alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 17
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 87 FR 8196, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 17.105 Procedures for salary offset: methods of collection. ( a ) *General.* A debt will be collected by deductions at officially established pay intervals from an employee's current pay account, unless the employee and the Secretary agree to alternative arrangements for repayment. The alternative arrangement must be in writing, signed by both the employee and the Secretary.
( b ) *Installment deductions.* Installment deductions will be made over a period not greater than the anticipated period of employment. The size and frequency of installment deductions will bear a reasonable relation to the size of the debt and the employee's ability to pay. However, the amount deducted for any period will not exceed 15 percent of the disposable pay from which the deduction is made, unless the employee has agreed in writing to the deduction of a greater amount. If possible, the installment payment will be sufficient in size and frequency to liquidate the debt in 3 years. Installment payments of less than $25 per pay period or $50 a month will be accepted only in the most unusual circumstances.
( c ) *Sources of deductions.* The Department will make deductions only from basic pay, special pay, incentive pay, retired pay, retainer pay, or, in the case of an employee not entitled to basic pay, other authorized pay.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERVICE EMPLOYEES

INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAL ROSELLI, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00404 WHA

RESPONSE TO DOCKET ENTRY 636

As for the Section 301 injunctive relief claim, each side should file a five-page summary

of the relief that the trial record warrants (or does not warrant), including a proposal for the least

burdensome procedure to reach a judgment on that claim. Please do so by next TUESDAY, APRIL

27, 2010, AT NOON, with three-page replies by THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2010, AT NOON. An order

will then set a procedure and schedule for full ventilation. Please, double-spaced only with no

footnotes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 637 Filed 04/23/10 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:09-cv-02231-EMC Document 33 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:09-cv-02231-EMC Document 33 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 2
----

| 1. | Except as specifically provided herein, all terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  Any references to PanAmSat in the Agreement shall be deemed, in context, to refer to Intelsat.  Each capitalized term used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Agreement. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Provision of *** (***) ***  Transponder Capacity on Horizons 1. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | Additional Transponder Capacity Term.  The Capacity Term for the Additional |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4.   | Monthly Fee.  The Monthly Fee for such additional *** Transponder Capacity shall be US$***,*** per month. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5.   | Non-Applicable Provisions from the Agreement.  Intelsat and Customer agree and acknowledge that the terms of the backup protection from the Agreement (including, without limitation, Article 17 and any and all references to such backup protection shall not apply to the Additional *** TransponderCapacity. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 6.   | Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the amendment remain in full force and effect. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                        |   |   |                                            |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ Patricia Casey                          |   |   | /s/ Jimmy R. Sipes                              |   |
| Name: Patricia Casey                        |   |   | Name: Jimmy R. Sipes                            |   |
| Title: Senior VP and Deputy General Counsel |   |   | Title: VP Network Services & Chief Engineer |   |

----
Case 3:09-cv-02593-MMC Document 66 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-02593-MMC Document 66 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 3
May 3, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-02593-MMC Document 66 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Part 982
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 64 FR 26640, May 14, 1999, and at 89 FR 38293, May 7, 2024.

§ 982.157 Budget and expenditure. ( a ) *Budget submission.* Each PHA fiscal year, the PHA must submit its proposed budget for the program to HUD for approval at such time and in such form as required by HUD.
( b ) *PHA use of program receipts.* ( 1 ) Program receipts must be used in accordance with the PHA's HUD-approved budget. Such program receipts may only be used for: ( i ) Housing assistance payments; and
( ii ) PHA administrative fees.
( 2 ) The PHA must maintain a system to ensure that the PHA will be able to make housing assistance payments for all participants within the amounts contracted under the consolidated ACC.
( c ) *Intellectual property rights.* Program receipts may not be used to indemnify contractors or subcontractors of the PHA against costs associated with any judgment of infringement of intellectual property rights.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2577-0169) [60 FR 34695, July 3, 1995, as amended at 60 FR 45661, Sept. 1, 1995; 64 FR 26642, May 14, 1999]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0561

________________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF 

L.B.,

Youth in need of Care. 

_____________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

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

good cause appearing therefore, Appellant is granted an extension of time 

until December 30, 2022 to prepare, serve, and file his opening Brief. No

additional extensions will be granted. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 25 2022

11/25/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0561
#### Wanda Lopez, Respondent, v Adlin M. Simpson, Also Known as Adlin M. Harris, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[835 NYS2d 98]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered December 30, 2005, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a car accident, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, the complaint dismissed as against defendant-appellant, and, upon a search of the record, as against the codefendant as well. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

*421Plaintiff fails to raise an issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury in response to defendant’s showing that, 19 months after the accident, cervical and lumbar strains had resolved with “above normal” and “excellent” range of motion. While plaintiff submitted evidence of pain and herniated and bulging discs, she failed to submit the requisite contemporaneous quantitative assessment of range-of-motion limitations based on objective testing *(see Atkinson v Oliver,*36 AD3d 552 [2007], citing, inter alia, *Toulson v Young Han Pae,*13 AD3d 317 [2004]). Rather, the objectively tested range-of-motion limitations submitted by plaintiff were not assessed until two years after the accident, too remote to raise an issue of fact as to whether the limitations were caused by the accident *(see Atkinson,*citing, inter alia, *Vaughan v Baez,*305 AD2d 101 [2003]; *see also Thompson v Abbasi,*15 ADSd 95, 98-99 [2005]). Nor does plaintiff raise an issue of fact as to whether she experienced any substantial curtailment of her daily activities for 90 out of the 180 days following the accident *(see Hewan v Callozzo,*223 AD2d 425 [1996]). Aside from the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence showing the severity of plaintiff’s injuries, it is undisputed that plaintiff, a police officer, went to work the day after the accident, and, although put on limited duty for several months, never missed any work *(see Licari v Elliott,*57 NY2d 230, 238-239 [1982]; *Thompson,*15 AD3d at 101; *Atkinson,*36 AD3d at 553; *see also Grimes-Carrion v Carroll,*17 AD3d 296, 297 [2005]). Although the codefendant did not file a notice of appeal from the denial of her own motion for summary judgment, we also grant her summary judgment because, obviously, if plaintiff cannot meet the threshold for serious injury against one defendant, she cannot meet it against the other *(see Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard,*61 NY2d 106, 110-112 [1984]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
### SUBCHAPTER III—CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND STATISTICAL EFFICIENCY

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in parts A to C of this subchapter were contained in Pub. L. 107–347, title V, Dec. 17, 2002, 116 Stat. 2962, which was set out as a note under section 3501 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 115–435, title III, §302(c)(1), title IV, §403, Jan. 14, 2019, 132 Stat. 5552, 5557, effective 180 days after Jan. 14, 2019.
SERVED: OCTOBER 1, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

GOJET AIRLINES, LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0876 ' . 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

-2 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012CE030041) has been 

assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and 

other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA 

Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

~--··' 

Ronme A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative La: 

Attachment - Service List 

j: 30 
FDMS No. FAA-2012-0876 

· (Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration· 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Mr. Richard A Leach, CEO 

GoJetAirlines, LLC, Respondent 

11495 Navaid Road, Suite 303 

Bridgeton, MO 63 044 · 

ONE COPY 

David J. A Hayes III, Respondent's Counsel 

Vice-President & General Counsel 

Trans States Holdings, Inc. 

11495 Navaid Road 

Bridgeton, MO 63044 

TEL: 314-222-4316 

FAX: 314-222-4311 

David B. Kessler, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ACE-7· 

Central Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Room 506, DOT Building 

901 Locust 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

TEL: 816-329-3763 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

·

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; ~ttention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Staff Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

-3-
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79535-79536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27074]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 10, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

[[Page 79536]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 27, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Parcel Select Contract 40 to Competitive Product 
List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2021-33, 
CP2021-34.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2020-27074 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
In The Matter Of: 

CLIFFORD PRESS 

Respondent 

SERVED: February 21, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2011-1006 

Case No. 2011EA150045 

ORDER SETTING SECOND 

PRE-HEARING STATUS CONFERENCE 

On December 14, 2012 an Order Setting Venue in Islip, New York was filed. 

_:,_ '· 

l\ C· -::> ') ·-., ,• .J L 

On February 7, 2013 a Notice of Pre-Hearing Status Conference was filed, converting the 

previously scheduled Motion Conference, set on February 21,2013 (10:00am-11:00am), to a 

Pre-Hearing Status Conference. 

On February 21, 2013 the parties convened by telephone for a Pre-Hearing Status 

Conference, and discussed the status of the case, which is currently set for a 3-day hearing in 

Islip, New York on April23, 2013- April25, 2013. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.205, Rule 16 (b)(4), 14 C.F.R. §13.217, 14 C.F.R. §13.218, 

and 14 C.F.R. § 13.220, and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulation, statutory 

authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The parties shall convene by telephone on Wednesday, March 6, 2013, at 10:00am for a 

Second Pre-Hearing Status Conference. The Office of Hearings will provide a call-in 

number and passcode prior to the pre-hearing status conference. 

Attachment: Service List 
' 

l -

SERVICE LIST. 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Ms. Judith L. Vaughan, Esq. 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AEA-7 

Eastern Region 

Fe4eral Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3255 

FAJ(: 718-995-5699 

Ms. Kathleen A. Yodice, Esq. 

Respondent's Counsel 

Yodice Associates 

411 Aviation Way, Suite 245 

Frederick MD 21701 

TEL: 301-695-2300 

FAJ(: 301-695-2151 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

· Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

FDMS NO. FAA~2011-1006 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 

20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

Page 2 of2
**Exhibit 32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 In connection with the periodic report of Delta Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard Blass, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
 Date:  November 10, 2004.
 
  
 
 Richard Blass
 *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*
Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 439 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 8.1
 Subsidiaries of The9 Limited
 Wholly-owned subsidiaries
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationGameNow.net (Hong Kong) Limited
    
    Hong KongChina The9 Interactive Limited
    
    Hong KongCity Gamenet Limited
    
    Hong Kong9Dream Limited
    
    Hong KongCity Channel Limited
    
    Hong KongCity Smart Limited
    
    Hong KongWell City Limited
    
    Hong Kong9City Asia Limited
    
    Hong KongCity Rise Investments Limited
    
    Hong KongGlobal Star International Development Limited
    
    Hong KongAsian Sense Holdings Limited
    
    Hong KongAsian Development Limited
    
    Hong KongAsian Success Development Limited
    
    Hong KongChina Crown Technology Limited
    
    Hong KongSilver Express Investments Limited
    
    Hong KongChamp Base Development Limited
    
    Hong KongChina Crown Express Limited
    
    Hong KongThe9 Development Center Limited
    
    Hong KongAsian Way Development Limited
    
    Hong KongNew Star International Development Limited
    
    Hong KongTDC (Asia) Limited
    
    British Virgin IslandsThe9 Singapore Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeThe9 Computer Technology Consulting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
    
    ChinaChina The9 Interactive (Shanghai) Limited
    
    ChinaChina The9 Interactive (Beijing) Limited
    
    ChinaJiu Jing Era Information Technology (Beijing) Limited
    
    ChinaRen He Information Technology (Shanghai) Limited
    
    ChinaJiu Tuo (Shanghai) Information Technology Limited
    
    ChinaJiu Chuang Interactive Information Technology (Beijing)
Limited Shanghai Branch
    
    China
 Majority-owned subsidiaries
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationRed 5 Studios, Inc.
    
    Delaware, USA




---



##### 



Consolidated affiliated entities
 Name of Consolidated Affiliated Entity
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationShanghai The9 Information Technology Co., Limited
    
    ChinaShanghai Jiucheng Advertisement Co., Limited
    
    ChinaNanjing Youqu Software Development Co., Limited
    
    ChinaHangzhou Fire Rain Network Technology Co., Limited
    
    ChinaNanjing Star-matrix Software Information & Technology Co., Limited
    
    ChinaShenzheng Fatiaocheng Technology Co., Limited
    
    China
### §56307. Return of vessels

When a vessel requisitioned for use but not ownership is returned to the owner, the Secretary of Transportation shall—

(1) return the vessel in a condition at least as good as when taken, less ordinary wear and tear; or

(2) pay the owner an amount sufficient to recondition the vessel to that condition, less ordinary wear and tear.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1656.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 56307 | 46 App.:1242(a) (4th sentence). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title IX, §902(a) (4th sentence), 49 Stat. 2015; Pub. L. 97–31, §12(131), Aug. 6, 1981, 95 Stat. 165. |

Section

The words "requisitioned for use but not ownership" are substituted for "taken and used under authority of this section, but the ownership thereof is not required by the United States" to eliminate unnecessary words.
```

[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

 
                               [ERRATA] 
                AN UPDATE: PIRACY ON UNVERSITY NETWORKS 
=======================================================================
                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, THE INTERNET,
                       AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 8, 2007

                               __________

                           Serial No. 110-29

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

33-812 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office  Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800  Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP, 
Washington, DC 20402-0001
      

          

                                    [ERRATA]

    The referenced hearing held before the Subcommittee on 
Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the House 
Committee on the Judiciary was inadvertently printed with the 
incorrect title on the title page and page 1. The correct title 
is as follows:

                AN UPDATE: PIRACY ON UNIVERSITY NETWORKS


```