alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Date oflssue: October 30, 2015 

DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS 

2204 EUCLID ST 

SANTA MONICA, CA 90405-1511 

11.1 •• 11 •••• 1 •• 111 •••• 1.1 •••• 11.1.1 •••• 11 ••• 111.1 •• 1.1 ••• 11 •• 1 

Flight Standards Service 

Aircraft Registration Branch, 

AFS-750 

HAND DELIVERED TO AIC IN THE PD ROOM 

P.O. Box 25504 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-0504 

(405) 954-3116 

Toll Free: 1-866-762-9434 

WEB Address: http://registry.faa.gov 

T158059 This facsimile must be carried in the Aircraft as a Temporary Certificate of 

Registration for 

N451DN HORIZON HOBBY INC CHROMA CAMERA DRONE Serial6751A and is 

valid until Nov 29, 2015. 

This is not an airworthiness certificate. For airworthiness information, contact the nearest 

Federal Aviation Administration Flight Standards District Office. 

q~~WDAJ:, ____________________ for 

Jana L. Hammer 

Manager, FAA Aircraft Registry, AFS-750 

Federal Aviation Administration 

AFS-750-FAX-4 (01114)
§ 313.1 General; definition of “guidance documents” covered by this part. ( a ) This part governs Peace Corps (Agency) employees and contractors involved with all phases of issuing Agency guidance documents.
( b ) For purposes of this part, the term “guidance document” means a statement of Agency policy or interpretation concerning a statute, regulation, or technical matter within the jurisdiction of the Agency intended to have general applicability and future effect on the behavior of the public, but which is not intended to have the force or effect of law and is not otherwise required by statute to satisfy the rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 or 5 U.S.C. 556. The term is not limited to formal written documents and may include, without limitation, letters, memoranda, circulars, bulletins, advisories, as well as video, audio, and web-based formats. *See* OMB Bulletin 07-02, “Agency Good Guidance Practices,” (January 25, 2007) (“OMB Good Guidance Bulletin”).
( c ) The following shall not be considered “guidance documents” for purposes of this part: ( 1 ) Rules exempt from rulemaking requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(a);
( 2 ) Rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice;
( 3 ) Decisions of agency adjudications under 5 U.S.C. 554 or similar statutory provisions;
( 4 ) Internal executive branch legal advice or legal advisory opinions addressed to executive branch officials;
( 5 ) Agency statements of specific applicability, including advisory or legal opinions directed to particular parties about circumstance-specific questions (*e.g.,* case or investigatory letters responding to complaints, warning letters), notices regarding particular locations or facilities (*e.g.,* guidance pertaining to the use, operation, or control of a government facility or property), and correspondence with individual persons or entities (*e.g.,* congressional correspondence), except documents ostensibly directed to a particular party but designed to guide the conduct of the broader regulated public;
( 6 ) Legal briefs, other court filings, or positions taken in litigation or enforcement actions;
( 7 ) Agency statements that do not set forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, including speeches and individual presentations, editorials, media interviews, press materials, or congressional testimony that do not set forth for the first time a new regulatory policy;
( 8 ) Guidance pertaining to military or foreign affairs functions;
( 9 ) Grant solicitations and awards;
( 10 ) Contract solicitations and awards; or
( 11 ) Purely internal Agency policies or guidance directed solely to Agency employees, contractors, volunteers, trainees, or invitees or to other Federal agencies that are not intended to have substantial future effect on the behavior of regulated parties.
( d ) The Peace Corps will not cite, use, or rely upon a guidance document that is rescinded, except for the purpose of establishing historical fact. Guidance documents not on an Agency website, as set forth in this part, are considered to be rescinded.
Pathfinder
Reservoir

Seminoe
Reservar |

Medicine Bo)

i}

i }
Rocl Fives

Medicine Bow ,
j| National Forest
co

i

pga 4 | Medicine Bow
E ional Forest

|

Ek

$9

. | fe

a =f

| 2.

| ca | |
RIBW | 97 96| gs | 94} 93 _92 |
| i Baggs

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

0 10 20 40 60 80

100

Miles

Map 1-4
Rawlins RMPPA
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1564-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New York (FEMA-1564-DR), dated October 1, 2004, and related determinations.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

November 16, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New York is hereby amended to include Individual Assistance for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of October 1, 2004:

Madison, Oneida, and Wayne Counties for Individual Assistance.

Allegany, Broome, Cattaraugus, Monroe, Niagara, Onondaga, Orange, Orleans, Steuben, Sullivan, and Ulster Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance.)

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Michael D. Brown,

Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 04-26699 Filed 12-3-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
2004 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-20-2004

USA v. Rivera

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 02-3067

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Rivera" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 947.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/947
 

*

 The Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, Senior District Judge for the District of

Columbia, sitting by designation.

PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-3067

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee

v.

ISAAC RIVERA,

Appellant

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

District Court Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle

(D.C. Crim. No. 01-cr-00373-5)

 

Argued: December 4, 2003

Before: SLOVITER and ALITO, Circuit Judges, and

OBERDORFER,* District Judge. 

 

ORDER AMENDING OPINION
IT IS ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case, filed February 9, 2004, be

amended as follows:

Footnote 4 should be revised to read as follows:

The availability of de novo review on appeal regardless of whether Rivera

formally objected to the government’s advocacy makes it unnecessary for us

to pursue the question of whether this indirect notice entitles Rivera to de

novo review on independent grounds.

Footnote 6 should be deleted in its entirety and prior footnotes 7, 8 and 9 should be

renumbered accordingly.

By the Court,

/s/ Louis F. Oberdorfer 

District Judge

Dated: February 20, 2004
#### Cheryl Foley et al., Appellants, v West-Herr Ford, Inc., Defendant, and Ford Motor Company, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 913]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph D. Mintz, J.), entered March 31, 2005 in a personal injury action. The order denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel disclosure.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel disclosure of, inter alia, the factual findings, calculations, measurements and diagrams collected by defendants’ experts from the accident scene *(see generally Nyhlen v Millard Fillmore Hosps.,*275 AD2d 943 [2000]). The information sought is immune from disclosure because it constitutes material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial need for such information and that they were unable to obtain its substantial equivalent without undue hardship *(see*CPLR 3101 [d] [2]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Green, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Michael Clinch, Petitioner, v Town of Hyde Park et al., Respondents.

[716 NYS2d 706]

—Proceeding *452pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Hyde Park, dated August 3, 1999, which adopted the recommendation of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of, *inter alia,*misconduct, and terminated his employment as Chief of Police of the Town of Hyde Park Police Department.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the determination is annulled, and the matter is remitted to respondents for the calculation of back pay and benefits to which the petitioner may be entitled.

In 1998 the Town Board of the Town of Hyde Park (hereinafter the Board) voted to prefer charges against the petitioner, the former Chief of Police of the Town of Hyde Park for, *inter alia,*soliciting the erasure of certain tapes of routinely recorded incoming telephone calls to the Town of Hyde Park Police Department. At the subsequent disciplinary hearing, all members of the Board gave testimony. Thereafter, the entire Board, with the exception of the Town Supervisor who abstained from the vote, passed a resolution accepting the Hearing Officer’s findings of fact, the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct, and the recommendation that he be terminated from his employment.

Town Law § 155 provides, in relevant part, that “no person who shall have preferred such charges or any part of the same shall sit as judge upon such hearing or trial.” Thus, pursuant to this statute, the members of the Board were barred from voting on the Hearing Officer’s findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendation since they had previously voted to prefer the charges. Moreover, all of the members of the Board testified in some capacity at the disciplinary hearing. Thus, by reviewing the Hearing Officer’s recommendation and the hearing itself, the Town Board was in a position of passing upon their own credibility as witnesses. Under such circumstances, the entire Board, and not just the Supervisor alone, should have disqualified themselves from considering the Hearing Officer’s recommendations *(see, Matter of Lowy v Carter,*210 AD2d 408). Accordingly, the determination that the petitioner is guilty of, *inter alia,*misconduct and to terminate his employment is annulled. In view of the fact that the petitioner has retired, we deem it unnecessary to remit the matter for a new hearing before a different panel.

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the petitioner’s remaining contentions. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### Margaret A. Cayea, Appellant, v State of New York Thruway Authority,

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The award of the Trial Judge was adequate. The record reveals that it was not until one month following her accident that claimant began complaining of pain in her right shoulder. Claimant’s doctor testified that although claimant complained of this pain, he took no X ray of the shoulder, he did not refer claimant to a specialist and he eventually recommended no further treatment for the shoulder. Additionally, there was evidence that claimant was involved in a second automobile accident as a result of which she claims that her prior shoulder injury was aggravated, yet it was never established to what extent this subsequent accident was responsible for claimant’s present alleged suffering. Finally, the doctor’s testimony concerning the permanence of claimant’s shoulder injury and the possibility of recurring pain and suffering was highly speculative. Based upon this evidence it cannot be said that the court’s conclusion that claimant suffered no permanent injury to her shoulder is unfounded or that its award consisting of $1,500 for pain and suffering is inadequate. Questions of fact and credibility of witnesses were properly the province of the Court of Claims and, absent any determination that its findings were incorrect or contrary to the weight of the evidence, its decision should not be disturbed *(Warren v New York State Thruway Auth.,*51 AD2d 679, 680; see, also, *Billington v State of New York,*33 AD2d 822, 823). All concur except Dillon, J., who dissents and votes to modify the judgment in the following memorandum: The trial court’s finding that claimant suffered no permanent injury in the area of her right shoulder is based solely upon its review of the medical testimony. I reject that finding. Claimant’s doctor testified that it was his medical opinion that she would have permanent recurrence of pain upon engaging in certain activities and upon changes in atmospheric conditions. The medical proof, contrary to the statement of the majority, was not at all speculative and was not controverted. In its decision the trial court fully credited the expert testimony but misstated that portion thereof regarding the permanency of claimant’s injuries. I find that the expert testimony established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that claimant’s shoulder injury will continue to cause her pain and suffering (see 7A *736Warren’s Negligence, Personal Injuries, § 2.02 [1], p 305; cf. *Reich v Evans,*7 AD2d 765). Since the trial court failed to take this element of damages into account, the amount of the award should be increased. In the circumstances of this case we may unconditionally adjust the award (see *Figliomeni v Board of Educ.,*44 AD2d 886, affd 38 NY2d 178, 186). In view of the nature of the injury and considering that at the time of trial claimant had an average life expectancy of 50 years, the award should be increased to $6,960.88, plus interest and costs. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims —negligence.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.
132 STAT. 5440 PUBLIC LAW 115–418—JAN. 3, 2019 

Public Law 115–418 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To require disclosure by lobbyists of convictions for bribery, extortion, embezzlement, 

illegal kickbacks, tax evasion, fraud, conflicts of interest, making false statements, 

perjury, or money laundering. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice Against Corruption on 

K Street Act of 2018’’ or the ‘‘JACK Act’’. 

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF CORRUPT MALPRACTICE BY LOBBYISTS. 

(a) REGISTRATION.—Section 4(b) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603(b)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end 

and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following: 

‘‘(7) for any listed lobbyist who was convicted in a Federal 

or State court of an offense involving bribery, extortion, 

embezzlement, an illegal kickback, tax evasion, fraud, a conflict 

of interest, making a false statement, perjury, or money laundering, the date of the conviction and a description of the 

offense.’’. 

(b) QUARTERLY REPORTS.—Section 5(b) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end 

and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(6) for any listed lobbyist who was convicted in a Federal 

or State court of an offense involving bribery, extortion, 

embezzlement, an illegal kickback, tax evasion, fraud, a conflict 

Justice Against 

Corruption on 

K Street Act 

of 2018. 

2 USC 1601 note. 

Jan. 3, 2019 

[S. 2896] 

PUBLIC LAW 115–418—JAN. 3, 2019 132 STAT. 5441 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2896: 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 115–317 (Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Aug. 23, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 20, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

of interest, making a false statement, perjury, or money laundering, the date of the conviction and a description of the 

offense.’’. 

Approved January 3, 2019.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27767]



[[Page 75572]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


Aimsi Technologies, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

December 15, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Aimsi Technologies, Inc. (``AIMT'') because of questions regarding the 
accuracy of statements made by AIMT to the public in press releases and 
in fax tout sheets concerning, among other things, Aimsi's contract 
with China Global Distribution Corp. for the distribution of Aimsi's 
Automatic Large Area Remote Mapper.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed 
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, on December 15, 
2004 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on December 29, 2004.

    By the Commission.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-27767 Filed 12-15-04; 1:39 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
#### § 18.15 Hearings.

Hearings shall be stenographically recorded and transcribed and the testimony of witnesses shall be taken under oath or affirmation. Hearings will be closed unless an open hearing is requested by the respondent, except that if classified information or protected information of third parties is likely to be adduced at the hearing, it will remain closed. If either party to the proceeding fails to appear at the hearing, after due notice thereof has been sent to him/her, he/she shall be deemed to have waived the right to a hearing and the hearing examiner may make a decision against the absent party by default.
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:

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Department of Defense. 

# ACTION:

Notice modification. 

# SUMMARY:

After initial feedback from the public on NGA's notice in Federal Register Volume 69, Number 222, pages 67546-67547, NGA has determined that a period of public comment will benefit the final decision on this policy issue. Therefore, NGA is inviting public comment on the proposed action to withdraw aeronautical data and products from public distribution. The period of comment will be open from the date of this Register until 30 June 2005. NGA will consider all comments when making the final decision to go forward with this proposed action, in part, in whole, or not at all. 

# DATES:

Period of Public Comment: December 17, 2004 to 30 June 2005. Proposed Implementation Date of final Decision: 1 October 2005. 

      ( print page 75518)    

# ADDRESSES:

To make sure your comments and related material are entered only once in the docket please submit them by only one of the following means: 

                        (1) By e-mail to                         *aero.ocr@nga.mil;*                         or                     

(2) By mail to: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Mail Stop D-111, Attn: Public Release of Aeronautical Products, 4600 Sangamore Road, Bethesda, MD 20816-5003. 

Dated: December 13, 2004. 

Jeannette Owings-Ballard, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 04-27645  Filed 12-16-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M