alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-12-203-E April 30, 2012

Exemption No. 8333D Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2003-15381

E. Tazewell Ellett, Esq. Counsel for Zero-Gravity Corporation Hogan & Hartson, LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW. Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Ellett:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8333, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated January 30, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Amerijet International, Inc. (Ame rijet), for an extension of Exemption No. 8333, as amended. That exemption from §§ 91.303(f) and 91.307(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows Amerijet to operate a specially modified Boeing 727 aircraft (B-727) under 14 CFR part 121 on behalf of the Ze ro- Gravity Corporation in parabolic flight operations (1) when the flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles and (2) without each occupant of the aircraft wearing an approved parachute when the pilot executes an intentional maneuver that exceeds a nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Amerijet.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8333, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 8333, as amended, to May 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

This exemption is not valid for operations outside of the United States. All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8333, as amended, remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8333.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Frank A. Ludlam, Deceased. El Rena L. Schoelles, Appellant; Nathan Zausmer et al., Respondent.

In a proceeding, *inter alia,*to compel the public sale of property owned by the decedent, petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, dated March 4, 1976, which granted respondents’ separate motions for summary judgment and declared that a certain lease was valid and subsisting and that any sale of the property be made subject to such lease. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, upon the opinion of Surrogate Bennett. Hopkins, J. P., Margett, Shapiro and Mollen, JJ., concur.
#### West *v.*Shackelford.

Atkinson, J.

1. When a judgment refusing an interlocutory injunction is brought to the Supreme Court for review, the trial judge is authorized to grant a supersedeas upon such terms as may by him be deemed necessary to preserve the rights of the parties until the judgment of the Supreme Court can be had. Civil Code, § 5502; *Stokes*v. *Stokes,*126 *Ga.*804 (55 S. E. 1023). It is left, however, in the sound legal discretion of the judge to grant or refuse it. See *Savannah, Florida*
      *164
      *& Western Ry. Co.*v. *Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.,*113 *Ga.*916 (39 S. E. 399).

May 15, 1912.

This writ of error was upon the refusal of a supersedeas in the case next preceding.

2. The judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a supersedeas in this case. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 220.900 Cross-reference.

All of the provisions of subpart C, part 203 of the chapter concerning the responsibilities of servicers of mortgages insured under section 203 of the National Housing Act apply to mortgages covering 1- to 11-family dwellings insured under section 220 of the National Housing Act, except §§ 203.664 through 203.666.

[52 FR 48203, Dec. 21, 1987, and 53 FR 9869, Mar. 28, 1988]
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1165 CELANESE CHEMICALS, LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY and CHANG CHUN PETROCHEMICAL CO., LTD., Defendants-Appellants,

v. UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in case no. 04-00594, Judge Delissa A. Ridgway.

ON MOTION 

### ORDER Upon consideration of the United States' unopposed motion for a 25-day extension of time, until May 22, 2009, to file its brief, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT 

### APR 10 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date Jan Horbaly Clerk FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT APR 10 2009 JAPI HORIMtY CLERKcc: Gracia M. Berg, Esq.

Alexander H. Schaefer, Esq. Mary Jane Alves, Esq. s8

2009-1165 2
§ 108.1 Purpose and application. ( a ) The primary purpose of this regulation is to establish procedures for determining whether or not an applicant's actions are in compliance with its approved Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing (AFHM) plan, AFHM Regulation (24 CFR 200.600), and AFHM requirements in Departmental programs.
( b ) These regulations apply to all applicants for participation in subsidized and unsubsidized housing programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and to all other persons subject to Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing requirements in Department programs.
( c ) The term *applicant* includes: ( 1 ) All persons whose applications are approved for development or rehabilitation of: Subdivisions; multifamily projects; manufactured home parks of five or more lots, units or spaces; or dwelling units, when the applicant's participation in FHA housing programs has exceeded, or would thereby exceed, development of five or more such dwelling units during the year preceding the application, except that there shall not be included in a determination of the number of dwelling units developed or rehabilitated by an applicant, those in which a single family dwelling is constructed or rehabilitated for occupancy by a mortgagor on property owned by the mortgagor and in which the applicant had no interest prior to entering into the contract for construction or rehabilitation. For the purposes of this definition, a person remains an *applicant* from the date of submission of an application through duration of receipt of assistance pursuant to such application.
( 2 ) All other persons subject to AFHM requirements in Departmental programs.
( d ) The term *person* includes one or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, legal representatives or agents, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, receivers, fiduciaries and public entities.
( e ) The term monitoring office includes any office within HUD designated by HUD to act as a monitoring office. As necessary, HUD will designate specific offices within HUD to act as monitoring offices through a notice published in the Federal Register.
( f ) The term *civil rights/compliance reviewing office* includes any office within HUD designated by HUD to act as a civil rights/compliance reviewing office. As necessary, HUD will designate specific offices within HUD to act as civil rights/compliance reviewing offices through a notice published in the Federal Register.
[44 FR 47013, Aug. 9, 1979, as amended at 50 FR 9268, Mar. 7, 1985; 64 FR 44095, Aug. 12, 1999]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

FIFTH DISTRICT 

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 

GUILLERMO BRUZON-GARCIA, 

 

 Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 5D14-1442 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

 Respondent. 

________________________________/ 

Opinion filed July 18, 2014. 

Petition for Belated Appeal, 

A Case of Original Jurisdiction. 

Mercedes L. Leon, Kissimmee, for 

Petitioner. 

Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee and Wesley Heidt, Assistant 

Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Respondent. 

PER CURIAM. 

 The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with 

the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the judgment and sentence in 

Case No. 2013-CF-001741-A-O, in the Circuit Court in and for Osceola County, Florida. 

See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D). 

 

PETITION GRANTED. 

LAWSON, EVANDER, and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
#### Charles M. Ross, appellee, v. Henry Luft, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,778.

Forcible detainer for possession of a store. Directed verdict and judgment for possession. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Samuel H. Trude, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1922.

Reversed.

Opinion filed June 20, 1923.

Jolm E. Crahen, for appellant. Epstein & Feiwell, for appellee.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 203.420 Nature of Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.

The Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund shall consist of the General Surplus Account and the Participating Reserve Account.
§ 513.500 GSA responsibilities. ( a ) In accordance with the OMB guidelines, GSA shall compile, maintain, and distribute a list of all persons who have been debarred, suspended, or voluntarily excluded by agencies under Executive Order 12549 and these regulations, and those who have been determined to be ineligible.
( b ) At a minimum, this list shall indicate: ( 1 ) The names and addresses of all debarred, suspended, ineligible, and voluntarily excluded persons, in alphabetical order, with cross-references when more than one name is involved in a single action;
( 2 ) The type of action;
( 3 ) The cause for the action;
( 4 ) The scope of the action;
( 5 ) Any termination date for each listing; and
( 6 ) The agency and name and telephone number of the agency point of contact for the action.
§ 206.113 Late charge and interest. ( a ) *Late charge.* Initial MIP remitted to the Commissioner more than 5 days after the payment date in § 206.111(a) and monthly MIP remitted to the Commissioner more than 5 days after the payment date in § 206.111(b) shall include a late charge of four percent of the amount owed.
( b ) *Interest.* In addition to any late charge provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the mortgagee shall pay interest on any initial MIP remitted to the Commissioner more than 20 days after closing, and interest on any monthly MIP remitted to the Commissioner more than 5 days after the payment date prescribed in § 206.111(b). Such interest rate shall be paid at a rate set in conformity with the Treasury Financial Manual.
( c ) *Paid by mortgagee.* Any late charge and interest owed may not be added to the outstanding loan balance and must be paid by the mortgagee.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tremain Wade, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 897]

—Appeal by the de*476fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered February 23, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of 25 years to life imprisonment and to 15 years imprisonment, respectively.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree from 71/2 to 15 years to 5 to 15 years; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances, the trial court properly found that the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause as to why he should have been allowed to file an untimely notice of alibi *(see,*CPL 250.20 [1]). Hence, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to file the notice *(see, People v Bernard,*210 AD2d 419; *People v Caputo,*175 AD2d 290).

However, as correctly conceded by the People, the defendant’s term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree should be reduced from 7V2 to 15 years to 5 to 15 years. Since the crime was committed in 1993, the minimum sentence on this conviction should have been one-third of the maximum sentence, not one-half *(see,*Penal Law § 70.02 [4], as amended by L 1995, ch 3, §4).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.31 Debarment and suspension.

The requirements set forth in 2 CFR part 2424 apply to these programs.

[72 FR 73494, Dec. 27, 2007]
§ 1007.50 Certificate of guarantee. ( a ) *Approval process* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Before HUD approves any loan for guarantee under this section, the lender shall submit the application for the loan to HUD for examination.
( 2 ) *Approval.* If HUD approves the application submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, HUD will issue a certificate as evidence of the loan guarantee approved.
( b ) *Standard for approval.* HUD may approve a loan for guarantee under this part and issue a certificate under this section only if HUD determines that there is a reasonable prospect of repayment of the loan.
( c ) *Effect* — ( 1 ) *As evidence.* A certificate of guarantee issued under this part by HUD shall be conclusive and incontestable evidence in the hands of the bearer of the eligibility of the loan for guarantee under this part and the amount of that guarantee.
( 2 ) *Full faith and credit.* The full faith and credit of the United States is pledged to the payment of all amounts agreed to be paid by HUD as security for the obligations made by HUD under this section.
( d ) *Fraud and misrepresentation.* This section may not be construed: ( 1 ) To preclude HUD from establishing defenses against the original lender based on fraud or material misrepresentation; or
( 2 ) To bar HUD from establishing regulations that are (on the date of issuance or disbursement, whichever is earlier) partial defenses to the amount payable on the guarantee.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 4928] 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of State Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy will meet January 10, 2005 at 11 a.m. in Room 840, Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC. 

Members of the press and general public may attend, although attendance will be limited by seating availability. Access to Department of State buildings is strictly controlled, and individual building passes are required for all attendees. To confirm attendance at the meeting, please call (202) 203-7488. Members of the public who have confirmed their attendance must present a photo ID at the time they enter the Department of State and will be escorted to the meeting room. 

The Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy is responsible for advising the Secretary of State on programs and policies to advance the use of cultural diplomacy in United States foreign policy. This charge includes providing to the Secretary guidance on increasing the presentation abroad of the finest of U.S. creative, visual, and performing arts, as well as strategies for increasing public-private partnerships to sponsor cultural exchange programs that promote the national interests of the United States. An agenda for the Committee session will be distributed at the meeting. 

Dated: December 20, 2004. 

Daniel Schuman, 

Chief, Cultural Programs Division,  Office of Citizen Exchanges,  Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 04-28392 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT QUAYSHUN ADDNUS DONTE LEWIS, ) DOC #Y50140, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-885 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed April 4, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Joseph C. Fuller, Jr., Judge. Robert P. Harris, Fort Myers, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.


### VILLANTI, MORRIS , and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Case 3:08-cv-04606-JSW Document 129 Filed 07/15/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-04606-JSW Document 129 Filed 07/15/10 Page 2 of 3
15

Case 3:08-cv-04606-JSW Document 129 Filed 07/15/10 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27806]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4900]


Notice of Meeting; United States International Telecommunication 
Advisory Committee Meeting on Preparations for the Telecommunication 
Standardization Advisory Group Meeting and for Other ITU 
Telecommunication Standardization Study Group Meetings

    The Department of State announces the following meetings of the 
International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) to prepare 
for the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group Meeting 
and ITU-T Study Groups 3, 4, and 17 Meetings.
    The ITAC will meet as follows with an agenda for preparations for 
the ITU-T Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) 
meeting: January 19, February 2, February 16, and March 2, 2005. All 
meetings will be from 2-4 p.m. and will be held in the Washington, DC 
area. The meeting of February 16 will be a teleconference. People 
desiring to attend may find the actual location and the call in numbers 
for a teleconference bridge by e-mailing the secretariat at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b2622252a392f212e0b383f2a3f2e652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="305d595e5142545a557043445144551e575f46">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The ITAC will meet as follows with an agenda for preparations for 
the ITU-T Study Group 3 (Tariff and accounting principles) meeting: 
January 5 and January 11, 2005 from 2-4 p.m.; these meetings will be 
held in the Washington, DC area. People desiring to attend may find the 
actual location by e-mailing the secretariat at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fb9692959a899f919ebb888f9a8f9ed59c948d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e5357505f4c5a545b7e4d4a5f4a5b10595148">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The ITAC will meet to prepare for ITU-T Study Group 17 (Security, 
languages and telecommunication software) meeting and the ITU-T Study 
Group 4 (Telecommunication management) meeting on January 26, 2005, at 
10 a.m. at the offices of Communication Technologies, Inc. (COMTek), 
14151 Newbrook Dr., Suite 400, Chantilly, VA 20151. Driving directions 
to COMTek may be obtained at (703) 961-9080. People unable to attend in 
person may attend via conference bridge; call in information may be 
obtained by calling the secretariat at (303) 499-2145.

    Dated: December 10, 2004.
Anne Jillson,
Foreign Affairs Officer, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 04-27806 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1



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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer
of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2014 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



August 19, 2014

/s/ H. Dean Cubley
H. Dean Cubley Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk September 19, 2012

h0912 

# Order

September 19, 2012

144161 & (13)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144161

COA: 304599

Ingham CC: 81

- 031276

- FH

MICHAEL SWEET

, 81

- 031277

- FH

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 4 , 2011

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The

motion to remand is DENIED.