alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 4, 2015 

-Ms. Molly Smith 

Office of A vi~tio~ Policy and Plans 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY "10004-"1479 

T 2i 2 493 7 400 F 2i 2 344 3344 www.pfnyc.org 

............... ·····••••····· ·····••••····· •••••••••••••• ·····•••······ PARTNERSHIP •••••••••••••• 

·::::!~i!!i.~:::· for New York City .... ~.~~~~!~~:.!.··· 

Re: Docket No. FAA-2014-1073, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Slot Management and 

Transparency for LaGuardi~ Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airportr and Newark 

Liberty International Airport 

Dear Ms. Smith: 

On behalf of The Partnership for New York City, I am writing to request an extension of the 

comment period for the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Notice of Proposed 

Rt.tlemaking (NPRM) related to Slot Management and Transparency for LaGuardia Airport, John 

F. Kehned,)dntemational Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport. 

The Partnership for New York City represents the city's largest private sector employers, all of 

whom highly depend on the named airports for goods and personnel movement. We believe that 

given the proposal's length, complexity of issues within, and industry feedback required, an 

extension is essential in order for those impacted to offer substantive and comprehensive 

feedback. The current deadline for submitting comments is AprilS, 2015. We respectfully request 

that this be extended by 60 days to June 8, 2015. 

Thank you for your consideration of our request. 

Sincerely, 

' 

. ··~ 

• -~ :- 1 ' 1 ... ., "'( .... 

? 

\
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3588 

To require the proposal for debarment from contracting with the Federal 

Government of persons violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2011 

Mr. WELCH (for himself and Mr. CHAFFETZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require the proposal for debarment from contracting with 

the Federal Government of persons violating the Foreign 

Corrupt Practices Act of 1977. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Overseas Contractor 

5 Reform Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO PROPOSE FOR DEBARMENT PER7 SONS VIOLATING THE FOREIGN CORRUPT 

8 PRACTICES ACT. 

9 (a) REQUIREMENT TO PROPOSE FOR DEBARMENT.— 

10 Subject to subsections (b) and (c), any person found to 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3588 IH

1 be in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 

2 1977 shall be proposed for debarment from any contract 

3 or grant awarded by the Federal Government within 30 

4 days after the judgment finding such person to be in viola5 tion becomes final. 

6 (b) WAIVER.—The head of a Federal agency may 

7 waive this Act for a Federal contract or grant. Any such 

8 waiver shall be reported to Congress by the head of the 

9 agency concerned within 30 days from the date of the 

10 waiver, along with an accompanying justification. 

11 (c) EXEMPTION FOR SELF-REPORTED VIOLA12 TIONS.—Upon a determination by the head of a Federal 

13 agency that a person has reported a violation of the For14 eign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 voluntarily to the Fed15 eral Government, the head of the agency may exempt the 

16 person from the applicability of this Act. 

17 (d) FINAL JUDGMENT.—For purposes of this Act, a 

18 judgment becomes final when all appeals of the judgment 

19 have been finally determined, or all time for filing such 

20 appeals has expired. 

21 (e) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

22 (1) CONTRACT.—The term ‘‘contract’’ means a 

23 binding agreement entered into by a Federal agency 

24 for the purpose of obtaining property or services. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3588 IH

1 (2) FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT OF

2 1977.—The term ‘‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 

3 1977’’ means— 

4 (A) section 30A of the Securities Exchange 

5 Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78dd–1); and 

6 (B) sections 104 and 104A of the Foreign 

7 Corrupt Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 78dd–2 and 

8 78dd–3). 

9 SEC. 3. GOVERNMENTAL POLICY. 

10 It is the policy of the United States Government that 

11 no Government contracts or grants should be awarded to 

12 individuals or companies who violate the Foreign Corrupt 

13 Practices Act of 1977 after the date of the enactment of 

14 this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No: 15-050 August 13, 2015

CONTACT: Maureen Conley, 301-415-8200

NRC Approves Changes to Petition-for-Rulemaking Process

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today approved a final rule that will streamline and clarify 

its process for addressing petitions for rulemaking. The new rule will be published shortly in the 

Federal Register.

Any member of the public can petition the NRC to issue a new regulation or amend an existing 

one. The final rule marks the first comprehensive update to the NRC’s process for considering 

rulemaking petitions since the process was established in 1979. The NRC published proposed changes 

for comment in May 2013, and considered the comments received in finalizing the rule.

The revisions will clarify the NRC’s policies and practices at each stage of the petition-forrulemaking process, including how the staff evaluates petitions and how it communicates information 

about both the status of petitions and rulemaking activities that address them. It also improves the 

process for resolving a rulemaking petition and for closing the petition docket, which would occur after 

the NRC denies a petition or initiates a rulemaking to address a petitioner’s concerns. The changes are 

intended to enhance the consistency, timeliness and transparency of the process and improve its 

efficiency.

More information about the petition-for-rulemaking process can be found on the NRC’s 

website.
#### In the Matter of Thomas Sannuto, Jr., Appellant, v Jeannette Palma-Sannuto, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 112]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 to terminate spousal support, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), dated October 5, 2005, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Grier, S.M.) dated August 15, 2005, which, without a hearing, granted the motion of the former wife to deny the petition and denied his cross motion to stay the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A divorce judgment of a sister state made in an action in which both parties were subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court is entitled to full faith and credit by the courts of this state *(see Somma v Somma,*19 AD3d 477, 477 [2005]; *Green v*
      *444
      *Green,*246 AD2d 627, 628 [1998]). However, the procurement of an ex parte judgment of divorce only dissolves the marital status of the parties, and has no effect upon the property held by the parties outside the jurisdiction of the state issuing it *(see Somma v Somma, supra*at 478; *Young v Knight,*236 AD2d 534, 534-535 [1997]; *Mattwell v Mattwell,*194 AD2d 715, 716 [1993]).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, *“a*New York support order is not terminated by a subsequent out-of-State divorce decree when the foreign State does not acquire in personam jurisdiction of the New York domiciled spouse in the divorce action” *(Matter of Rochetti v Rochetti,*236 AD2d 543, 544 [1997]; *see Matter of La Duke v La Duke,*110 AD2d 930, 931-932 [1985]; *Matter of Slemons v Slemons,*28 AD2d 634 [1967]). The record clearly established that the Florida court which dissolved the parties’ marriage by a decree dated December 16, 2005, did not have in personam jurisdiction over the former wife. Thus, the petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief and the petition was properly denied without a hearing *(see Matter of Fein v Gilchrist, 23*AD3d 558, 559 [2005]; *D’Alesio v D’Alesio,*300 AD2d 340, 341 [2002]).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Crane, J.E, Spolzino, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gerard Graham Dennis, Appellant.

In this *coram nobis*proceeding, petitioner sought to have vacated a judgment of the County Court of Westchester County, convicting him variously of the crimes of robbery, burglary and grand larceny, upon pleas of guilty, and sentencing him to terms of imprisonment thereunder as a fourth felony offender. The appeal is by petitioner from an order of said court denying the said application. The said County Court treated the proceeding as *“*an application to vacate and correct judgments of conviction ”. Order affirmed. No opinion. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Narrowstep Inc. (the "Company"), I, Jill
Thoerle, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or 78o(d); and

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

         Dated:  October 16, 2006           /s/ Jill Thoerle
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                Jill Thoerle
                                                Interim Chief Financial Officer
§ 146.2 Definitions. For purposes of this part 146: ( a ) The term *Commission* means the Commodity Futures Trading Commission;
( b ) The term *Executive Director* refers to the executive level staff official appointed pursuant to section 2(a)(5) of the Commodity Exchange Act.
( c ) The term *FOIA compliance staff* refers to the Freedom of Information Act compliance staff assigned to respond to requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act;
( d ) The term *individual* means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
( e ) The term *maintain* includes maintain, collect, use, or disseminate;
( f ) The term *record* means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by the Commission, including but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual;
( g ) The term *system of records* means a group of any records under the control of the Commission from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual;
( h ) The term *system notice* means a notice of the existence and character of the Commission's system of records published in the Federal Register pursuant to § 146.11(a) of these rules;
( i ) The term *routine use* means, with respect to the disclosure of a record, the use of that record for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected;
( j ) The term *Freedom of Information Act* encompasses both the Freedom of Information Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Commission's rules contained in part 145 of this title.
( k ) The term *agency* means any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation or other establishment in the Executive branch of the Government or any independent regulatory agency.
[41 FR 3212, Jan. 21, 1976, as amended at 45 FR 26954, Apr. 22, 1980; 89 FR 71818, Sept. 4, 2024]
#### § 12.315 Consequences of overstating damages claims not in excess of $30,000.

If a party, who has claimed damages in excess of $30,000, is adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $30,000, computed without regard to a damage award to which an opposing party may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interest and costs, the Administrative Law Judge may assess such party the cost of the transcript of an oral hearing, if such a hearing is held, and, depending upon whether such party paid any part of the filing fee for the proceeding, deny the party such costs or impose such costs on that party.

[49 FR 6621, Feb. 22, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 9638, Mar. 1, 1994]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Bryant, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 870]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered March 10, 2005, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant was convicted in May 2001 of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and sentenced to *1081time served plus five years of probation. In June 2004, defendant was charged with violating the terms of his probation based upon his arrest for criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees. Following a hearing, County Court found that defendant violated his probation, revoked that probation and resentenced him to *21⁄3*to 7 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that his sentence is harsh and excessive. Here, the record reveals that defendant received the benefit of pleading to a reduced charge on the original indictment, which exposed him to a shorter prison term, and that he thereafter repeatedly failed to abide by the reasonable conditions of his probation. Given these facts, as well as the serious nature of defendant’s conduct leading to the violation of probation, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice *(see People v Buchner,*30 AD3d 912, 913 [2006]; *People v Spitzley,*303 AD2d 837, 838 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 599 [2003]).

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE****SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Darryl K. Horne, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Spectrum Sciences & Software HoldingsCorp.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s first fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     By: /s/ Darryl K. Horne       Darryl K. Horne  President and Chief Executive Officer  Spectrum Sciences & Software Holdings Corp.  Date:                                         
25
#### § 12.300 Scope and applicability of rules.

The rules set forth in this subpart are applicable to proceedings forwarded pursuant to § 12.26(c) of the Reparation Rules. The rules in subpart B permitting discovery are applicable in a formal decisional proceeding, as supplemented by § 12.301. Unless specifically made applicable, the rules prescribed in subparts C and D shall not apply to formal decisional proceedings. Parties to a proceeding forwarded pursuant to § 12.26(c) may, by written agreement filed at any time prior to the issuance of an initial decision, or of any other order disposing of all issues in the proceeding, elect to have all issues in the proceeding decided pursuant to the voluntary decisional procedure. Upon receiving a timely filed stipulation signed by all parties evidencing such an election, the Administrative Law Judge shall conduct the proceeding and render a decision pursuant to subpart C of these rules.
#### § 642.4 Effective date.

This part is effective on August 1, 2005.
### §1443. Provisions as controlling over other laws

Insofar as the provisions of any other law are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, the provisions of this Act shall be controlling.

(July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title VI, §610, 63 Stat. 443.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is act July 15, 1949, ch. 338, 63 Stat. 413, known as the Housing Act of 1949, which is classified principally to this chapter (§1441 et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1441 of this title and Tables.
5311.603 Procedures       Department of the Air Force procedures associated with the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) are established in AFI 63-101/20-101, *Integrated Life Cycle Management.*     **Parent topic:** Subpart 5311.6 - PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of Mittal Steel USA Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge: 

|   | (1)    | The Report   fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the   Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                              |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|   | (2)    | The   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material   respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as   of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| Date:  May 23, 2006 |   |                                                    |
|--------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                     | By:    | /s/ Lou   Schorsch                                      |
|                     |   |                                                         |
|                     | Name:  | Lou Schorsch                                            |
|                     | Title: | Chief   Executive Officer                               |
|                     |   |                                                    |
|                     |   |                                                    |
|                     | By:    | /s/ Vaidya   Sethuraman                                 |
|                     |   |                                                         |
|                     | Name:  | Vaidya Sethuraman                                       |
|                     | Title: | Vice   President Finance and   Chief Accounting Officer |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

----