alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4.24 Application for refund of tonnage tax. ( a ) The authority to make refunds in accordance with section 26 of the Act of June 26, 1884 (46 U.S.C. 8) of regular tonnage taxes described in § 4.20(a) is delegated to the Directors of the ports where the collections were made. If any doubt exists, the case shall first be referred to Headquarters, U.S. Customs Service for advice.
( b ) Each application for refund of regular or special tonnage tax or light money prepared in accordance with this section shall be filed with the Customs officer to whom payment was made. After verification of the pertinent facts asserted in the claim, the application shall be forwarded with any necessary report or recommendation to the appropriate port director. Applications for refund of special tonnage tax and light money (see § 4.20(c)) with the reports and recommendations submitted therewith shall be forwarded by the port director to the Commissioner of Customs for decision. Any refund authorized by the Port Director under paragraph (a) of this section or any refund of special tonnae tax or light money authorized by the Commissioner of Customs shall be made by the appropriate Customs officer. The records of tonnage tax shall be clearly noted to show each refund authorized.
( c ) The application shall be a direct request for the refund of a definite sum, showing concisely the reasons therefor, the nationality and name of the vessel, and the date, place, and amount of each payment for which refund is requested. The application shall be made within 1 year from date of the payment. A protest against a payment shall not be accepted as an application for its refund.
( d ) When the application is based upon a claim that more than five payments of regular tax at either the 2-cent or the 6-cent rate have been made during a tonnage year, the application shall be supported by a statement from the appropriate Customs officer at the port where the application is submitted and from the appropriate Customs officer at each port at which any claimed payment was made verifying the facts and showing in each case whether refunds have been authorized.
( e ) The application shall include a certificate by the owner or by the owner's agent that payment of tonnage tax at the applicable rate has been or will be made for each entry of the vessel on a voyage on which that rate is applicable before the end of the current tonnage year, exclusive of any payment which has been refunded or which may be refunded as a result of such application.
( f ) The owner or operator of the vessel involved, or other party in interest, may file with the port Director a petition addressed to the Commissioner of Customs for a review of the port director's decision on an application for refund of regular tonnage tax. Such petition shall be filed in duplicate within 30 days from the date of notice of the initial decision, shall completely identify the case, and shall set forth in detail the exceptions to the decision.
[T.D. 71-274, 36 FR 21025, Nov. 3, 1971, as amended by T.D. 95-77, 60 FR 50010, Sept. 27, 1995]
#### Joseph Hossner, on Behalf of Himself, etc., Appellant, v. Rhinestone Products Company and Others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             190
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4513
<ALLOWANCES>                                       152
<INVENTORY>                                       2563
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9113
<PP&E>                                            1958
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1529
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   22057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3592
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           102
<OTHER-SE>                                       13333
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     22057
<SALES>                                          10429
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 10429
<CGS>                                             7376
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     7376
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 194
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1239
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1239
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1239
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10



</TABLE>
No. 12,802,

#### Walker *v.*Hunter et al.

(22 P. [2d] 133)

Decided May 8, 1933.

*474Mr. B. A. G-ates, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. J. Paul Hill, Mr. P. P. Hunter, for defendants in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Bouck

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case and the parties are the same ones before us in *Walker v. Hunter,*86 Colo. 483, 283 Pac. 48. There a complaint, on which the plaintiff elected to stand after the trial court had sustained a demurrer interposed by the defendants, was held to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for libel. The alleged defamation is contained in a petition to the board of county commissioners of Adams county, signed in July of 1927 by the 60 defendants (along with 125 other persons not sued herein), and requesting the board’s denial of a license to operate a certain dance hall. Reference is made to our opinion, supra. We declared that the circumstances surrounding the communication presumptively clothed the defendants with a qualified privilege which would protect them against any civil liability unless the actual malice pleaded were proved. The complaint has remained unchanged. An answer was duly filed relying upon the qualified privilege and denying malice. The case accordingly went to trial before a jury in the district court. Upon plaintiff’s resting in chief, the judge on defendant’s motion directed a verdict for the defendants *475and entered judgment in their favor. The case is again before us, this time to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury, and whether there was prejudicial error in rulings on the admissibility of evidence.

 The evidence in the record is palpably insufficient. Far from establishing the malice, which is an indispensable element in this kind of case, its inadequacy is so pronounced that, if a jury had brought in a verdict on the strength of it, the plain duty of the trial judge would have been to set the- verdict aside. Newell, Slander and Libel (4th Ed.), p. 801, §717, and pp. 802, 803, §718 (7). The motion for a directed verdict was properly sustained.

The assignments of error based upon the admission and exclusion of particular evidence are also without merit. Even if the evidence that was excluded had been received, and the evidence that was received over the objection of plaintiff had been rejected, our decision would have to be the same. There was no prejudicial error in the rulings.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Hilliard not participating.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 03-014 January 24, 2003

NRC PROVIDES A NEW SEARCH INTERFACE TO PUBLIC DOCUMENTS

THROUGH ITS WEB SITE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has released an additional search interface for its online

Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) to make it easier to find and

obtain public NRC documents.

The new search and retrieval interface allows users to access documents directly from the NRC

web site. The new search engine features basic and advanced search options for users to search and

retrieve files of publicly available documents.

Other special features of the new interface include highlighting of search terms in document

texts, an option to search for similar documents, and indicators for those documents in a search list

already viewed. 

Additional details are available at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . For more

information on the new ADAMS enhancements, please contact the Public Document Room at 1- 800-

397-4209 or e-mail pdr@nrc.gov. 

###
### §3304. Transfers of public money from depositaries

The Secretary of the Treasury may transfer public money in the possession of a depositary—

(1) to the Treasury; and

(2) if the Secretary believes the safety of the public money and convenience require it, to another depositary.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 949.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3304 | 31:522. | R.S. §3640. |

In the section, before clause (1), the words "except as provided in section 523 of this title" are omitted as superseded by title 39. The words "of the United States, to the credit of the Treasurer" are omitted as unnecessary. In clause (2), the words "if the Secretary believes the safety of the public money and convenience require it" are substituted for "as the safety of the public moneys and the convenience of the public service shall seem to him to require" for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words.
#### § 111.94 Decision on monetary penalty.

CBP will follow the procedures set forth in part 171 of this chapter in considering any petition for relief filed under § 111.93. After CBP has considered the allegations or complaints set forth in the notice issued under § 111.92 and any timely response made to the notice by the broker or other person, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer will issue a written decision to the broker or other person setting forth the final determination and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determination is based. If the final determination is that the broker or other person is liable for a monetary penalty, the broker or other person must pay the monetary penalty, or make arrangements for payment of the monetary penalty, within 60 calendar days of the date of the written decision. If payment or arrangements for payment are not timely made, CBP will refer the matter to the Department of Justice for institution of appropriate judicial proceedings.

[T.D. 00-17, 65 FR 13891, Mar. 15, 2000, as amended by CBP Dec. 22-21, 87 FR 63321, Oct. 18, 2022]
RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST II
                                Exhibit 99.2
                                ------------
                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Christopher  Naunton,  Chief Financial  Officer of Ridgewood  Electric Power
Trust  II.   (the   "Registrant"),certify,   pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period ended
June 30, 2003 (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 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.

Dated: September 10, 2003

                                       Signature:

                                       /s/ Christopher Naunton
                                       ------------------------
                                       Christopher Naunton
                                       Chief Financial Officer
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-01-001 January 8, 2001

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC NAMES CHRISTOPHER CAHILL RESIDENT INSPECTOR

AT THE HOPE CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have selected Christopher

Cahill as the agency’s resident inspector at the Hope Creek nuclear power plant in Hancocks Bridge,

N.J. He joins Senior Resident Inspector Joseph Schoppy at the site.

Most recently, Mr. Cahill was a reactor inspector in the electrical engineering branch in the

NRC Region I office’s Division of Reactor Safety. He joined the agency in September 1997. Prior to

that, Mr. Cahill worked as a plant engineer at BOC Gases in Claymont, Del., and served as a

submarine officer in the United States Navy.

Mr. Cahill earned a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the State University of

New York Maritime College at Fort Schuyler in the Bronx, New York, and a master’s degree in

environmental engineering from the University of New Haven, in West Haven, Conn.

Earlier this year, Mr. Cahill was awarded a Silver Medal for Outstanding Public Service by the

Philadelphia Federal Executive Board.

The Hope Creek resident inspectors can be reached at (856) 935-3850.

###
### §31a–3. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 31a–3 was editorially reclassified as section 6159 of this title.
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 32926 (321)-261-2547 

uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com

January 12, 2016

U. S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Bldg. 10A

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

RE: Summary Grant for The Powers Flight Group Exemption Request Under 

Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012, 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), 49 

U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, The Powers Flight Group, an operator of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“sUAS”) equipped to conduct full service photography and 

videography, seeks exemption from the following listed Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) to allow commercial operation of the previously approved Leptron Avenger, 

Leptron RDASS Q1000, Yuneec Typhoon, Yuneec Tornado, and the Roboflight RF70

within the National Airspace System (NAS) for controlled, low-risk, flight demonstration, 

sales and marketing, flight training, aerial 3D terrain mapping and survey and precision 

agriculture crop survey and analysis over certain areas of the United States, conducted 

within and under the conditions outlined herein, or as may be established by the FAA, as 

required by Section 333 requirements. 

The Powers Flight Group in the accompanying petition, seeks exemption from the 

requirements of 14 C.F.R. 45.23 (b),14 C.F.R. 45.27 (a), 14 C.F.R.61.23, 14 C.F.R. 

61.101 (e)(4) &(5),14 C.F.R. 61.113(a) and (b), 14 C.F.R. 91.7 (a), 14 C.F.R. 61.315(a), 

14 C.F.R. 91.105, 14 C.F.R. 91.119(c), 14 C.F.R. 91.121, 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a) (b), 14 

C.F.R. 91.405(a), 14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1), 14 C.F.R. 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 14 C.F.R. 

91.417(a) and (b).

The Powers Flight Group has requested that the FAA not request public comment on its

petition because it would not set any precedent and because the relief requested is 

identical to numerous exemptions granted previously by the FAA. 14 C.F.R. § 11.87. 

In addition, The Powers Flight Group will be utilizing the proven technologies the FAA has 
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 32926 (321)-261-2547 

uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com

already accepted and approved in numerous other approved exemptions. Combined, the

comprehensive Section 333 Exemption and the approvals the FAA has already given to 

these chosen products and the technology, should provide the support necessary to the 

FAA for a Summary Grant of The Powers Flight Group’s Section 333 Petition and expedite 

the process. 

Kelly J. Neubecker

CEO

UASolutions Group, Inc.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 Statement Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Regarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings
 I, William J. Buchanan, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Superconductor Technologies Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ William J. BuchananWilliam J. BuchananController (Principal Financial Officer)
### §309. Office of Thrift Supervision

The Office of Thrift Supervision established under section 3(a) 1 of the Home Owners' Loan Act shall be an office in the Department of the Treasury.

(Added Pub. L. 101–73, title III, §307(a)(1), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 352; amended Pub. L. 103–272, §4(f)(1)(A), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1361.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 3(a) of the Home Owners' Loan Act, referred to in text, which established the Office of Thrift Supervision, was classified to section 1462a(a) of Title 12, Banks and Banking, and was struck out by Pub. L. 111–203, title III, §369(3)(B), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1558.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 309 was renumbered section 315 of this title.

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–272 substituted "section 3(a)" for "section 2A(a)".

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

#### Transfer of Functions

Office of Thrift Supervision abolished and functions transferred to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation by sections 5412 and 5413 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.

1 See References in Text note below.
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing is scheduled to be held. The purpose of the meeting is to review planned changes and progress in developing computerized and paper-and-pencil enlistment tests and renorming of the tests.

# DATES:

November 18, 2004, from 8 a.m. to 5.p.m., and November 19, 2004, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Mayflower Park Hotel, 405 Olive Way, Seattle, Washington.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant Director, Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Room 2B271, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, telephone (703) 697-9271.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Persons desiring to make oral presentations or submit written statements for consideration at the Committee meeting must contact Dr. Jane M. Arabian at the address or telephone number above no later than November 5, 2004.

Dated: October 20, 2004.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 04-23987  Filed 10-26-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
MEX GROUP MAINTENANCE & 

REPAIR, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL 

SERVICES DIVISION OF 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION,

Respondents.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-2805

Opinion filed August 6, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Bennett M. Miller of the Law Offices of Bennett M. Miller, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Alexander R. Brick, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 

WOLF, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.