alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 151.8 Evidence of insurance for motor vehicles. ( a ) Every mission must periodically, and otherwise upon official request, furnish evidence satisfactory to the Department of State that the required insurance is in effect for the mission, its members and their families. Every senior United Nations official must also periodically furnish evidence satisfactory to the Department of State that the required insurance is in effect.
( b ) The Department of State will accept as satisfactory evidence that the required insurance is in effect: ( 1 ) A written statement of self-certification signed by the Chief of Mission, indicating that the mission, its members and their families have and will maintain insurance throughout the period of registration of all vehicles owned or leased or otherwise regularly used, and showing the name of the insurance company or companies and identifying each policy by number and name of insured; and
( 2 ) A written statement of self-certification signed by each senior United Nations official, indicating that he or she has and will maintain insurance throughout the period of registration on all motor vehicles owned or leased or otherwise regularly used, and showing the name of the insurance company or companies and identifying each by number and name of insured.
( c ) A certification under paragraph (b) of this section by a Chief of a Mission to the United Nations or by a senior United Nations official shall be delivered to the Counselor for host country affairs of the United States Mission to the United Nations. All other certifications shall be delivered to the Chief of Protocol, Department of State.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Ravello, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 898]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.), rendered September 25, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s claims, the record shows that he received meaningful representation *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137; *People v Washington,*179 AD2d 1002).

The defendant’s remaining contentions in his supplemental *pro se*brief are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
_____________

AMERIFLIGHT, LLC

1515 W 20th Street

DFW Airport, TX 75261

(954) 701 7807

PETITION FOR RENEWAL OF AMERIFLIGHT, LLC EXEMPTION 9770

This petition follows the requirements for inclusion in such documents set forth in the 

order presented in 14 CFR Part 11.81

(a) Your name and mailing address and, if you wish, other contact information such as a 

fax number, telephone number, or e-mail address;

Mr. Richard M. Anderson

Vice President, Operations

Ameriflight, LLC

1515 W 20th Street

DFW Airport, TX 75261

954 701 7807

manderson@ameriflight.com

(b) The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek an exemption;

14 CFR Parts 135.85

(c) The extent of relief you seek, and the reason you seek the relief;

To allow Ameriflight, LLC and its pilots to transport FAA-certified airman who are 

employed as flight crew members by another Part 121 or 135 certificate holder without 

complying with certain Part 135 passenger-carrying requirements. This is a renewal of 

Ameriflight exemption 8396

(d) The reasons why granting your request would be in the public interest; that is, how it 

would benefit the public as a whole;

There is no change to the reasons that this is in the public interest since last renewal. 

(e) The reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how 

the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule 

from which you seek the exemption;

There is no change to the safety aspects since last renewal

(f) A summary we can publish in the Federal Register, stating:

(1) The rule from which you seek the exemption;
_____________

AMERIFLIGHT, LLC

1515 W 20th Street

DFW Airport, TX 75261

(954) 701 7807

14 CFR Parts 135.85

(2) A brief description of the nature of the exemption you seek;

To allow Ameriflight, LLC and its pilots to transport FAA-certified airman who are 

employed as flight crew members by another Part 121 or 135 certificate holder without 

complying with certain Part 135 passenger-carrying requirements. This is a renewal of 

Ameriflight exemption 8396

(g) Any additional information, views or arguments available to support your request; 

No additional support since last renewal. 

(h) If you want to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside the United States, 

the reason why you need to do so.

The same rationale for allowing this exemption within the United States applies for 

outside the United States.
### §2297g–2. Department facilities

#### (a) Study by National Academy of Sciences

The National Academy of Sciences shall conduct a study and provide recommendations for reducing costs associated with decontamination and decommissioning, and shall report its findings to the Congress within 3 years after October 24, 1992. Such report shall include a determination of the decontamination and decommissioning required for each facility, shall identify alternative methods, using different technologies, shall include site-specific surveys of the actual contamination, and shall provide estimated costs of those activities.

#### (b) Payment of decontamination and decommissioning costs

The costs of all decontamination and decommissioning activities of the Department shall be paid from the Fund until such time as the Secretary certifies and the Congress concurs, by law, that such activities are complete.

#### (c) Payment of remedial action costs

The annual cost of remedial action at the Department's gaseous diffusion facilities shall be paid from the Fund to the extent the amount available in the Fund is sufficient. To the extent the amount in the Fund is insufficient, the Department shall be responsible for the cost of remedial action. No provision of this division may be construed to relieve in any way the responsibility or liability of the Department for remedial action under applicable Federal and State laws and regulations.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title II, §1803, as added Pub. L. 102–486, title XI, §1101, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2954.)
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GOLDEN IT, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

ITCON SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant

______________________ 

2023-1992

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:22-cv-01471-TMD, Judge Thompson M. Dietz.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JON DAVIDSON LEVIN, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) 

LLP, Huntsville, AL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

 DOUGLAS GLENN EDELSCHICK, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY, DOUGLAS K. MICKLE. 

Case: 23-1992 Document: 60 Page: 1 Filed: 09/06/2024
 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (TARANTO, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

September 6, 2024

Date

Case: 23-1992 Document: 60 Page: 2 Filed: 09/06/2024
#### In the Matter of Robert V. Rafter, Petitioner, v. D. Hays et al., Respondents.

Motion to dismiss the petition as a matter of law granted and the proceeding unanimously dismissed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent, Hon. Aron Steuer,' Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Department. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.
#### § 286.1 Applicability of this part.

This part (Regulation IA) prescribes the reports to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the Inter-American Development Bank pursuant to section 11(a) of the Inter-American Development Bank Act.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,208
<SECURITIES>                                   501,047
<RECEIVABLES>                                  239,586
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,469
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               789,355
<PP&E>                                       1,288,459
<DEPRECIATION>                                 699,377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,415,915
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          281,675
<BONDS>                                        317,873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,308
<OTHER-SE>                                     694,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,415,915
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               889,224
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  610,499
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,040
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                205,281
<INCOME-TAX>                                    80,060
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            125,221
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125,221
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .96
        

</TABLE>
ATTACHMENT E

Letter dated July 12, 2007, from Chemstone 

in support of its BART determination
#### Diesel Construction Company, Respondent, v Chase Manhattan Mortgage and Realty Trust, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered in the office of the clerk on July 1, 1976, denying defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the action pursuant to CPLR 3212, unanimously reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, and summary judgment granted to defendant dismissing the action on the merits. Appellant shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered in the office of the clerk on July 29, 1976, providing that the first order of July 1, 1976 construing the instrument herein was not intended to be and is not the law of the case and affording *761plaintiff-respondent the opportunity to conduct discovery to aid in ascertaining the intent of the parties with regard to the instrument, is unanimously dismissed as nonappealable, without costs and without disbursements. The observation by Special Term in its order of July 1, 1976 that "The instrument sued on is not a guarantee of payment but an agreement to allocate fixed sums out of future moneys due on a building loan agreement to the plaintiff contractor” was correct. No provision in the instrument (the letter agreement of Dec. 11, 1974) could be construed as a guarantee, as plaintiff contends. The said letter was merely an "undertaking to bypass the owner in transmitting certain payments to the contractor” and was in accord with provisions to that effect in the building loan agreement between defendant and the developer of the construction project. The proposed allocation of funds was viable only during the life of the loan agreement and could not by any construction survive that agreement’s termination, which the record clearly establishes had occurred. The terms of the letter were clear, and unambiguous. In the circumstances its construction was properly a question of law for the court. "We concern ourselves with what the parties intended, but only to the extent that they evidenced what they intended by what they wrote [citations omitted].” *(Raleigh Assoc, v Henry,*302 NY 467, 473.) Hence, recourse to parol evidence as to the intent of the respective parties would not be proper. The fact that the parties disputed its meaning is irrelevant. *(Rodolitz v Neptune Paper Prods.,*22 NY2d 383, 387; *Tufano Contr. Corp. v Port of New York Auth.,*18 AD2d 1001; *Bethlehem Steel Co. v Turner Constr. Co.,*2 NY2d 456; *Brainard v New York Cent. R. R. Co.,*242 NY 125, 133-134; *Raleigh Assoc, v Henry, supra.)*Inasmuch as the order of July 29, 1976 was based upon an application for reargument, the appeal from that order is dismissed as nonappealable. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman and Capozzoli, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

I, Carol Russell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Capital Beverage
Corporation.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. I am 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 I have:

         a) designed such internal controls to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is
made known to me by others within the Company, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

         a) all significant deficiencies (if any) in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 22, 2005                             By: /s/ Carol Russell
                                                          ----------------
                                                          Carol Russell
                                                          Treasurer
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHERINE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN E. POTTER, 

POSTMASTER GENERAL,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-00026 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR REVIEW OF DISMISSAL

This pro se employment action was settled at a settlement conference held before

Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James in January 2009. Plaintiff subsequently filed four requests

for relief from her decision to settle. All were denied because plaintiff had entered a valid,

binding settlement. Plaintiff now moves yet again for relief from the settlement, repeating

barely comprehensible, nonsensical arguments from her previous requests which have already

been rejected. She has not stated a valid ground for relief from the settlement into which she

voluntarily entered. Nor has she brought her motion for relief within a reasonable time. The

case has been closed for a year and a half. Her motion is therefore DENIED.

Plaintiff’s continued repetitive and meritless motions in this matter are an unwarranted 

Case 3:08-cv-00026-WHA Document 85 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

drain of the Court’s limited resources. Plaintiff is ordered not to file further submissions in this

matter and the Clerk is ordered to DISREGARD any future filings in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00026-WHA Document 85 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.24

Lilly Beter Capital Group, Ltd.
2424 N. Federal Hwy, Ste. 150
Boca Raton, FL 33431

November 11, 2004

Mr. Ray Willenberg, Jr.
New Visual Corporation
5920 Friars Road, Ste. 104
San Diego, CA 92108

Dear Ray:

This letter is intended to confirm our recent verbal agreement to extend the
maturity date of the remaining balance of the Note Payable obligation of New
Visual Corporation to Lilly Beter Capital Group and/or the entities listed
below. The note obligation shall become due and payable in full within three
days of Payee's written request for payment, provided, however, that Payee shall
not be entitled to make a payment request prior to January 31, 2005. The note
will continue to earn interest at 6% per annum, payable at termination or at
time of repayment which can be earlier without penalty.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Lilly Beter
---------------------
Lilly Beter, President

Cc:      Epic Events Trust, Ltd.
         Exodus Systems Trust, Ltd.
         Prospect Development Trust, Ltd.
         Pearl Street Investments Trust, Ltd.
         Riviera Bay Holdings Trust, Ltd.
exv10w9



 






Exhibit 10.9



[FORM OF LETTER AGREEMENT]




__________
____ , 2006



Global
Logistics Acquisition Corporation

330 Madison Avenue, Sixth Floor

New York, NY 10017



Re:     Warrant Purchase Commitment Agreements



Dear Sirs:




     Reference
is made to those certain warrant purchase commitment agreements (the
“Warrant Purchase Agreements”)
entered or to be entered into by us and the initial stockholders of Global Logistics Acquisition
Corporation (the “Company”) as described in the
Company’s registration statement on Form S-1
(File No. 333-128591) (as may be amended and supplemented from time
to time, the “Registration
Statement”).



     This
letter agreement will confirm our agreement that in the event we are retained by the Company to
provide services relating to a possible business combination following the completion of the
Company's initial public offering pursuant to the Registration Statement, we will assign our
obligations to purchase Company warrants pursuant to the Warrant Purchase Agreements to a broker
dealer(s) unaffiliated and independent of us.  In such event, we further confirm that we will not
agree to receive, and will not accept, any compensation as a result of such assignment.



     This
letter agreement shall be binding on us and the Company and our and their respective successors
and assigns.



     This
letter agreement shall be governed by and interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of New York applicable to contracts formed and to be performed entirely within the State
of New York, without regard to the conflicts of law provisions thereof to the extent such principles
or rules would require or permit the application of the laws of another jurisdiction.



     No term
or provision of this letter agreement may be amended, changed, waived, altered or modified except
by written instrument executed and delivered by the party against whom such amendment, change,
waiver, alteration or modification is to be enforced.



[Remainder
of Page Intentionally Left Blank]



 









 











Very truly yours,



BB&T Capital Markets, a Division of Scott & Stringfellow, Inc.



By:______________________

Name:____________________

Title:_____________________




Accepted and agreed as of the date hereof:



Global Logistics Acquisition Corporation



By:______________________

Name:____________________

Title:_____________________
###### Editorial Note on Part 133

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 133 appear at 68 FR 66582, Nov. 26, 2003.

#### § 133.665 State.

*State* means any of the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States.
§ 127.3 Penalties for violations. Any person who willfully: ( a ) Violates any provision of § 38 or § 39 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 and 2779) or any rule or regulation issued under either § 38 or § 39 of the Act, or any undertaking specifically required by part 124 of this subchapter; or
( b ) In a registration, license application, or report required by § 38 or § 39 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 and 2779) or by any rule or regulation issued under either section, makes any untrue statement of a material fact or omits a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, shall upon conviction be subject to a fine or imprisonment, or both, as prescribed by 22 U.S.C. 2778(c).
[77 FR 16642, Mar. 21, 2012]
#### § 1506.18 Will USADF suspend or revoke my financial assistance or other privileges if I fail to pay my debt?

Unless waived by the Head of the Agency, USADF will not extend financial assistance in the form of a grant, loan, or loan guarantee to any person delinquent on a non-tax debt owed to a Federal agency. The authority to waive the application of this section may be delegated to the Chief Financial Officer and re-delegated. USADF may also suspend or revoke other privileges for any inexcusable, prolonged or repeated failure of a debtor to pay a claim. Additionally, the Agency may suspend or disqualify any contractor, lender, broker, borrower, grantee or other debtor from doing business with USADF or engaging in programs USADF sponsors or funds if a debtor fails to pay its debts to the Government within a reasonable time. Debtors will be notified before such action is taken and applicable debarment procedures will be used.