( 2 ) If the awarding official learns that there has been fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by a party;
( 3 ) If the decision is beyond the scope of the awarding official's authority;
( 4 ) If the claim has been satisfied, released or discharged; or
( 5 ) For any other reason justifying relief from the decision.
( b ) Nothing in this subpart shall be interpreted to discourage settlement discussions or prevent settlement of the dispute at any time.
( c ) If a decision is withdrawn and a new decision is issued that is not acceptable to the contractor, the contractor may proceed with the appeal based on the new decision. If no new decision is issued, the contractor may proceed under § 900.224.
( d ) If an appeal or suit is filed, the awarding official may modify or withdraw his or her final decision.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001063018
<NAME>                        ISG Resources, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U. S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.0000
<CASH>                                         747,828
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  23,769,732
<ALLOWANCES>                                   218,390
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               26,239,438
<PP&E>                                         24,117,568
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,384,650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 184,717,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          20,555,714
<BONDS>                                        100,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       100
<OTHER-SE>                                     28,330,443
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   184,717,048
<SALES>                                        61,185,559
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               86,368,165
<CGS>                                          39,731,751
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  58,585,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               15,756,880
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6,341,291
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,827,074
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,761,293
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,065,781
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,065,781
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
§ 201.217 Reasonable period of time to remedy a breach of contract. The Secretary may consider various criteria when determining whether a packer, swine contractor or live poultry dealer has provided a poultry grower or swine production contract grower a reasonable period of time to remedy a breach of contract that could lead to contract termination. These criteria do not limit a packer, swine contractor or live poultry dealer's rights under a contract or agreement where food safety or animal welfare is concerned. These criteria, include, but are not limited to: ( a ) Whether the packer, swine contractor or live poultry dealer provided written notice of the breach of contract to the poultry grower or swine production contract grower upon initial discovery of that breach of contract if the packer, swine contractor or live poultry dealer intends to take an adverse action, including termination of a contract, against the poultry grower or swine production contract grower based on that breach of contract by the poultry grower or swine production contract grower;
( b ) Whether the notice in paragraph (a) of this section includes the following: ( 1 ) A description of the act or omission believed to constitute a breach of contract, including identification of the section of the contract believed to have been breached;
( 2 ) The date of the breach;
( 3 ) The means by which the poultry grower or swine production contract grower can satisfactorily remedy the breach, if possible, based on the nature of the breach; and
( 4 ) A date that provides a reasonable time, based on the nature of the breach, by which the breach must be remedied.
( c ) Whether the packer, swine contractor or live poultry dealer took into account the poultry grower's or swine production contract grower's ongoing responsibilities related to the raising and handling of the poultry or swine under their care when establishing the date by which a breach should be remedied; and
( d ) Whether the poultry grower or swine production contract grower was afforded adequate time from the date of the notice of the alleged breach to rebut the allegation of a breach.
[76 FR 76889, Dec. 9, 2011]
|   | 1. | Lexicon’s      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, and      to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic      Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,  and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      Lexicon. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/      Arthur T. Sands                  |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   | Arthur      T. Sands, M.D., Ph.D.         |
|   | President      and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |

| By:    | /s/      Ajay Bansal                                                                |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Ajay      Bansal                                                                    |
|   | Executive      Vice President, Corporate Developmentand      Chief FinancialOfficer |
# C_2011370EN.01002302.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2011 — Esprit International v OHIM — Marc O’Polo International (Representation of a letter on a pocket)

(Case T-22/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark consisting of the representation of a letter on a pocket - Earlier national figurative mark representing a letter - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 370/38

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Esprit International LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Treis and E.-M. Strobel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, S. Schäffner, and subsequently, G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Marc O’Polo International GmbH (Stephanskirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Gaul, V. Spitz, T. Golda and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2009 (Case R 1666/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Marc O’Polo International GmbH and Esprit International LP.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Esprit International LP to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Esprit International LP to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

1

---
### §2761. Individuals discharged as result of court-martial; allowances to

The Secretary may furnish individuals discharged pursuant to the sentence of a Coast Guard court-martial suitable civilian clothing and a monetary allowance not to exceed $25 if the individual discharged would not otherwise have suitable clothing or funds to meet immediate needs.

(Added May 5, 1950, ch. 169, §16(a), 64 Stat. 148, §509; amended Pub. L. 90–377, §8, July 5, 1968, 82 Stat. 288; renumbered §2761, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §116(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4226; Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8505(a)(38)(A), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4749.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283 substituted "Individuals" for "Persons" in section catchline and substituted "individuals" for "persons" and "individual" for "person" in text.

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 509 of this title as this section.

1968—Pub. L. 90–377 substituted "Persons discharged as result of court-martial; allowances to" for "Prisoners; allowances to; transportation" in section catchline, and struck out provision that persons confined in prisons in pursuance of the sentence of a Coast Guard court shall during such confinement, be allowed a reasonable sum, not to exceed $3 per month, for necessary prison expenses and the provision that the Commandant of the Coast Guard may transport to their homes or places of enlistment, as he may designate, all discharged prisoners, the expense of such transportation to be paid out of any money to the credit of prisoners when discharged.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective May 31, 1951, see act May 5, 1950, ch. 169, §5, 64 Stat. 145.
### §1924. Conduct

The Secretary may summarily dismiss from the Coast Guard any cadet who, during his cadetship, is found unsatisfactory in either studies or conduct, or may be deemed not adapted for a career in the Coast Guard. Cadets shall be subject to rules governing discipline prescribed by the Commandant.

(Added Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §110(c)(1)(C), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4214.)
### Carl D. Scott 16423 Dover Mills Dr. Spring, TX 77379

July 20,2015 i**·-~**

U.S. Department ofTransportation, Docket Operations West Building GroundFloor, 

### .Room \V 12-140 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE Washington, DC 20590 281-320-.S190**e;·fT,H~il:** 

### cdscott@swbe!Lnet

PETITION FOREXEMTION**UJ'~DER** SECTION 333
Petitioner, Carl Douglas Scott, does hereby 

### submiT this petitionfor ;;m 

### (;x.emption Lmdcr the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012, Public Law 

### ll2-·95 FEB. 

### JL!, 2012, Section 3 33, and requests issuance ofa certificate ofwaiver ofauthorization from the regulations and restrictions contained in Title 49 U.S.C. 

### §40102(a)(41).
Petitioner's mailing address is as follows:

16423 Dover Mills Dr. Spring, TX 77378

Petitioner seeks relief, as stated above, for the purpose ofoperating a low altitude unmanned aircraft, commonly known as a drone, for the purpose ofperforming aerial photography for compensation. Petitioner specifically desires to en1ploy aerial photography using this method to provide more comprehensive views ofreal property that is offered for sale. By utilizing this technology, Petitionerbelieves that the public \Vill have more complete and current informationregarding real propc1iy that .is offered for sale, tb.us allo\:v then:. to make a betterinformed purchase decision**~~fl;:;r** seeing tlw 

### prorh:rty front n

### vie\vpoini tli<:1t**oti·~cr<,vi~le** is difficult, or for, some, impossible, to otherwise achieve.

Petitioner desires and intends to utilize this technology typically at a height above gl"OUJ1d not to exceed 200 feet. Operations would not be conducted inheavily populatedpublic areas, or in areas where security is ofany exceptional concern. Petitioner holds aprivate pilot certificate issued in accorda11ce with FARpart 61, Title 14 CFR. Therefore, Petitioner is familiar with VFR Hight regulations and can apply those regulations inthe exercise of privileges granted under such an exeeption as is being requested herein.

In summ.ary, Petitioner seeks an exemption under FAA lViodernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333, for thepurpose ofusing an unmanned aircraft to conduct low altitude aerial photography.Respectfully submitted,

# ~D~ Carl D. Scott
{"agency":"PRC","generated":"2017-10-05 14:23:37","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"}],"value":"2017"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":null}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":null}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["PRC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["8"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["7"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["1"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2017","quarter":"Q4"}
~ POR1'AUlHORm OF NY & NJ

Susan M. Boer

Dueaor

August 2, 2011

Secretary Ray H. LaHood

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Small Community Air Service Development Program - Docket OST-2011-0119

Application for The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey - Stewart International Airport

Dear Secretary LaHood:

On behalf of The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, operator of Stewart International Airport,

I am pleased to submit for your consideration our 2011 grant application to the Small Community Air

Service Development Program. This application, if chosen, will help move the Airport one-step closer to

its goal of increasing access to the national aviation system for all residents of the Hudson Valley.

Stewart International Airport, which serves a catchment area of over 2 million people, has very limited

air service. We currently have service provided by Delta with nonstop service to Atlanta and Detroit.

All other service is provided by USAirways with non-stop to Philadelphia and JetBlue with non-stop

destinations to Orlando and Fort Lauderdale.

The Port Authority has an ongoing partnership with area local business such as Central Hudson Energy

Group and the Orange County Industrial Development Agency. These organizations are committed to

the success of new air service. This application requests $450,000 from the department to fund shared

used process system and marketing support for a new route. These funds will help mitigate the airlines

start-up cost.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's federallD number is 13-6400654 and our Dun and

Bradstreet number is 00-179-4205. Our Congressional District is 19.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this application, please contact me, the designated legal

sponsor at (212) 435-7887.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,

!::::.~

/ ~~::c~:rae

Aviation Department

225 Pork Avenue South

N w or NY 10003

t. 212 435 3120 f 2124353833

sba r @panynj gov
Editorial Note on Part 113
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 113 appear at 79 FR 55969, Sept. 18, 2014.

§ 113.205 Newcastle Disease Vaccine, Killed Virus. Newcastle Disease Vaccine (Killed Virus) shall be prepared from virus-bearing tissues or fluids obtained from embryonated chicken eggs or cell cultures. With the exception of § 113.200(c)(2)(iii), each serial shall meet the applicable general requirements prescribed in § 113.200 and special requirements prescribed in this section. A serial found unsatisfactory by a prescribed test shall not be released. ( a ) *Safety test.* The prechallenge part of the potency test in paragraph (b) of this section shall constitute a safety test. If unfavorable reactions attributable to the product occur in any of the vaccinates, the serial is unsatisfactory. If unfavorable reactions which are not attributable to the product occur, the test shall be declared a No Test and may be repeated: *Provided,* That, if the test is not repeated, the serial shall be declared unsatisfactory.
( b ) *Potency test.* A vaccination-challenge test shall be conducted using susceptible chickens 2 to 6 weeks of age at time of vaccination, properly identified and obtained from the same source and hatch. ( 1 ) Ten or more chickens shall be vaccinated as recommended on the label and kept isolated under observation for at least 14 days.
( 2 ) After at least 14 days post-vaccination, the vaccinates and at least 10 unvaccinated chickens that have been kept isolated as controls shall be challenged with a virulent strain of Newcastle disease virus supplied by or approved by Veterinary Services and the vaccinates observed each day for 14 days.
( 3 ) If at least 90 percent of the controls do not show typical signs of Newcastle disease or die, the test is a No Test and may be repeated. If at least 90 percent of the vaccinates do not remain normal, the serial is unsatisfactory.
[39 FR 27428, July 29, 1974. Redesignated at 55 FR 35562, Aug. 31, 1990, as amended at 56 FR 66786, Dec. 26, 1991]
#### In the Matter of Donald Case, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 486]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

During a visit which was recorded on videotape, petitioner and his wife were observed engaging in what appeared to be a sexual act. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating a prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from engaging in such conduct. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing, and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report recites that petitioner’s wife was observed straddling petitioner’s lap and thrusting up and down and then that the two used tissue to clean themselves. This, together with the testimony of the author of the report, petitioner’s testimony admitting to inappropriate touching, the documentary evidence and the videotape of the incident, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Serrano v Goord,*266 AD2d 661 [1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 762 [2000]; *Matter of Lowery v Coughlin,*190 AD2d 945, 945-946 [1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 651 [1993]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent they are properly before us, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.