alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SI0-l()03()4-04() 

GERALD R. FORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

Kent County Department of Aeronautics 

AERONAUTICS BOARD 

JOHN VAN L^AR, Chairman 

THEODORE J. VONK. Vice Chairman 

DEAN A. ASEE 

JOSEPH TOIVIASELU 

RICHARD A. VANDER MOLEN 

FLOYD WILSON, JR. 

AERONAUTICS STAFF 

JAMES A. KOSLOSKV. A,A,E. 

PHILUP E, JOHNSON. A.A.E. 

ROBERT W. BENSTEIN, A.A.E. 

BRIAN PICARDAT, A.A.E. 

THOMAS R. ECKLUND, P.E. 

Executive Director 

Deputy Executive Director 

Public Safety & Ops Director 

Flrwnce & Admin. Director 

Facilities Director 

February 25,2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0034 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

Thank you for the opportunJty to express my support for the application for antitrust Immunity and 

proposed joint business agreement fifed by American Airlines and Japan Airlines. The proposed alliance 

between these two airlines is vital for the oneworld alliance to compete effectively with the Star and 

SkyTeam alliances. This Increased alliance competition will in turn enhance the benefits of the 

Department's Open Skies policy - first by solidifying U.S. - Japan Open Skies, then by serving as a 

foundation for further liberalization across Asia. 

After a thorough review, I encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this application as it 

would enable these oneworld alliance airlines to work closely together to deliver highly competitive air 

transportation services. Approval for AA/JAL alliance will have a positive Impact on air travel by offering 

customers more service, scheduling and pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue 

to benefit from the competition afforded by three competitive air alliances. 

I urge you to quickly approve this application. 

Sincerely, 

piA'Xj 

James A. Koslosky, A.A.E. 

Executive Director 

.<• '.;' 

/ r ...•,•-.• , 

c-;- woco. 

--LSMOI,}:- J, 

\K-f^ " ... . ••' 

..•;| A', jjb p . -^i.v^i l 

y'v'^V-. .I'J'---^1 • :l . i «'- '-• ;! !• !=:)?• 

'.tS',!•..(!.•':. TO'V\0l|<;'0i^,A;;.§i:fjje i " : 

I9L"' \j £ i:>.-.»b'=iifj,'eu{ on!.sij2 b ^luo u i . 

fj'- . 

U s ) 

Uj.-

• * ' 

Lf..' • 

I't tibfjiicgtioi j 'M 

.t.od' loi^? Q l ^j<!o2 .,iC|!C \ -yiJT pA ^^'iqnAiiS 0 2' - pbsu obco ^f^iiz ^m - pA .?<=.. AI'J? ?J? A 

3t; via.I? t- »u|uCv69?i5q9i|!.u' •< ujDe,';f!OU.'»\!ii Lirr.i.o ?..,'U3uce fpt-pso^^ i; .^r 

5$&'MhiSj^iT"li,; GRAKjb RA^ip^i^i 4?^5T2^d5^^ 'P^.''6l6-233-^666'-^f AX 61(^^3^5025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0028

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

DYLAN THOMAS BAKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 1, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 23 2024

05/23/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0028
#### In the Matter of Lauderdale Analytics, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Wharton Management Group, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[716 NYS2d 852]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered December 9, 1999, which granted petitioners’ application for a permanent stay of arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On September 28, 1999, respondents-appellants Wharton Management Group, Inc. and Wharton Advisors, Inc. served a demand for arbitration of the various obligations of the parties with respect to a claim for indemnification of legal fees purportedly expended by Wharton Management on behalf of an entity known as Constellation Convertibles, Ltd. The demand alluded to three different agreements involving various partnerships, which partnerships in turn involved one or another of the various parties herein. Upon review of the relevant agreements, we fail to discern any unequivocal agreement to arbitrate the indemnification issues arising out of Wharton Management’s claim against a third party. In the absence of such an agreement, we cannot conclude that the parties agreed to arbitrate the issues that are the subject of the demand *(see, Matter of Stigwood Org. [Atlantic Recording Corp.],*83 AD2d 123, 126). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b.
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ JAMES A. CALDERJames A. CalderChief Financial Officer
§ 401.101 Which owners are ineligible to request Restructuring Plans? ( a ) *Mandatory rejection.* The request of an owner of an eligible project will not be considered for a Restructuring Plan if the owner is debarred or suspended under 2 CFR part 2424.
( b ) *Discretion to reject.* HUD may also decide not to accept a request for a Restructuring Plan if: ( 1 ) An affiliate is debarred or suspended under 2 CFR part 2424; or
( 2 ) HUD notifies the owner that HUD is engaged in a pending suspension, debarment or other enforcement action against an owner or affiliate, and the grounds for the pending action are included in § 401.403(b)(2)(ii).
( c ) *Exception for sale.* This section does not apply if a sale or transfer of the property is proposed in accordance with § 401.480.
( d ) *Notice to tenants.* The PAE or HUD will give notice to tenants of a rejection in accordance with §§ 401.500(f)(2), 401.501, and 401.502.
[65 FR 15485, Mar. 22, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 66038, Nov. 26, 2007; 72 FR 73496, Dec. 27, 2007]
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #16704 and #16705; CALIFORNIA Disaster Number CA-00328]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 2.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4569-DR), dated 10/16/2020.

*Incident:*                         Wildfires.                    

*Incident Period:*                         09/04/2020 through 11/17/2020.                    

# DATES:

Issued on 11/20/2020.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         12/15/2020.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/16/2021.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of California, dated 10/16/2020, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 09/04/2020 and continuing through 11/17/2020.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Cynthia Pitts,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2020-26265 Filed 11-27-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T18:57:00-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### § 3286.109 Inspection requirements—generally.

The installer or the retailer must arrange for the inspection of the installation work on any manufactured home that is sited in a state without a qualifying installation program. Before the home can be occupied, the installer must certify, and the inspector must verify, the home as having been installed in conformance with the requirements of § 3286.107(a). The requirements for installer certification are set out in subpart E of this part.
### §390jj. Water conservation

#### (a) Implementation of program by non-Federal recipients

The Secretary shall, pursuant to his authorities under otherwise existing Federal reclamation law, encourage the full consideration and incorporation of prudent and responsible water conservation measures in the operations of non-Federal recipients of irrigation water from Federal reclamation projects, where such measures are shown to be economically feasible for such non-Federal recipients.

#### (b) Development of plan

Each district that has entered into a repayment contract or water service contract pursuant to Federal reclamation law or the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended (43 U.S.C. 390b), shall develop a water conservation plan which shall contain definite goals, appropriate water conservation measures, and a time schedule for meeting the water conservation objectives.

#### (c) Coordination of ongoing programs; full public participation

The Secretary is authorized and directed to enter into memorandums of agreement with those Federal agencies having capability to assist in implementing water conservation measures to assure coordination of ongoing programs. Such memorandums should provide for involvement of non-Federal entities such as States, Indian tribes, and water user organizations to assure full public participation in water conservation efforts.

(Pub. L. 97–293, title II, §210, Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1268.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Federal reclamation law, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), is defined in section 390aa of this title.

The Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, referred to in subsec. (b), is title III of Pub. L. 85–500, July 3, 1958, 72 Stat. 319, which enacted section 390b of this title and enacted a provision set out as a note under section 390b of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 390b of this title and Tables.
#### § 35.105 [Reserved]
§ 242.25 Mortgage form and disbursement of mortgage proceeds. ( a ) *Mortgage form.* The mortgage shall be: ( 1 ) Executed on a form approved by HUD for use in the jurisdiction in which the property covered by the mortgage is situated; the form shall not be changed without the prior written approval of HUD.
( 2 ) Executed by an eligible mortgagor.
( b ) *Disbursement of mortgage proceeds.* The mortgagee shall be obligated, as a part of the mortgage transaction, to disburse the principal amount of the mortgage to (or for the account of) the mortgagor or to his or her creditors for his or her account and with his or her consent.
#### In the Matter of Henry L. McCarthy, as Commissioner of Welfare of the City of New York, Respondent, v. William Glicksman, Appellant.

Order entered on May 8, 1958, denying respondent-appellant’s motion to set aside the support order entered February 28, 1958, denying his application for a reargument or rehearing of the support application and denying his motion to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
- Front Matter
Title Page

- Introduction
- Rationale of the study
- Background
- Previous studies
- Data and methodology
- Data Quality
- Discontinuation Rates
- Contraceptive Switching Behavior
- Contraceptive Failure Rates
- Summary and Conclusion
- References
- Demographic and Health Surveys Working Papers Series

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-02T02:32:48-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
§ 3286.205 Prerequisites for installation license. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 75759 , Sept. 16, 2024.
( a ) *Required experience.* ( 1 ) In order to obtain an installation license to perform manufactured home installations under the HUD-administered installation program, an individual must meet at least one of the following minimum experience requirements: ( i ) 1,800 hours of experience installing manufactured homes;
( ii ) 3,600 hours of experience in the construction of manufactured homes;
( iii ) 3,600 hours of experience as a building construction supervisor;
( iv ) 1,800 hours as an active manufactured home installation inspector;
( v ) Completion of one year of a college program in a construction-related field; or
( vi ) Any combination of experience or education from paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(v) of this section that totals 3,600 hours.
( 2 ) An installer who is certified or licensed to perform manufactured home installations in a state with a qualifying installation program may be exempted by the Secretary from complying with these experience requirements, if the Secretary determines that the state requirements are substantially equal to the HUD experience requirements.
( b ) *Required training* — ( 1 ) *Initial applicant.* An applicant for an installation license must complete 12 hours of training, at least 4 hours of which must consist of training on the federal installation standards in part 3285 of this chapter and the installation program regulations in this part. An installer who is licensed to perform installations in a state with a qualified installation program may postpone the training requirements of this section until October 20, 2009.
( 2 ) *Renewal applicant.* In order to qualify for renewal of an installation license, the licensed installer must complete 8 hours of continuing education during the 3-year license period, including in any particular subject area that may be required by HUD to be covered in order to assure adequate understanding of installation requirements.
( 3 ) The training required under this paragraph (b) must be conducted by trainers who meet the requirements of subpart D of this part and must meet the curriculum requirements established in § 3286.308 or § 3286.309, as applicable.
( c ) *Testing.* An applicant for an installation license must have successfully received a passing grade of 70 percent on a HUD-administered or HUD-approved examination covering the Manufactured Home Installation Program and the federal installation standards in part 3285.
( d ) *Surety bond or insurance.* An applicant for an installation license must provide evidence of and must maintain, when available in the state of installation, a surety bond or insurance that will cover the cost of repairing all damage to the home and its supports caused by the installer during the installation up to and including replacement of the home. HUD may require the licensed installer to provide proof of the surety bond or insurance at any time. The licensed installer must notify HUD of any changes or cancellations with the surety bond or insurance coverage.
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6


B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-11
B-12
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-16
B-17
B-18
B-19
B-20
B-21
B-22
B-23
B-24


C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8


D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8


E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
E-8


F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
F-5
F-6
F-7
F-8
F-9
F-10
F-11
F-12
F-13
F-14


G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
§ 290.37 Requirements for continuing Federal rental subsidy contracts. For any mortgage that, at the time HUD offers the mortgage for sale without FHA mortgage insurance, is delinquent and secures a subsidized project or unsubsidized project that receives any of the forms of assistance enumerated in paragraphs (4)(i) to (4)(iv) of the “subsidized project” definition in § 290.3: ( a ) The mortgage purchaser and its successors and assigns shall require the mortgagor to record a covenant running with the land as part of any loan restructuring or of a final compromise of the mortgage debt and shall include a covenant in any foreclosure deed executed in connection with the mortgage. The covenant shall continue in effect until the last federal project-based rental assistance contract expires by its own terms. The covenant shall provide that, except where otherwise approved by HUD, a project purchaser shall agree to assume the obligations of any outstanding: ( 1 ) Project-based federal rental subsidy contract; and
( 2 ) Tenant-based Section 8 housing assistance payments contract with a public housing agency and the related lease.
( b ) In the event of foreclosure of the mortgage sold by HUD, the mortgage purchaser and its successors and assigns: ( 1 ) Shall foreclose in a manner that does not interfere with any lease related to federal project-based assistance or any lease related to tenant-based, Section 8 housing assistance payments; and
( 2 ) Shall foreclose in manner that ensures that the right of possession of the purchaser at a foreclosure sale shall be subject to the terms of any residential lease not subject to paragraph (b)(1) of this section for the remaining term of the lease or for one year, whichever period is shorter.
[61 FR 11685, Mar. 21, 1996, as amended at 61 FR 32265, June 21, 1996]
176

MISCELLANEOUS SUPREME COURT

DISPOSITION

( P3d )

CERTIFIED QUESTIONS, CERTIFIED APPEALS,

MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS, AND OTHER MATTERS

November 16, 2017

Aguilera, C. Miguel Gonzalez v. Cain (S065279). Peremptory writ of mandamus 

issued.
### §510c. Relationship to Twenty-First Century Water Works Act

Nothing in this subchapter shall preclude a transferred works operating entity from applying and receiving a loan-guarantee pursuant to the Twenty-First Century Water Works Act [43 U.S.C. 2421 et seq].

(Pub. L. 111–11, title IX, §9604, Mar. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 1349.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Twenty-First Century Water Works Act, referred to in text, is title II of Pub. L. 109–451, Dec. 22, 2006, 120 Stat. 3356, which is classified generally to subchapter II (§2421 et seq.) of chapter 42 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2401 of this title and Tables.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Pauline Friedman, Respondent, v. Famous Beverages, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision which attributed decedent’s fatal coronary occlusion to his work activities, found to have “ entailed greater strain and exertion than the ordinary wear and tear of life”. The work effort, commencing at about 8:00 a.m. on the day preceding decedent’s death, consisted of unloading from a truck and carrying to private homes and apartments, in the course of house to house deliveries, eases of beverages weighing about 40 pounds each, two at a time being carried occasionally; and in carrying back to the truck, and at the end of the day unloading and carrying empty eases, normally two at a time, weighing from 10 to 15 pounds each. At about 3:00 *996p.m. decedent complained of back pain but continued working; and at about 5:00 p.m. after he had worked for 10 or 15 minutes unloading cases at the employer’s warehouse, his coemployees noticed that he was pale and perspiring, and one of them told him to stop working and took him outside to sit down in the open air until he went home, where he died about 12 hours later. Decedent’s treating physician related decedent’s death to the work effort as did another cardiologist. The latter reported “ that because the deceased continued to work after the first attack of pain he started a coronary thrombosis which progressed and became worse with the load of further work”; and testified that the later episode at the warehouse “ certainly added its weight ”, contributing to “ the dislodgement of arteriosclerotic plaque with the formation of a thrombosis and definite damage to the myocardium which ultimately resulted in death in comparatively short time.” The case is clearly within the frame of the authorities sustaining awards predicated upon exertion of this nature (see, e.g., *Matter of Domash*v. *Standard Coat, Apron & Linen Serv.,*11 A D 2d 575, affd. 9 N Y 2d 889); and is also within the purview of the cases holding that such a “‘ continuance of work involving physical exertion after * * ***an attack * * * is a sufficient identification of the event in time and circumstance, to constitute an accident where * * * followed soon after by a serious coronary condition and both are associated by medical opinion.’ ” *(Matter of Cuvelier*v. *Fairbanks & Walvoord,*6 A D 2d 920, 921, and eases there cited.) Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.