alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 106.5 Transfers of property.

If a recipient sells or otherwise transfers property financed in whole or in part with Federal financial assistance to a transferee which operates any education program or activity, and the Federal share of the fair market value of the property is not upon such sale or transfer properly accounted for to the Federal Government both the transferor and the transferee shall be deemed to be recipients, subject to the provisions of subpart B of this part.

[45 FR 30955, May 9, 1980, as amended at 85 FR 30579, May 19, 2020]
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                                              Exhibit 10(i)
               GOLDEN AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
                            SURPLUS NOTE

Golden American Life Insurance Company agrees to pay Equitable Life
Insurance Company of Iowa, an Iowa corporation, the sum of $50
million ($50,000,000.00) plus interest at the rate of 8.179% per
annum from the date hereof, December 30, 1999 until paid.  In any
event, this note will mature on December 29, 2029.

This Surplus Note and accrued interest thereon shall be subordinate
to payments due to policyholders, claimant and beneficiary claims, as
well as debts owed to all other classes of debtors, other than
surplus note holders, of Golden American Life Insurance Company in
the event of (a) the institution of bankruptcy, reorganization,
insolvency or liquidation proceedings by or against Golden American
Life Insurance Company, or (b) the appointment of a Trustee, receiver
or other Conservator for a substantial part of Golden American Life
Insurance Company properties.

Any payments made shall first apply to accrued interest, and the
balance of such payment shall apply to reduce the principal of this
Note.

Any payment of principal and/or interest made shall be subject to the
prior approval of the Delaware Insurance Commissioner.  If the
Commissioner has not approved payment of principal to retire the note
prior to its maturity date, the maturity date will be automatically
extended until such time as the Commissioner authorizes payment of
the final balance of principal.

Golden American Life Insurance Company hereby waives presentment and
notice of dishonor.

In witness whereof, Golden American Life Insurance Company has caused
this Note to be executed and delivered.

                              GOLDEN AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

                              By:  /s/ David L. Jacobson
                                   ---------------------------------
                                   David L. Jacobson, Senior Vice
                                   President and Assistant Secretary


Attest by:

/s/ Marilyn Talman
-----------------------
Marilyn Talman
Vice President and Assistant Secretary


<PAGE>
<PAGE>
### §5156. Authorization of appropriations; cooperative agreements

#### (a) Authorization

For each of fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,1 2011, there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter—

(1) $1,000,000 to the Secretary of Commerce; and

(2) $250,000 to the Secretary of the Interior.

#### (b) Cooperative agreements

The Secretaries may enter into cooperative agreements with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission or with States, for the purpose of using amounts appropriated pursuant to this section to provide financial assistance for carrying out the purposes of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 98–613, §7, Oct. 31, 1984, 98 Stat. 3190; Pub. L. 99–432, §4, Oct. 1, 1986, 100 Stat. 990; Pub. L. 100–589, §1, Nov. 3, 1988, 102 Stat. 2984; Pub. L. 102–130, §2(b), Oct. 17, 1991, 105 Stat. 626; Pub. L. 105–146, §2, Dec. 16, 1997, 111 Stat. 2676; Pub. L. 106–555, title I, §101, Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2765; Pub. L. 109–479, title III, §302(a), Jan. 12, 2007, 120 Stat. 3623.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2007—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–479 amended subsec. (a) generally, substituting "For each of fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011," for "For each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003," in introductory provisions.

2000—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–555 reenacted heading without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "For each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter—

"(1) $800,000 to the Secretary of Commerce; and

"(2) $250,000 to the Secretary of the Interior."

1997—Pub. L. 105–146 amended section catchline and text generally. Prior to amendment, section authorized appropriations for fiscal years 1986 through 1994 and authorized the Secretaries to enter into cooperative agreements with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

1991—Pub. L. 102–130, §2(b)(4), in section catchline inserted at end "; cooperative agreements".

Pub. L. 102–130, §2(b)(1)–(3), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted subsec. heading, substituted "1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994," for "and 1991,", and added subsec. (b).

1988—Pub. L. 100–589 substituted "1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991," for "and 1988,".

1986—Pub. L. 99–432 amended section catchline and text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "Funds for activities in fiscal year 1985 under this chapter shall be made available only from funds appropriated for the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior for fiscal year 1985. For fiscal year 1986, there are authorized such sums as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this chapter."

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by "and".
1 December 08, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption #11305, Docket ID FAA

- 2014

- 1017

Dear Sir or Madam:

Flying Cross Aerial Productions was issued Exemption #11305 for the purpose of

operating UAS for filming and photography. We are requesting that in addition to the

aircraft listed in the Exemption, two additional make and model aircr aft be included.

These additional aircraft have similar flight and operating characteristics as the originally

exempted models, and shall be operated under t he same terms and conditions contained

in the Exemption. We therefore believe good cause exists n ot to publish this amendment

request in the Federal Register.

The additional aircraft are: Hexacrafter HX

- 1000 (hexacopter) and DJI Inspire One

(quadcopter).

Amendments to Flying Cross Aerial Production’s Operations Manual(s) are being

submitted as confidential information, electronically by email.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Scott Hess, Owner

Flying Cross Aerial Productions

P.O. Box 26203

Austin, TX 78755
#### Monet Dunham, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 379]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurkin-Torres, J.), dated July 1, 2005, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action for failure to proceed to trial and to restore the case to the trial calendar and (2) an order of the same court dated September 27, 2005, which denied her motion for leave to reargue and renew the prior motion.

Ordered that the order dated July 1, 2005 is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the case to the trial calendar is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 27, 2005 is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

On January 25, 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed this action but gave the plaintiff leave to move to restore it upon a showing of a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for failure to proceed with trial on the date selected by the *525court. As the plaintiff’s proof adequately addressed both predicates to the relief sought, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal and to restore the case to the trial calendar *(see Matter of Zrake v New York City Dept. of Educ.,*17 AD3d 603 [2005]; *Cardinale v Woolworth’s, Inc.,*304 AD2d 351 [2003]).

The appeal from so much of the order dated September 27, 2005 as denied leave to reargue must be dismissed as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. The appeal from so much of the order dated September 27, 2005 as denied leave to renew has been rendered academic in light of our determination on the appeal from the order dated July 1, 2005. Adams, J.E, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ, concur.
#### William B. Fonville *v.*Benjamin F. Sausser *et al.*

1. Bill or *exceptions—when necessary.*Motions to strike affidavit of claim from the files, or to strike plea from files for want of affidavit of merits, are not a part of the record, and the rulings of the court thereon will not be reviewed in the Supreme Court, unless exceptions are taken to such rulings and preserved by bill of exceptions.

2. *Error—who may assign.*An appellant can not assign error on behalf of one with whom he was impleaded in the court below, but who has not appealed, so as to reverse a judgment which is regular as to such appellant.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. ¡Nathaniel J. Pillsbury, Judge, presiding.

Hr. S. B. Moore, for the appellants.

Mr. Hamilton K. Wheeler, for the appellees.

*452Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court:

With the declaration in this case appellees filed what purports to be an affidavit of claim, under the provisions of the statute. Appellant moved to strike the same from the files, which motion was, by the court, overruled. Appellant having filed his plea but no affidavit of merits, it was, on motion, stricken from the files for the want of such affidavit. These rulings of the court are assigned for error.

It is a sufficient answer to say, no exceptions to the decisions of the court on the several motions have been preserved by any bill of exceptions, as required by the practice in this court, and the same are not before us for consideration. This court has frequently ruled, that motions of this character do not become a part of the record, unless made so by means of a bill of' exceptions. *Snell*v. *M. E. Church,*58 Ill. 290.

There was no service of process on Dunham, and his plea having been stricken from the record, the point is made, it was error to render judgment against him. The objection is not founded in fact. As we understand the record, the judgment is alone against appellant. The cause is entitled, against Fonville impleaded with Dunham, and the judgment is rendered against the defendant.

But if the judgment had been improperly rendered against Dunham, he has not joined in the appeal and has assigned no errors in this court. Appellant can not assign error on his behalf, when he does not join in the appeal so as to reverse a judgment regular as to himself. *Van Pelt*v. *Dunford et al.*58 Ill. 145.

There was no error in the court assessing damages after default, without the intervention of a jury. Neither party called for a jury, and in such cases the statute authorizes the court to make the assessment. Gross’ Stat. p. 512, sec. 23.

No error appears in the record for which the judgment can be reversed, and it must therefore be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed,.*
### §469a–3. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 86–523, §5, formerly §2(c), (e), June 27, 1960, 74 Stat. 220, renumbered and amended Pub. L. 93–291, §1(4), (6), (7), May 24, 1974, 88 Stat. 175; Pub. L. 96–205, title VI, §608(b)(1), Mar. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 92; Pub. L. 103–437, §6(d)(27), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4584; Pub. L. 104–333, div. I, title VIII, §814(d)(2)(B), Nov. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 4196, related to progress reports by Secretary of the Interior; disposition of relics and specimens recovered; and coordination of survey and recovery activities. See section 312504 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
#### § 221.1 Admission under bond.

The district director having jurisdiction over the intended place of residence of an alien may accept a bond on behalf of an alien defined in section 101(a)(15)(B) or (F) of the Act prior to the issuance of a visa to the alien or upon receipt of a request directly from a U.S. consular officer or upon presentation by an interested person of a notification from the consular officer requiring such a bond; such a bond also may be accepted by the district director with jurisdiction over the port of entry or preinspection station where inspection of the alien takes place. Upon acceptance of such a bond, the district director shall notify the United States consular officer who requested the bond, giving the date and place of acceptance and amount of the bond. All bonds given as a condition of admission of an alien under section 221(g) of the Act shall be executed on Form I-352. For procedures relating to bond riders, acceptable sureties, cancellation, or breaching of bonds, see § 103.6 of this chapter.

[32 FR 9626, July 4, 1967, as amended at 34 FR 1008, Jan. 23, 1969; 62 FR 10352, Mar. 6, 1997]
- Newsroom        - Press Releases
      - Public Statements
      - Speeches
      - Testimony
      - Spotlight Topics
      - Media Gallery
      - Upcoming Events
      - Webcasts
      - What's New
      - SEC Videos
      - Reports and Publications
      - RSS Feeds
      - Social Media 

# Open Meeting Agenda

## Wednesday, December 18, 2019

| **Item 1:** | **Public Company Accounting Oversight Board 2020 Budget and Accounting Support Fee** |
|-------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Office:     | Office of the Chief AccountantOffice of Financial Management                         |
| Staff:      | Sagar Teotia, Caryn Kauffman                                                         |

The Commission will consider whether to approve the 2020 budget of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and the related annual accounting support fee for the Board under Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

For further information, please contact Marc Panucci, Office of the Chief Accountant, at (202) 551-5300.
#### Bruno Weil, Respondent, v. Henry Torres, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Cohn, JJ.
- Newsroom        - Press Releases
      - Public Statements
      - Speeches
      - Testimony
      - Spotlight Topics
      - Media Gallery
      - Upcoming Events
      - Webcasts
      - What's New
      - SEC Videos
      - Reports and Publications
      - RSS Feeds
      - Social Media 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

**TIME AND DATE:** Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Monday, November 9, 2020, via videoconference.

**PLACE:** The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. The meeting will be conducted by remote means (videoconference) and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. Members of the public may watch the webcast of the meeting on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

**STATUS:** On October 23, 2020, the Commission published notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10877), indicating that the meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.

**MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:** The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and regulations affecting small and emerging businesses and their investors.

**CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:** For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: October 30, 2020

Vanessa A. CountrymanSecretary
Case 17-50784-FJS    Doc 138    Filed 03/14/18    Entered 03/14/18 13:25:14    Desc Main Document      Page 1 of 9

Case 17-50784-FJS    Doc 138    Filed 03/14/18    Entered 03/14/18 13:25:14    Desc Main Document      Page 2 of 9

Case 17-50784-FJS    Doc 138    Filed 03/14/18    Entered 03/14/18 13:25:14    Desc Main Document      Page 3 of 9

Case 17-50784-FJS    Doc 138    Filed 03/14/18    Entered 03/14/18 13:25:14    Desc Main Document      Page 4 of 9

Case 17-50784-FJS    Doc 138    Filed 03/14/18    Entered 03/14/18 13:25:14    Desc Main Document      Page 5 of 9

Case 17-50784-FJS    Doc 138    Filed 03/14/18    Entered 03/14/18 13:25:14    Desc Main Document      Page 6 of 9

Case 17-50784-FJS    Doc 138    Filed 03/14/18    Entered 03/14/18 13:25:14    Desc Main Document      Page 7 of 9

Case 17-50784-FJS    Doc 138    Filed 03/14/18    Entered 03/14/18 13:25:14    Desc Main Document      Page 8 of 9

Case 17-50784-FJS    Doc 138    Filed 03/14/18    Entered 03/14/18 13:25:14    Desc Main Document      Page 9 of 9
**Exhibit 32.2**

****

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION  1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Hickok Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon  the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory M. Zoloty, Chief FinancialOfficer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that:

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

-        the 					information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all 					materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

/s/ G. M. Zoloty

G. M. Zoloty

Chief Financial Officer

December 19, 2003
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-4 No. 333-101310; Form S-3 Nos. 333-96715, 333-96715-01, and
333-89130-76; and Form S-8 No. 333-97469) of Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide, Inc. and Starwood Hotels & Resorts and in the related Prospectuses of
our report dated January 29, 2003, with respect to the financial statements and
schedules included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December
31, 2002.


                                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
February 27, 2003
§ 200.4 State law exception. ( a ) If a State provides satisfactory evidence to the Secretary that neither the State educational agency (SEA) nor any other State government official, agency, or entity has sufficient authority under State law to adopt academic content standards, student academic achievement standards, and academic assessments applicable to all students enrolled in the State's public schools, the State may meet the requirements under §§ 200.1 and 200.2 by— ( 1 ) Adopting academic standards and academic assessments that meet the requirements of §§ 200.1 and 200.2 on a Statewide basis and limiting their applicability to students served under subpart A of this part; or
( 2 ) Adopting and implementing policies that ensure that each LEA in the State that receives funds under subpart A of this part will adopt academic standards and academic assessments aligned with those standards that— ( i ) Meet the requirements in §§ 200.1 and 200.2; and
( ii ) Are applicable to all students served by the LEA.
( b ) A State that qualifies under paragraph (a) of this section must— ( 1 ) Establish technical criteria for evaluating whether each LEA's— ( i ) Academic content and student academic achievement standards meet the requirements in § 200.1; and
( ii ) Academic assessments meet the requirements in § 200.2, particularly regarding validity and reliability, technical quality, alignment with the LEA's academic standards, and inclusion of all students in the grades assessed;
( 2 ) Review and approve each LEA's academic standards and academic assessments to ensure that they— ( i ) Meet or exceed the State's technical criteria; and
( ii ) For purposes of this section— ( A ) Are equivalent to one another in their content coverage, difficulty, and quality;
( B ) Have comparable validity and reliability with respect to groups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) of the Act; and
( C ) Provide unbiased, rational, and consistent determinations of the annual progress of schools within the State; and
( 3 ) Be able to aggregate, with confidence, data from local assessments to make accountability determinations under section 1111(c) of the Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, 6311 (b)(2)(E) and 6571)
[67 FR 45041, July 5, 2002, as amended at 81 FR 88933, Dec. 8, 2016]
# C_2012208EN.01000201.xml

| 14.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 208/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6629 — Bain Capital/Scandinavian Installation Refi)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 208/03

On 5 July 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6629. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6629. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1




Section 906 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer




Stephen J. Schoepfer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Carbonics Capital Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge:




(1) The Company’s periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011 (“Form 10-Q”) 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.




/s/ Stephen J. Schoepfer

/s/ Stephen J. SchoepferName: Stephen J. Schoepfer

Title:  Chief Executive Officer

Name: Stephen J. Schoepfer

Title: Chief Financial OfficerDate: November 14, 2011