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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

In the matter of the cancellation of the 

Air Taxi authority issue to: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket DOT -OST -2012-0022 

VIH COUGAR HELICOPTERS, INC 

) ____________________________ ) 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Please enter the appearance of the following attorneys as Counsel to Petroleum Helicopters, Inc, 

And serve them with documents in the above captioned proceeding at the addresses shown 

below: 

Jonathan Blank 

John Longstreth 

Timothy Hobbs 

Dated: March 27, 2012 

jonathan. blank@klgates.com 

john.longstreth@klgates.com 

tim.hobbs@klgates.com 

202-661-625 0 

202-661-6271 

206-370-7664 

Attorney for Petroleum Helicopters Inc. 
NOTICE OF SERVICE 

I have caused this document to be served on the following by post and by email 

upon counsel to VIH Cougar. 

David M Nadler 

David Y Yang 

Counsel to Vlli Cougar 

Helicopters Inc. 

Dickstein Shapiro LLP 

1825 EYE Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006-5403 

nadlerd@dicksteinshapiro.com 

yangd@dicksteinshapiro.com 

William J. Weber 

Certification Section Manager 

FAAAFS-900 

45005 Aviation Drive, Suite 131 

Dulles, VA 20166 

Roy Hardie 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave SW 

Washington, DC 20553-0001 

Dated March 27,2012 

Peter Lynch AGC-300 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

William Steeper 

President 

VIH Cougar Helicopters Inc. 

P.O. Box 872 

Bellingham, Washington, 98227 

- 2-
### §1361. Reference services to assist designated agencies to obtain information outside State

The Secretary is authorized and directed to aid designated agencies in carrying out their technical services programs by providing reference services which a designated agency may use to obtain scientific, technical, and engineering information from sources outside the State or States which it serves, for the purposes of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 89–182, §11, Sept. 14, 1965, 79 Stat. 683.)
### §6715. Certain State affiliation laws preempted for insurance companies and affiliates

Except as provided in section 6701(c)(2) of this title, no State may, by law, regulation, order, interpretation, or otherwise—

(1) prevent or significantly interfere with the ability of any insurer, or any affiliate of an insurer (whether such affiliate is organized as a stock company, mutual holding company, or otherwise), to become a financial holding company or to acquire control of a depository institution;

(2) limit the amount of an insurer's assets that may be invested in the voting securities of a depository institution (or any company which controls such institution), except that the laws of an insurer's State of domicile may limit the amount of such investment to an amount that is not less than 5 percent of the insurer's admitted assets; or

(3) prevent, significantly interfere with, or have the authority to review, approve, or disapprove a plan of reorganization by which an insurer proposes to reorganize from mutual form to become a stock insurer (whether as a direct or indirect subsidiary of a mutual holding company or otherwise) unless such State is the State of domicile of the insurer.

(Pub. L. 106–102, title III, §306, Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1415.)
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-41405 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CAROLINA MORENO-BARRERA, also known as Carolina Moreno Esquivel, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12-CR-1292-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender ap p o i n t ed t o represent Carolina MorenoBarrera has moved for l eave to withdraw and h as filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United S tates v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Moreno-Barrera has not filed a response. We have r eviewed counsel’s brief a nd t h e r elevant portions o f the record r eflected t h erein. We

concur with counsel’s assessment that the a ppeal presents no n onfrivolous issue for appellate revi e w . A c c o rdingly, counsel’s motion for leave t o withdraw is U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 20, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-41405 Document: 00512348232 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2013No. 12-41405

G RANTED, counsel i s excused from further responsibilities herein, a n d t h e APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-41405 Document: 00512348232 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2013
EXHIBIT 32

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             10 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 China Ventures Limited ("the
Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report), I. James
N.L. Chow Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          Material respects, the financial condition and result of operation of
          the Company.

                                                        /s/ James N. L. Chow
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        James N. L. Chow
                                                        President, Secretary
                                                        and Principal Financial
                                                        And Accounting Officer

September 23, 2005
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 on Form 10-QSB of Quotemedia, Inc. (the Company)
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Keith J. Randall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and
belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |                     
|----------------------- |  | --------------------
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/ Keith J. Randall
|Keith J. Randall       
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 15, 2006
SCPW-20-0000509

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

IN THE MATTER OF INDIVIDUALS IN CUSTODY OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S “MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COURT’S ORDERS” (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and McKenna, JJ., and Chief Judge Ginoza, assigned by reason of vacancy,

with Wilson, J., dissenting 1 )

On August 24, 2020, in its response to the motion for clarification and/or reconsideration filed by respondent Nolan P. Espinda, Director of the Department of Public Safety (“DPS”), the Office of the Public Defender (“OPD”) included a section entitled “Motion to Compel Compliance with this Court’s Orders” (“Motion to Compel Compliance”). The OPD sought various forms
of relief.

On August 27, 2020, DPS and Prosecuting Attorney Dwight Nadamoto each filed responses to the Motion to Compel Compliance. The responses addressed the issues or concerns raised by the OPD, and requested that the court deny the Motion to Compel Compliance.

1 A dissent by Wilson, J., is forthcoming. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000509 01-SEP-2020 11:31 AM2

Upon consideration of the Motion to Compel Compliance, the respective responses, and the record in this matter, the requests in the Motion to Compel Compliance are not within the scope of the relief previously ordered by this court or are otherwise not sufficiently supported. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Compliance is denied.

Additionally, this court notes that the daily lists provided by DPS identifying the names of released inmates appear to include inmates released on grounds other than this court’s

orders. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ‘ i, September 1, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS RULINGS

Release No. 6874/September 30, 2022

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-18483

In the Matter of :

:

TIMOTHY C. SCARPINO : ORDER

The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this proceeding with an Order 

Instituting Proceedings on May 15, 2018, pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, 

Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 9(b) of the Investment 

Company Act of 1940. Timothy C. Scarpino, Securities Act Release No. 10496, 2018 SEC LEXIS 

1130 (OIP). The OIP, pursuant to Respondent’s offer of settlement, made various findings of fact 

and conclusions of law, imposed various sanctions, and ordered additional proceedings to determine 

what, if any, civil penalties against him are in the public interest. The OIP ordered the hearing on 

this issue to be convened “following the entry of a final judgment against the last remaining 

defendant(s) in any action(s) arising out of or related to the facts in this [OIP] (“Related Actions”).” 

Id. at *21. 

The Division of Enforcement filed a Fourth Status Report on September 29, 2022, reporting no 

substantive change to the status of the related action. As the Division requests, no procedural dates will 

be established, and the Division’s next status report will be due on March 31, 2023. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/ Carol Fox Foelak 

Carol Fox Foelak

Administrative Law Judge
EXHIBIT 32

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


         In  connection   with  the  Quarterly   Report  of  Freedom   Financial
Corporation,  on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

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

         2. The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: September 4, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Nco qab ntsoov npog koj lub qhov ncauj qhov ntswg thiaj yuav pab tiv thaiv tau lwm cov neeg. 

Koj tuaj yeem raug tus kab mob tau thiab tsis pom muaj cov yeeb yam mob. 

Nyob kom sib nrug deb 6 j (2 txhais npab ntev) ntawm lwm cov neeg. 

Thiab Rau ib Daim Ntaub Npog Ntsej Muag

Cais Nyob Kom Sib Nrug Deb

Pab Tiv Thaiv Koj Tus Kheej thiab Lwm Cov Neeg los 

ntawm Tus Kab Mob Khaus Viv-19 (COVID-19)

cdc.gov/coronavirus

CS 317297-G 05/29/2020
CS 316651-A 05/26/2020

Important Information About Your Cloth Face Coverings

Print Resources Web Page: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communication/print-resources.html

As COVID-19 continues to spread within the United States, CDC has recommended additional measures to 

prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the context of community transmission, 

CDC recommends that you:

Stay at home 

as much as 

possible

Practice social 

distancing 

(remaining at 

least 6 feet away 

from others)

6 ft Clean your 

hands often

In addition, CDC also recommends that everyone wear cloth face coverings when leaving 

their homes, regardless of whether they have fever or symptoms of COVID-19. This is 

because of evidence that people with COVID-19 can spread the disease, even when they 

don’t have any symptoms. Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under 

age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable 

to remove the mask without assistance.

How cloth face coverings work

Cloth face coverings may prevent the person wearing the mask from spreading respiratory 

droplets when talking, sneezing, or coughing. If everyone wears a cloth face covering when out 

in public, such as going to the grocery store, the risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 can be reduced 

for the community. Since people may spread the virus before symptoms start, or even if people 

never have symptoms, wearing a cloth face covering may protect others around you. Face 

coverings worn by others may protect you from getting the virus from people carrying the virus.

General considerations for the use of cloth face coverings

When using a cloth face covering, make sure:

• The mouth and nose are fully covered

• The covering fits snugly against the sides 

of the face so there are no gaps

• You do not have any difficulty breathing 

while wearing the cloth face covering

• The cloth face covering can be tied or 

otherwise secured to prevent slipping

Wash your cloth face covering after 

each use in the washing machine 

or by hand using a bleach solution 

Allow it to completely dry. 

For more information, go to: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-to-make-cloth-face-covering.html

cdc.gov/coronavirus
#### Lenel Systems International, Inc., Appellant-Respondent, v Richard Todd Smith, Respondent-Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 553]

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered July 7, 2005. The order denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

*1285It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking rescission of three incentive stock option agreements (Option Agreements) that grant defendant options to purchase shares of plaintiffs common stock. The terms of the Option Agreements provide that, “[i]n consideration of the grant of [the options],” defendant agrees that he shall not “directly or indirectly, as an . . . employee . . . , conduct business in competition in any way” with plaintiff or its products while employed by plaintiff and for a period of time after his employment with plaintiff ends. Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that defendant became employed by a competing corporation within three weeks of resigning from his position with plaintiff. Defendant answered and asserted a counterclaim seeking payment of dividends on shares of plaintiffs stock allegedly owned by defendant. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment rescinding the Option Agreements. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for summary judgment on his counterclaim awarding him dividends and directing plaintiff to issue “the outstanding stock certificates to him.” Supreme Court properly denied the motion and cross motion.

In analyzing the motion and cross motion, the court referred to cases where companies attempted to enforce contractual forfeiture-for-competition clauses *(see e.g. Kristt v Whelan, 4*AD2d 195 [1957], *affd*5 NY2d 807 [1958]; *Computer Task Group v Ehlke,*286 AD2d 973, 974 [2001]). Here, however, the Option Agreements do not contain forfeiture clauses. Plaintiff is seeking to rescind the Option Agreements altogether. “As a general rule, rescission of a contract is permitted ‘for such a breach as substantially defeats its purpose. It is not permitted for a slight, casual, or technical breach, but . . . only for such as are material and willful, or, if not willful, so substantial and fundamental as to strongly tend to defeat the object of the parties in making the contract’ ” *(RR Chester, LLC v Arlington Bldg. Corp.,*22 AD3d 652, 654 [2005], quoting *Callanan v Keeseville, Ausable Chasm & Lake Champlain R.R. Co.,*199 NY 268, 284 [1910]). We conclude that the court properly denied the motion and cross motion because there are questions of fact whether defendant breached the Option Agreements and, if he did, whether that breach was so substantial that it defeated the object of the parties in making the contracts. Present—Scudder, J.P., Martoche, Centra and Pine, JJ.
§ 513.64 Acknowledgment of Freedom of Information Act requests. ( a ) All requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act received by the FOI/PA Administrator, Office of General Counsel, will be reviewed and may be forwarded to the appropriate Regional Office for proper handling. Requests for records located at a Bureau facility other than the Central Office or Regional Office may be referred to the appropriate staff at that facility for proper handling.
( b ) The requester shall be notified of the status of his or her request by the office with final responsibility for processing the request.
### §404a. Acceptance of title to lands

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his discretion, to accept, as hereinafter provided, on behalf of the United States, title to the lands referred to in section 404 of this title, and to be purchased with the funds which may be subscribed by or through the Mammoth Cave National Park Association of Kentucky, and with other contributions for the purchase of lands in the Mammoth Cave National Park area: Provided, That any of said lands may be donated directly to the United States and conveyed to it, cost free, by fee-simple title, in cases where such donations may be made without the necessity of purchase.

(May 25, 1926, ch. 382, §2, 44 Stat. 635.)
### **CHAPTER 53—CONTROL OF ILLEGALLY TAKEN FISH AND WILDLIFE**

Sec.
3371.
Definitions.
3372.
Prohibited acts.
3373.
Penalties and sanctions.
3374.
Forfeiture.
3375.
Enforcement.
3376.
Administration.
3377.
Exceptions.
3378.
Miscellaneous provisions.
#### TOMAS AFAISAN FEJERANG, Administrator for the Estate of DOLORES AFAISAN FEJERANG, Plaintiff v. GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Defendant

Civil No. 1405-75

Superior Court of Guam

September 24, 1976

BENSON, *Judge*

ORDER

This matter came before the court on the defendant’s motion to amend his answer. After oral argument on September 24,1976, the matter was submitted for decision; after review of written and oral arguments and of the entire proceedings, I find that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part, defendant having withdrawn his motion as to the defenses of estoppel and waiver.

It is ordered that the defendant may file and ..serve his amended answer which adds the affirmative defense of *344Section 343 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provided reasonable attorney’s fees (to be hereafter fixed) are paid plaintiff’s attorney as costs opposing this motion.
§ 806.5 Projects that may require review and approval. ( a ) The following projects, if not otherwise requiring review and approval under § 806.4, and provided that the project sponsor is notified in writing by the Executive Director, may be subject to Commission review and approval as determined by the Commission or the Executive Director: ( 1 ) Projects that may affect interstate water quality.
( 2 ) Projects within a member state that have the potential to affect waters within another member state. This includes, but is not limited to, projects which have the potential to alter the physical, biological, chemical or hydrological characteristics of water resources of interstate streams designated by the Commission under separate resolution.
( 3 ) Projects that may have a significant effect upon the comprehensive plan.
( 4 ) Projects not included in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section, but which could have an adverse, adverse cumulative, or interstate effect on the water resources of the basin.
( b ) Determinations by the Executive Director may be appealed to the Commission within 30 days after receipt of notice of such determination as set forth in § 808.2.
-  Home 

# Visitors' Center

    This page shows Department of Transportation content pertaining to a specific tag. If you cannot find what you’re looking for on this page, please use the search box in the top right of our website.  

  Subscribe to Visitors' Center

# St. Lawrence Seaway Visitor Center at Eisenhower Lock

Admission: FreeAverage Length of Visit: 11⁄2 hoursLocation: 76 Barnhart Island Road, Massena, NY 13662Days & Hours of Operation: ...

# Dwight D. Eisenhower Visitors' Center to Open for the Season

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER VISITORS' CENTER TO OPEN FOR SEASONThe Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) announced today that the Dwight D. Eisenhower Visitors' Center, located at the U. S. Eisenhower Lock, will open on Friday, May 26, 2017 and remain open daily, including weekends,...