alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[4910-13-P]

o

DATE

Federal Aviation Administration

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATlON

ACTION: Final.rule.

"Om!"" ,Y);,"OL

Airworthiness Directives; 328 Support Services GmbH (Type Celiificate Previously _ t'D

Held by AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Domier GmbH; Domier Luftfahrt Gmbrf I T'ALI~~ q< DATE

Model 328-l00 and -300 Airplanes )\..-11-10

w~='"2lQ

'A~~

RlN 2120-AA64

(DOT).

()~CURRENCES

ROlmNG SY"BDl

{YI,-7

iN. 'A'-SIS1Ci

14 CFR Part 39 "~:~

I V(I'!. ('

(Docket No. FAA-2010-0955; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-013-ADj Amendmen Ol}TlNGSYM L

Ib51,o >011-01--07

39-;;;;....r AD ~;4:.'4

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products list

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness infonl1ation (MeAT.) D~·"f.

originated by an aviation authOlity of another country to identify and correct an unsafe "OlmNll """BDl

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

I~TrIAl.SiSIG

0,11',

During maintenance on a 328-100 aeroplane, a crack was found on a tTim

tab fitting assembly. The cause of the cracking was identified as stress

corros]on.

This condition, ifnot corrected, could lead to in-flight failure of the tab

fitting, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.

* * * * * *

"QIj"IINGSV.,OOl

We are issuing this AD to require, actions to correct the unsafe condition on these

products.
39–008 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–55 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 22, EXPRESSING THE SENSE 

OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESSES ARE ENTITLED TO A SMALL BUSINESS BILL OF RIGHTS 

APRIL 26, 2005.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mrs. CAPITO, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 235] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 235, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H. Res. 22, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that American 

small businesses are entitled to a Small Business Bill of Rights. 

The rule provides one hour of debate in the House equally divided 

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Small Business. The rule provides that the 

amendments to the resolution and the preamble recommended by 

the Committee on Small Business now printed in the resolution are 

considered as adopted. The rule waives all points of order against 

consideration of the resolution. 

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, which may not 

contain instructions. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The Committee is not aware of any points of order against consideration of the resolution. The waiver of all points of order 

against consideration of the resolution is prophylactic in nature. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House rule XIII the results of each 

record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with 

the names of those voting for and against, are printed below: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 47 

Date: April 26, 2005. 

2 

Measure: H. Res. 22, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that American small businesses are entitled to a Small 

Business Bill of Rights. 

Motion by: Mr. McGovern. 

Summary of motion: To make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for the amendment offered by Mr. McGovern, which 

states that discriminating practices have no place in determining 

the success or failure of a business. Adds the following clauses: 

‘‘Whereas small businesses owned by women and minorities play a 

vital role in contributing to and driving the American marketplace; 

Whereas even after controlling for differences that might affect applications, such as credit history, minority-owned businesses are 

just as likely as white-owned firms to apply for new credit, but are 

roughly twice as likely to be denied credit as white business owners;’’. 

Results: Defeated 4 to 9. 

Vote by Members: Diaz-Balart—Nay; Hastings (WA)—Nay; Sessions—Nay; Putnam—Nay; Capito—Nay; Cole—Nay; Bishop—Nay; 

Gingrey—Nay; Slaughter—Yea; McGovern—Yea; Hastings (FL)— 

Yea; Matsui—Yea; Dreier—Nay. 

Æ
### §5512. Control of products after manufacture

**For applicability of all provisions of this chapter pertaining to distilled spirits and wines, including those requiring payment of tax, to volatile fruit-flavor concentrates sold, transported, or used in violation of law or regulations, see section 5001(a)(6).**

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1392; amended Pub. L. 115–141, div. U, title IV, §401(a)(247), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1195.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5512, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 677, consisted of provisions similar to those comprising this section, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–141 substituted "section 5001(a)(6)" for "section 5001(a)(7)".
§ 46.315 How to format an environmental assessment. ( a ) An environmental assessment may be prepared in any format useful to facilitate planning, decision-making, and appropriate public participation.
( b ) An environmental assessment may be accompanied by any other planning or decision-making document. The portion of the document that analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposal and alternatives must be clearly and separately identified and not spread throughout or interwoven into other sections of the document.
#### Medea Hilton, Respondent-Appellant, v. Morris Hilton, Appellant-Respondent.

No opinion. Holán, P. J., Carswell, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur; Johnston, J., concurs for affirmance of the order of December 24, 1947, on plaintiff’s appeal; but (1) on defendant’s appeal dissents and votes to modify the order of December 24, 1947, by striking out the second ordering paragraph, and to vacate the judgment entered on said order on December 29, 1947; and (2) to dismiss defendant’s appeal from the order of February 25, 1948, as academic, with the following memorandum: The remedy to recover judgment for past alimony is in the nature of an action in equity. *(Moore*v. *Moore,*143 App. Div. 428, 433, affd. 208 N. Y. 97.) In any event, the equitable defense that plaintiff knowingly acted in violation of the decree may be considered *(Smith*v. *Smith,*255 App. Div. 652, 656), especially where, as here, the entry of judgment under section 1171-b of the Civil Practice Act is discretionary. *(McCanliss*v. *McCanliss,*268 App. Div. 138.) Under circumstances exactly similar to the case at bar the court refused to punish a husband for contempt for failure to pay alimony to the wife. *(Harris*v. *Harris,*197 App. Div. 646.) The principles applicable to a motion to punish for contempt are applicable here. It also has been held that a wife who violates a separation agreement by denying to the husband the right of visitation granted to him therein is not entitled to recover payments thereunder due to her for her benefit. *(Duryea*v. *Bliven,*122 N. Y. 567; *Muth*v. *Wuest,*76 App. Div. 332.)
#### § 3601.52 After I finish my operations, when must I remove improvements and equipment?

After your contract or permit period expires, or after cancellation of your permit or contract, BLM will allow you up to 90 days, excluding periods of inclement weather, to remove the equipment, personal property, and any other improvements that you placed on the public lands. You may leave in place improvements such as roads, culverts, and bridges if BLM consents. If you fail to remove equipment, personal property, or any other improvement, it becomes the property of the United States. However, you remain liable for the cost of its removal and for restoration of the site.
#### Heights Democratic Club, Inc., v. Guy R. Brewer et al.

Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 1055.]
#### § 3604.23 When and how may I assign my free use permit?

You may assign or transfer your free use permit to entities qualified under § 3604.12. You must first obtain BLM's written approval.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41150 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN ALONSO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CR-585-1

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Alonso-Martinez (Alonso) has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Alonso has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the APPEAL
IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
**Exhibit****31.4**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, HarryBrill, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-K of Gladstone Capital Corporation;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this annual report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosedin this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data; and

 

b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  January 27, 2004                 |
|-----------------------------------------|
|                                    |
|  /s/  HARRY BRILL             |   |
| Harry Brill                             |
| Chief Financial  Officer and  Treasurer |

 

1

----
### §2207A. Right of recovery in the case of certain marital deduction property

#### (a) Recovery with respect to estate tax

#### (1) In general

If any part of the gross estate consists of property the value of which is includible in the gross estate by reason of section 2044 (relating to certain property for which marital deduction was previously allowed), the decedent's estate shall be entitled to recover from the person receiving the property the amount by which—

(A) the total tax under this chapter which has been paid, exceeds

(B) the total tax under this chapter which would have been payable if the value of such property had not been included in the gross estate.

#### (2) Decedent may otherwise direct

Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any property to the extent that the decedent in his will (or a revocable trust) specifically indicates an intent to waive any right of recovery under this subchapter with respect to such property.

#### (b) Recovery with respect to gift tax

If for any calendar year tax is paid under chapter 12 with respect to any person by reason of property treated as transferred by such person under section 2519, such person shall be entitled to recover from the person receiving the property the amount by which—

(1) the total tax for such year under chapter 12, exceeds

(2) the total tax which would have been payable under such chapter for such year if the value of such property had not been taken into account for purposes of chapter 12.

#### (c) More than one recipient of property

For purposes of this section, if there is more than one person receiving the property, the right of recovery shall be against each such person.

#### (d) Taxes and interest

In the case of penalties and interest attributable to additional taxes described in subsections (a) and (b), rules similar to subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall apply.

(Added Pub. L. 97–34, title IV, §403(d)(4)(A), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 304; amended Pub. L. 105–34, title XIII, §1302(a), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 1039.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1997—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 105–34 amended heading and text of par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the decedent otherwise directs by will."

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

#### Effective Date of 1997 Amendment

Pub. L. 105–34, title XIII, §1302(c), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 1039, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [amending this section and section 2207B of this title] shall apply with respect to the estates of decedents dying after the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 5, 1997]."

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to estates of decedents dying after Dec. 31, 1981, see section 403(e) of Pub. L. 97–34, set out as an Effective Date of 1981 Amendment note under section 2056 of this title.
43851394 v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO. 1:20-CV-22385-MORENO 

DORA AND ALFRED VILLODAS, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC., 

Defendant. 

___________________________________/

JOINT STIPULATION TO ARBITRATE 

Plaintiffs Dora Villodas and Alfred Villodas ("Plaintiffa") and defendant Santander 

Consumer USA Inc. ("SC"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Joint 

Stipulation to Arbitrate, stating as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a complaint against SC on or about 

June 10, 2020. [See Complaint.] 

2. Plaintiffs and SC have since agreed to arbitrate all of the claims against SC in this 

case pursuant to the parties' arbitration agreement. 

3. Plaintiffs and SC therefore respectfully request that this Court enter the Agreed 

Order attached hereto as Exhibit "A," which orders that all of the claims against SC in this 

lawsuit be submitted to final, binding arbitration and that this lawsuit be stayed pending the 

conclusion of arbitration. 

4. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Parties respectfully request that 

this Court enter the Agreed Order attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 

Case 1:20-cv-22385-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2020 Page 1 of 2
-2- 

43851394 v1

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of July, 2020. 

/s/ Heather H. Jones _____ 

Heather H. Jones (FL Bar No. 0118974) 

William Peerce Howard (FL Bar No. 0103330) 

The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC 

4030 Henderson Boulevard 

Tampa, FL 33629 

Telephone: (813) 500-1500 x. 205 

Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 

heather@theconsumerprotectionfirm.com

billy@theconsumerprotectionfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

DORA AND ALFRED VILLODAS

/s/ R. Frank Springfield 

R. Frank Springfield (FL Bar No. 0010871) 

Sara L. Solano (FL Bar No. 117966) 

Burr & Forman, LLP 

350 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1440 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Telephone: (954) 414-6202 

Facsimile: (954) 414-6201 

fspringfield@burr.com 

ssolano@burr.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC. 

Case 1:20-cv-22385-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gary Wayne TAYLOR, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-7685.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided March 6, 2006.

Gary Wayne Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Gary Wayne Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Taylor that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Taylor failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. *See Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-6 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). We find Taylor waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice of the proposed denial of his § 2255 motion, and the district court properly denied a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *796and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-21964-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

NOTICE OF APPEAL

v. 

TCA FUND MANAGEMENT

GROUP, et al., 

Defendants. 

_____________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that Eleanor Fisher and Tammy Fu, in their capacity as Foreign 

Representatives (the “Foreign Representatives”) of Relief Defendant TCA Global Credit Fund., 

Ltd., as recognized by Order of this Court in the Chapter 15 case1 of the Feeder Fund, Ltd., dated 

June 1, 2021, appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit the August 4, 

2022 Order granting in part the Receiver’s Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan and First 

Interim Distribution [ECF No. 284] (“the Order”), as amended by the September 2, 2022 Order 

[ECF No. 299] (the “Amended Order”). See SEC v. Torchia, 922 F.3d 1307, 1315-16 (11th Cir. 

2019) (holding that the district court’s order approving the receiver’s distribution plan was 

appealable as a collateral order). True and correct copies of the Order and Amended Order are 

attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B,” respectively. 

 

1 By agreement with the Receiver the Chapter 15 Case was withdrawn to this Court from the U.S.

Bankruptcy Court for this District, and docketed as Case No. 1:21-cv-21905-CMA. By further

Order dated August 25, 2021, the Court closed the Chapter 15 Case for administrative purposes

only and directed that all further filings be made in this Receivership Case.

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 307 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2022 Page 1 of 2
Dated October 12, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

BAKER & McKENZIE LLP

Attorneys for the Foreign Representatives

Sabadell Financial Center 

1111 Brickell Ave., Suite 1700

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 789-8900

Facsimile: (305) 789-8953

By: /s/ Mark D. Bloom

Mark D. Bloom (Fla. Bar No. 303836)

John R. Dodd (Fla. Bar No. 38091)

Email: mark.bloom@bakermckenzie.com

john.dodd@bakermckenzie.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 12, 2022, I caused the foregoing document to be 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court in the above-captioned matter using the CM/ECF 

System, which in turn automatically generated a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) to all parties in 

the case who are registered users of the CM/ECF system. 

By: /s/Mark D. Bloom

 

Case 1:20-cv-21964-CMA Document 307 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2022 Page 2 of 2