alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
• '• •'"'• Mv:rJ\[ U r 

O fi g Memorandum 

U.S. Department of , .. , „ 

Transportation - , ; / ' 1 -^ 3' ^ i 

Office of fhe Secretary 

ofTrgnsporToTion 

Subject: Clarification on EAS billing for several of Great Lakes Date- ^^ ^ ^^^ ^^' ^ 

Airlines' communities 

FromV:. Denni s J. DeVany, Chief <<tr t ~ ' Michael Martin, X-53 

EAS and Domestic Analysis, X-53 ^'^t- ^^"^^"^ 

To: Gregoiy Frazier, S-3.6 

Reference: Orders 2009-12-9, 2010-9-13, 2011-3-4 

First, Great Lakes' proposal for Page is to receive 4/2RTs a day for 6-month peak/off 

peak. We described that in the text of the order but neglected to include that in the 

Appendix, so please compensate accordingly. 

Below are several examples of Great Lakes' providing an extra RT a day, albeit 

sometimes one-stop and to a non-designated hub. Nonetheless, the service obviously is 

of some value to the community. In these cases, we ask that you recognize the additional 

service only when Great Lakes has a cancellation to/from the designated hub(s). As I 

understand, you would typically give carriers Vi credit for one-stop service when nonstop 

service is calledfor. We suggest you maintain that policy here. 

In addition to Moab's 2RTs a day to DEN as called for in the order, GLA is flying an 

extra trip over CNY-PGA-LAS. 

Similarly, Visalia is to receive 2 RTs a day to LAX and Merced 2 RTs a day to LAS, and 

they do. However, Great Lakes routes one of the flights over a LAS-MCE-VIS-LAX 

routing, meaning that Merced gets a one-stop flight to LAX and Visalia a one-stop flight 

to LAS. 

Show Low is to receive 3RTs a day to PHX and it does. In addition, Great Lakes 

provides IRT a day to DEN via Prescott. 

cc: 

Chuck Howell, Great Lakes Airlines
No: 24-018 March 11, 2024 

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Proposes FY 2025 Budget to Congress

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to Congress a budget of $151 million 

in net appropriations for fiscal year 2025. The budget request proposes approximately $995 

million in gross budget authority. The budget request also proposes the use of $20 million in 

carryover funds to offset the nuclear reactor safety budget, resulting in an adjusted gross budget 

authority of approximately $975 million. The NRC expects to recover approximately $824 

million of its budget in license fees. 

Details of the budget request include: 

• Funding of $503.5 million for nuclear reactor safety, including $420.7 million for 

operating reactors and $82.8 million for new reactors. 

• Funding of $144.9 million for nuclear materials and waste safety. 

• Funding of $19.2 million for the continued development of a regulatory infrastructure 

and staff capabilities for licensing of advanced nuclear reactor and fuel cycle 

technologies. 

• Funding of $18.8 million for international activities. 

• Funding of $10 million for the University Nuclear Leadership Program. 

• Funding of $19.6 million for the Office of the Inspector General, including funding to 

provide inspector general services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

• Support for 2,897.9 full-time equivalent employees, including the OIG. 

The FY 2025 Congressional Budget Justification and summary presentation slides are 

available on the NRC website.
#### § 3592.2 Maps of underground workings and surface operations.

Maps of underground workings and surface operations shall be drawn to a scale acceptable to the authorized officer. All maps shall be appropriately marked with reference to Government land marks or lines and elevations with reference to sea level. When required by the authorized officer, vertical projections and cross sections shall accompany plan views. Maps shall be based on accurate surveys and certified by a professional engineer, professional land surveyor or other professionally qualified person. Accurate copies of such maps or reproductive material or prints thereof shall be furnished by the operator to the authorized officer when and as required.
AFS-13-436-E

November 17, 2014

Mr. Moffett B. Roller

Counsel for Servicios Aeros Gana, S.A. de C.V.

c/o Roller & Bauer, PLLC.

45005 Aviation Drive, Suite 200

Dulles, VA 20116

Dear Mr. Roller:

This is in response to your June 26, 2013 letter (public docket No. FAA-2013-0581) 

petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Servicios Aeros Gana, S.A. de 

C.V. (SAGSA) for an exemption from § 129.5(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow SAGSA to operate its Mexico-registered 

aircraft in U.S. airspace under the same flight data recorder (FDR) requirements that are 

applied to United States (U.S.) registered aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 135.

Upon review of SAGSA’s petition for exemption and applicable regulations and international 

standards, the FAA has determined that SAGSA is not required to have an exemption from § 

129.5(b) and should be permitted to operate its aircraft in U.S. airspace if its aircraft meet 

either the ICAO Annex 6 standards for FDRs or the FDR standards the FAA has applied to 

its own similarly situated part 135 operators. 

Per a memo sent to the Office of Rulemaking from Ms. Beverly Sharkey (copy enclosed) in 

the Office of Chief Counsel dated September 20, 2013, it states that “...when FAA rules 

allow U.S. air carriers to meet different standards, then the FAA can permit foreign air 

carriers to operate in the U.S. airspace either under the U.S. standards appropriate to the class 

of air carrier or under ICAO Annex 6 standards.” In a separate policy memo to Mr. Robert 

Shuter (copy enclosed) dated May 15, 2008, clarifying specific issues regarding the U.S. 

application of Annex 6 requirements for Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems, it 

states that “...when the FAA allows all U.S. carriers or a class of U.S. carriers to meet 

different safety standards in U.S. airspace, we believe that our Article II obligations permit us 

to allow similarly situated carriers from ICAO member States to operate in U.S. airspace 

under standards that do not make distinctions among the operators based on nationality.” 
2

If you have any questions, please contact the FAA’s International Law Branch at (202) 267-

8018 or (202) 267-3073. Because the relief you seek has been determined to be unnecessary,

we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

//s//

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standard Service

Enclosure
### §1109. Liability for breach of fiduciary duty

(a) Any person who is a fiduciary with respect to a plan who breaches any of the responsibilities, obligations, or duties imposed upon fiduciaries by this subchapter shall be personally liable to make good to such plan any losses to the plan resulting from each such breach, and to restore to such plan any profits of such fiduciary which have been made through use of assets of the plan by the fiduciary, and shall be subject to such other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate, including removal of such fiduciary. A fiduciary may also be removed for a violation of section 1111 of this title.

(b) No fiduciary shall be liable with respect to a breach of fiduciary duty under this subchapter if such breach was committed before he became a fiduciary or after he ceased to be a fiduciary.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, §409, Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 886.)
### [§6716. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–312, title III, §301(a), Dec. 17, 2010, 124 Stat. 3300]

Section, added Pub. L. 107–16, title V, §542(b)(4), June 7, 2001, 115 Stat. 83, related to failure to file information with respect to certain transfers at death and gifts.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal of section applicable to estates of decedents dying, and transfers made after Dec. 31, 2009, except as otherwise provided, see section 301(e) of Pub. L. 111–312, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2010 Amendment note under section 121 of this title.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 193 / Thursday, October 3, 1996 / Presidential Documents 51765 

IFR Doc. 96--ZSSTT 

Filed I 0--2-96: 9!38 am) 

BIiiing code 3l95-0l•P 

quent child support obligation and, where appropriate, transmit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget recommendations for statutory 

changes; and 

(2) to the extent practicable, review all rules, regulations, and procedures

implementing laws under the jurisdiction of the department or agency governing the provislon of any Federal financial assistance to individuals and, 

where appropriate, confonn such rules. regulations, and procedures to the 

provisions of this order and the rules, regulations, and procedures issued 

by the Secretary pursuant to section 1 of this order. 

Sec. 3. Reports. (a) The head of each executive department and agency 

shall provide to the Secretary such information as the Secretary may request 

concerning the implementatJon of this order, the provisions of the Debt 

Co1lectlon Improvement Act of 1996 applicable to delinquent child support 

obligations, and the rules, regulations, and procedures issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to section 1 of this order. 

(b) The Secretary shall report annually to the President concerning the 

implementation by departments and agencies of this order and the provisions 

of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 applicable to delinquent 

child support obligations. 

Sec. 4. Judicial Review. This order does not create any right or benefit, 

substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United 

States, its agencies, its officers, or any person. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

September 28, 1996.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 1:20-cv-22872-MGC

CHRISTOPHER HANSEN, 

 Plaintiff,

vs.

LAS VINAS INVESTMENTS, LLC,

and LAS VINAS BBQ, LLC,

 Defendant.

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

The Plaintiff, through undersigned, hereby notifies the Court that the Parties have reached 

a settlement agreement of all claims and issues that were or could have been raised by the 

Plaintiff in this lawsuit. The parties are preparing closing documents and will be moving for 

dismissal with prejudice.

Dated this August 5, 2020.

LAUREN N. WASSENBERG, ESQ.

Attorney for Plaintiff

Lauren N. Wassenberg & Associates, P.A.

1825 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 110

Boca Raton, FL 33431

Ph: 561.571.0646 | Fx: 561.571.0647

WassenbergL@gmail.com

By: s/ Lauren N. Wassenberg

Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq.

(Fla. Bar No. 34083)

Case 1:20-cv-22872-MGC Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY certify that on August 5, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 

served this day on all counsel or record or pro se parties identified on the Service List below in 

the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by 

CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized 

to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

By: s/ Lauren N. Wassenberg

Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq.

(Fla. Bar No. 34083)

Case 1:20-cv-22872-MGC Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 124
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 124 appear at 72 FR 50040, Aug. 30, 2007, and 76 FR 8253, Feb. 11, 2011.

§ 124.518 How can an 8(a) contract be terminated before performance is completed? ( a ) *Termination for default.* A decision to terminate a specific 8(a) contract for default can be made by the procuring activity contracting officer after consulting with SBA. The contracting officer must advise SBA of any intent to terminate an 8(a) contract for default in writing before doing so. SBA may provide to the Participant any program benefits reasonably available in order to assist it in avoiding termination for default. SBA will advise the contracting officer of this effort. Any procuring activity contracting officer who believes grounds for termination continue to exist may terminate the 8(a) contract for default, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (48 CFR chapter 1). SBA will have no liability for termination costs or reprocurement costs.
( b ) *Termination for convenience.* After consulting with SBA, the procuring activity contracting officer may terminate an 8(a) contract for convenience when it is in the best interests of the Government to do so. A termination for convenience is appropriate if any disadvantaged owner of the Participant performing the contract relinquishes ownership or control of such concern, or enters into any agreement to relinquish such ownership or control, unless a waiver is granted pursuant to § 124.515.
( c ) *Substitution of one 8(a) contractor for another.* SBA may authorize another Participant to complete performance and, in conjunction with the procuring activity, permit novation of an 8(a) contract without invoking the termination for convenience or waiver provisions of § 124.515 where a procuring activity contracting officer demonstrates to SBA that the Participant that was awarded the 8(a) contract is unable to complete performance, where an 8(a) contract will otherwise be terminated for default, or where SBA determines that substitution would serve the business development needs of both 8(a) Participants.
[63 FR 35739, June 30, 1998, as amended at 85 FR 66191, Oct. 16, 2020]
#### Harry L. Bradley and Others, Respondents, v. Degnon Contracting Company and Another, Appellants.

Motion denied, without costs. Present — Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ.
#### Melvin Eller et al., Respondents, v. Margaret Fanizzi et al., Appellants.

Judgment in favor of plaintiffs for personal injuries and property damage, in an action arising from the collision *of*two *motor*vehicles at a street intersection, unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Lewis, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
THE UNITED BUILDING

77 WEST WACKER DRIVE

CHICAGO, IL60601

DAN WEISS

MANAGING DIRECTOR—-INTERNATIONALAFFAIRS AND REGULATORY 

PHONE/FAX: (312) 997-7573

DAN.WEISS@UNITED.COM

November 20, 2012

Mr. Paul L. Gretch

Director

Office of International Aviation

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Joint Application of Gojet, Mesa, Republic, Shuttle America and Skywest 

for Statements Of Authorization and Joint Blanket Code Share Notice

(Air New Zealand Code Share)

Docket DOT-OST-2012-0195

Dear Mr. Gretch:

United has completed its poll of carrier representatives in the attached service list. No carrier

objects to the approval of GoJet, Mesa, Republic, Shuttle America and SkyWest’s application to 

code share with Air New Zealand. United asks that the requested authorities be awarded 

promptly so that the carriers can secure foreign authority, make final operating plans and begin 

marketing these services.

Respectfully submitted,

Dan Weiss

Managing Director, International Affairs & Regulatory 

UNITED AIR LINES, INC. 

cc: Esta Rosenberg

Robert Finamore

Josh Romanow
 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing document on all 

persons named below by causing a copy to be sent via email.

msinick@ssd.com (Alaska)

francis.heil@aa.com

robert.wirick@aa.com

rsilverberg@sgbdc.com (ABX/Air Transport Intl.)

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com (Amerijet)

jcanny@amerijet.com

rpommer@atlasair.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

charters@evergreenairlines.com (Evergreen)

cefelts@fedex.com

anbird@fedex.com

nssparks@fedex.com

gbleopard@fedex.com

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com (Frontier)

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com (Frontier)

jhill@dowlohnes.com (Hawaiian/JetBlue)

matwood@cozen.com (Kalitta)

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com

bob.kneisley@wnco.com (AirTran/Southwest)

leslie.abbott@wnco.com (AirTran/Southwest)

dkirstein@yklaw.com (Spirit)

jyoung@yklaw.com (Spirit)

john.fredericksen@suncountry.com

anita.mosner@hklaw.com (UPS)

jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com (UPS)

howard.kass@usairways.com

jegillick@zsrlaw.com (Virgin America)

john.varley@virginamerica.com

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com (World)

william.stallings@usdoj.gov

dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil

john.allen@faa.gov

Annalei Avanceña 

International Regulatory Advisor

November 20, 2012
Exhibit 99.1


                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Timothy Kelley Millet, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
          Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in
          respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
          report, of Trust Certificates (TRUCs), Series 2001-2 Trust;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
          whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
          omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
          in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
          not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the
          trust agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these
          reports; and

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          depositor and the trustee under the trust agreement and based upon
          my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
          agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and
          the trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that
          agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as trustee, and its officers and agents.

                                By: /s/ Timothy Kelley Millet
                                ---------------------------------------
                                Name:   Timothy Kelley Millet
                                Title:  Chief Executive Officer/President,
                                        Bear Stearns Depositor Inc.
                                Date:   March 28, 2005
----

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices

(2006/C 14/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonized standards under the directive)

Example: For EN 60601-1:1990, the following applies:

----
#### Gary BRYAN; Joyce Bryan, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANIES; National Surety Corporation, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 01-35988.

D.C. No. CV-93-00012-DWM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 21, 2002.

Decided May 23, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, CANBY and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

This case returns to us after remand to the district court. In our prior decision, we held that the district court erred in applying state procedural rules to a removed case. *Bryan v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos.,*162 F.3d 1167, 1998 WL 746051 (9th Cir.1998). In reversing, we explained that once a case has been removed to federal court, federal procedural rules govern the proceeding. *Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers,*415 U.S. 423, 437, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974). Upon remand, the district court dismissed the action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5) on the basis that the diversity action was time-barred under state law prior to removal to federal court.

“As a general matter, state procedural rules govern state lawsuits until they are removed to federal court.” *Prazak v. Local 1 Int’l Union of Bricklayers & Allied Crafts,*233 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir.2000). In *Prazak,*we held that if the time in which an action may be filed is extended by operation of state law prior to removal, then the action would not time-barred by application of federal law after removal. *Id.*at 1153-54. This appeal presents the converse situation: a diversity action that was time-barred by application of state law prior to removal. Thus, applying *Prazak*to the instant case, the act of removing a time-barred state diversity action cannot revive a suit that is already time-barred. Thus, the district court properly dismissed the action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies.  Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.  The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors.  Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.  Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 2, 2004.

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of New York**                     (Jay Bernstein, Bank Supervision Officer) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:                

*1.  UFJ Bank Limited*, Nagoya, Japan, and UFJ Holdings, Inc., Osaka, Japan; to retain shares of UFJ Central Leasing, Nagoya, Japan, and thereby engage through Central Leasing (U.S.A.), Inc., Florence, Kentucky, in the leasing of manufacturing equipment and computers as well as real estate leasing, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(3) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 13, 2004.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc.04-23302  Filed 10-18-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### William H. Purvin, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Creditors of the Estate of Louis L. Grey, Deceased, Respondent, v. Harold N. Grey et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.