alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 9.9 Declassification and downgrading. ( a ) *Declassification processes.* Declassification of classified information may occur: ( 1 ) After review of material in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, mandatory declassification review request, discovery request, subpoena, classification challenge, or other information access or declassification request;
( 2 ) After review as part of the Department's systematic declassification review program;
( 3 ) As a result of the elapse of the time or the occurrence of the event specified at the time of classification;
( 4 ) By operation of the automatic declassification provisions of section 3.3 of the Executive Order with respect to material more than 25 years old.
( b ) *Downgrading.* When material classified at the Top Secret level is reviewed for declassification and it is determined that classification continues to be warranted, a determination shall be made whether downgrading to a lower level of classification is appropriate. If downgrading is determined to be warranted, the classification level of the material shall be changed to the appropriate lower level.
( c ) *Authority to downgrade and declassify.* ( 1 ) Classified information may be downgraded or declassified by: ( i ) The official who originally classified the information if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;
( ii ) A successor in that capacity if that individual has original classification authority;
( iii ) A supervisory official of either if the supervisory official has original classification authority;
( iv ) Other Department officials specifically delegated declassification authority in writing by the Secretary or the Senior Agency Official; or
( v ) The Director of the Information Security Oversight Office pursuant to Sec. 3.1(a) of E.O. 13526.
( 2 ) The Department shall maintain a record of Department officials specifically designated as declassification and downgrading authorities.
( d ) *Declassification in the public interest.* Although information that continues to meet the classification criteria of the Executive Order or a predecessor order normally requires continued protection, in some exceptional cases the need to protect information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information. When such a question arises, it shall be referred to the Secretary or the Senior Agency Official for decision on whether, as an exercise of discretion, the information should be declassified and disclosed. This provision does not amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification or create any substantive or procedural right subject to judicial review.
( e ) *Public disclosure of declassified information.* Declassification of information is not, by itself, authorization for its public disclosure. Previously classified information that is declassified may be exempt from public disclosure under the FOIA, the Privacy Act, or various statutory confidentiality provisions. There also may be treaties or other international agreements that would preclude public disclosure of declassified information.
Brady Law Group

Steven J. Brady (SBN 116651)

1015 Irwin Street, Suite A

San Rafael, CA 94901

Telephone: (415) 459-7300

Facsimile: (415) 459-7303

Richard L. Katz, Inc.

Richard L. Katz (SBN 42902)

P.O. Box 2310

Mill Valley, CA 94942-2310

Telephone: (415) 407-4693

Facsimile: (815) 346-5780

Attorneys for Plaintiff Sussex Financial Enterprises, Inc.

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP

Mark P. Ressler (admitted pro hac vice)

Ronald R. Rossi (admitted pro hac vice)

Seth Davis (admitted pro hac vice)

1633 Broadway

New York, NY 10019

Telephone: (212) 506-1700

Facsimile: (212) 506-1800

Attorneys for Defendants

Bayerische Hypo- and Vereinsbank AG

and HVB U.S. Finance, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SUSSEX FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC,

Plaintiff,

VS.

BAYERISCHE HYPO- UND VEREINSBANK AG,

aka HYPOVEREINSBANK; et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C-08-4791 SC

JOINT STIPULATION AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

RE SCHEDULING OF

EXPERT DISCLOSURES

AND DEPOSITIONS

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

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. C-08-4791-SC

CONCERNING EXPERT DISCOVERY

Case 3:08-cv-04791-SC Document 158 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 2
Plaintiff Sussex Financial Enterprises, Inc. ("Sussex") and defendants Bayerische Hypound Vereinsbank AG and HVB U.S. Finance, Inc. (collectively "HVB"), by and through their

respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS on February 6, 2009, the Court issued a Minute Order in which the deadline for

expert disclosures was set for January 31, 2010;

WHEREAS on February 11, 2009, the Court issued a Status Conference Order, which was

silent as to expert discovery;

WHEREAS the parties believe it would be productive and in the interests of judicial

economy and efficiency for the parties to obtain additional time to prepare expert disclosures;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, and the parties respectfully and in good faith request, that

the Court orders as follows:

1. Expert disclosures shall be made by March 1, 2010.

2. Depositions of the parties' experts shall take place beginning no earlier than March 15,

2010 and must be completed by March 24, 2010, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.

3. The stipulation shall not impact any other dates set forth by the Court in the Status

Conference Order, dated February 11, 2009.

Brady Law Group

Steven J. Brady

Richard L. Katz, Inc.

Richard L. Katz

By: (3) AMA (, • kji 1441

—,

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Kasowitz, Benson, Tones & Friedman LLP

Mark P. Ressler

Ronald R. Rossi

Seth Davis

Dated: January 19, 2010

Dated: January 19, 2010

B

Attorneys for Defendants

2

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

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CONCERNING EXPERT DISCOVERY

Case No. C-08-4791-SC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:08-cv-04791-SC Document 158 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 2
### §3797dd. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797dd was editorially reclassified as section 10681 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement, which was repealed by Pub. L. 115–391, title V, §502(c)(1), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5228.
### §6244. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–469, title I, §103(16), Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2032

Section, Pub. L. 94–163, title I, §164, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 889; Pub. L. 94–258, title I, §105(a), Apr. 5, 1976, 90 Stat. 305; Pub. L. 95–619, title VI, §691(b)(2), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3288, required a report on development of Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 4.
§ 1000.20 Is an Indian tribe required to assume environmental review responsibilities? ( a ) No. It is an option an Indian tribe may choose. If an Indian tribe declines to assume the environmental review responsibilities, HUD will perform the environmental review in accordance with 24 CFR part 50. The timing of HUD undertaking the environmental review will be subject to the availability of resources. A HUD environmental review must be completed for any NAHASDA assisted activities not excluded from review under 24 CFR 50.19(b) before a recipient may acquire, rehabilitate, convert, lease, repair or construct property, or commit HUD or local funds used in conjunction with such NAHASDA assisted activities with respect to the property.
( b ) If an Indian tribe assumes environmental review responsibilities: ( 1 ) Its certifying officer must certify that he/she is authorized and consents on behalf of the Indian tribe and such officer to accept the jurisdiction of the Federal courts for the purpose of enforcement of the responsibilities of the certifying officer as set forth in section 105(c) of NAHASDA; and
( 2 ) The Indian tribe must follow the requirements of 24 CFR part 58.
( 3 ) No funds may be committed to a grant activity or project before the completion of the environmental review and approval of the request for release of funds and related certification required by sections 105(b) and 105(c) of NAHASDA, except as authorized by 24 CFR part 58 such as for the costs of environmental reviews and other planning and administrative expenses.
( c ) Where an environmental assessment (EA) is appropriate under 24 CFR part 50, instead of an Indian tribe assuming environmental review responsibilities under paragraph (b) of this section or HUD preparing the EA itself under paragraph (a) of this section, an Indian tribe or TDHE may prepare an EA for HUD review. In addition to complying with the requirements of 40 CFR 1506.5(a), HUD shall make its own evaluation of the environmental issues and take responsibility for the scope and content of the EA in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.5(b).
LITTLE R ME NDE LSO N 

A PR O F E S S ION A L C O RP O R AT IO N

2520 Ve nture Oa ks Wa y 

Suite 390 

Sa crame nto, C A 95833.4227 

916.561.5300 

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 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Case No. C 08-4195 WHA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

EDWARD E. ANDERSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. C 08-4195 WHA 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 

CONTINUE SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

Courtroom: G, 15th Floor 

Judge: Bernard Zimmerman 

The Court has considered the parties Joint Motion to Continue the Settlement Conference 

currently scheduled for June 22, 2010, and, for good cause shown, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Settlement Conference currently scheduled for June 22, 2010, is hereby vacated. 

2. The parties shall appear for a Settlement Conference in the above-captioned matter on 

__________________________, at _______. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

DATED: June _____, 2010 By: 

Hon. Bernard Zimmerman 

United States Magistrate Judge 

October 26,2010 9:00 a.m. 9

Case 3:08-cv-04195-WHA Document 66 Filed 06/09/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               6,404
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      116,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                         6,500
<INVENTORY>                                         39,039
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   224,121
<PP&E>                                              32,322
<DEPRECIATION>                                      32,322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     441,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              244,774
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,007,919
<OTHER-SE>                                        (925,357)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       441,129
<SALES>                                            320,776
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   320,776
<CGS>                                              250,747
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       66,260
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4,037
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      3,415
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  3,415
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3,415
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
May 11, 2015 

The Honorable john Kerry 

Secretary of State 

U.S. Department of State 

2201 C Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20520 

The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

The Honorable Penny S. Pritzker 

Secretary of Commerce 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20230 

Dear Secretary Kerry, Secretary Foxx and Secretary Pritzker: 

MYRTLE BEACH AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

On behalf of the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, dba Myrtle Beach Area Convention and Visitors 

Bureau, I am writing to you regarding Open Skies. Our destination has historically been a domestic drive-to 

destination but in recent years, we have begun to aggressively promote our destination outside of the Un ited 

States. Attracting international visitors to our community is a key component of our strategic plan, designed to 

grow tourism, create jobs and strengthen our economy. To meet these important objectives, we must be able to 

offer international travelers a convenient, affordable experience. 

That is why we strongly support the Open Skies policy. Open Skies agreements have increased the number of 

fl ights to all regions of the Un ited States, lead ing to more airl ine competition, access to new and growing markets 

and lower fares. Th is is good for travelers, the tourism industry and the entire U.S. economy. 

Open Skies is essential to growing leisure travel and business travel to our destination. If we are to effectively 

compete in today's global marketplace for international travelers, we simply must preserve policies like Open 

Skies that enhance international travel worldwide. 

To be clear, we are not afra id of competition. We compete aggressively with other destinations across the country 

and around the world. Competition is good for consumers and good for the growth of our industry, producing 

an improved travel product and encouraging more visitors to come here. Why wouldn't that same principle hold 

true in international aviation as well? 

On behalf of nearly 3,000 businesses and 46,000 employees, we urge you to preserve all existing Open Skies 

agreements and work to expand this successful policy. 

Sincerely, 

Brad Dean 

President & CEO 

P.O. Box 2115 • 1200 North Oak Street • Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29578 • (843) 626-7 444 

www. MyrtleBeachAreaChamber.com • www. VisitMyrtleBeach .com
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VOLTERRA SEMICONDUCTOR

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PRIMARION, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

No. C-08-05129 JCS

ORDER TO FILE UNDER SEAL

TRANSCRIPT OF MAY 7, 2010

HEARING

The Court hereby ORDERS that the transcript of the May 7, 2010 hearing in this case shall

be filed under seal. The Court reporter shall also file in the public record a transcript in which the

sealed portions of the hearing are redacted. The Court Reporter may release the unredacted

transcript of the May 7, 2010 hearing to counsel in this action. Counsel shall adhere to the terms of

the stipulated Protective Order in this case governing material designated “Confidential – Outside

Counsel’s Eyes Only” with respect to the sealed portions of the transcript.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2010

_________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document 800 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Gladys McDougal, Appellant, v. Karl Ouderkirk, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of Oswego Trial Term for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and MeClusky, JJ.
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ ) Benjamin Edelman, ) third-party complainant ) )

v. ) Docket OST-2013-0027 ) Cathay Pacific Airways Limited ) __________________________________________)

UNCONTESTED MOTION OF CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: John R. Mietus, Jr. Law Office of John Mietus, LLC 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 300 Bethesda, MD 20817- 7500 (202) 747-5212 (240) 396-5362 fax john@mietuslaw.com

Counsel for CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED

February 14 , 2013BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ ) Benjamin Edelman, ) third-party complainant ) )

v. ) Docket OST-2013-0027 ) February 14, 2013 Cathay Pacific Airways Limited ) __________________________________________)

UNCONTESTED MOTION OF CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 302.405, Cathay Pacific Airways Limited respectfully moves for an extension of time until March 8, 2013 to answer the third-party complaint filed in the above-captioned docket. On February 14, 2013 Cathay Pacific discussed this motion with Complainant , who advised that he has no objection to the proposed extension. Cathay Pacific submits that good cause exists to grant this uncontested motion. Travel of Cathay Pacific staff in Hong Kong for the Lunar New Year holiday, and upcoming travel by counsel for Cathay Pacific, will limit Cathay’s ability to adequately develop an answer by the current due date. Coordination with third parties

-- the complaint relates to displays generated by oneworld

– will also require additional time. The brief extension requested by Cathay will permit Cathay to fully develop its answer and would not otherwise unduly delay this proceeding.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION 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 of Superior Consultant Holdings
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned, Richard D. Helppie, Jr., Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Richard R. Sorensen, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, 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 the best of his
knowledge and belief, that:

         1)       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended; and

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



         Date:  August 14, 2003                  /s/ Richard D. Helppie, Jr.
         ----------------------                  -------------------------------
                                                 Richard D. Helppie, Jr.
                                                 Chief Executive Officer




         Date:  August 14, 2003                  /s/ Richard R. Sorensen
         ----------------------                  -------------------------------
                                                 Richard R. Sorensen
                                                 Chief Financial Officer



         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
         other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
         signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of
         this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
         Superior Consultant Holdings Corporation and will be retained by
         Superior Consultant Holdings Corporation and furnished to the
         Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Justice

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 15, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), American Association of Blood Banks (“AABB”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                 

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: American Association of Blood Banks, Bethesda, MD. The nature and scope of AABB's standards development activities are: The development of standards for voluntary compliance, and accreditation against those standards, in the areas of whole blood and blood component collection, processing and transfusion; the collection, processing and transplantation of marrow, peripheral blood and umbilical cord blood progenitor cells; tissue transplantation, and parentage testing. 

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 04-27871 Filed 12-20-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M