alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AAM-12-293-E April 11, 2012

Exemption No. 10500 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0368

Mr. Mike Russell

President Prestige Helicopters, Inc. 1 Corsair Drive, Suite 111 Chamblee, GA 30341

Dear Mr. Russell:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 20, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Prestige Helicopters, Inc. (Prestige Helicopters), for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Prestige Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

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

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

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that2

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Prestige Helicopters, Inc., an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Prestige Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Prestige Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Prestige Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
#### Kreig Tanning Company, appellant, v. C. V. Engstrom & Company, appellee.

Gen. No. 7,206.

Suit for purchase price of leather. Plea of set-off. Binding on set-off for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for balance. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. John M. Niehaus, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 18, 1923.

Covey, Campbell & Covey, for appellant. L. E. Sutherland, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.
### [§8108. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–282, title VI, §601(c)(3)(A), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4289]

Section, added Pub. L. 113–281, title III, §310(a), Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 3045; amended Pub. L. 115–232, div. C, title XXXV, §3541(b)(14), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 2323, established the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee. See section 15103 of this title.
COLLECTED BY
Internet Archive
Wayback Machine
Wide Crawl Number 13
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph Coletti, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction for violation of section 153.17 of the Health Code of the City of New York unanimously reversed, on the law and *484on the facts, the information dismissed, and the fine remitted. The ordinance was not applicable to defendant’s conduct since the literature he was distributing was *“*other than commercial or business advertising matter ” expressly excepted from the ordinance. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1


    Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 1350 of
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
                ------------------------------------------------

     I, Ronald N. Zebeck, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Metris
Companies Inc., certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Metris Companies Inc.


                                       /s/ Ronald N. Zebeck
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       Ronald N. Zebeck
                                       Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                       Principal Executive Officer
                                       August 14, 2002
§ 891.805 Definitions. In addition to the definitions at §§ 891.105, 891.205, and 891.305, the following definitions apply to this subpart: *Mixed-finance owner,* for the purpose of the mixed-finance development of housing under this part, means a single-asset, for-profit limited partnership of which a private nonprofit organization is the sole general partner. The purpose of the mixed-finance owner must include the promotion of the welfare of the elderly or persons with disabilities, as appropriate.
*Private nonprofit organization,* for the purpose of this subpart, means: ( 1 ) In the case of supportive housing for the elderly: ( i ) An organization that meets the requirements of the definition of “private nonprofit organization” in § 891.205; and
( ii ) A for-profit limited partnership, the sole general partner of which owns at least one-hundredth of one percent of the partnership assets, whereby the sole general partner is either: an organization meeting the requirements of § 891.205 or a for-profit corporation wholly owned and controlled by one or more organizations meeting the requirements of § 891.205 or a limited liability company wholly owned and controlled by one or more organizations meeting the requirements of § 891.205. If the project will include units financed with the use of federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and the organization is a limited partnership, the requirements of section 42 of the IRS code, including the requirements of section 42(h)(5), apply. The general partner may also be the sponsor, so long as it meets the requirements of this part for sponsors and general partners.
( 2 ) In the case of supportive housing for persons with disabilities: ( i ) An organization that meets the requirements of the definition of “private nonprofit organization” in § 891.305; and
( ii ) A for-profit limited partnership, the sole general partner of which owns at least one-hundredth of one percent of the partnership assets, whereby the sole general partner is either: an organization meeting the requirements of § 891.305 or a corporation owned and controlled by an organization meeting the requirements of § 891.305. If the project will include units financed with the use of federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and the organization is a limited partnership, the requirements of section 42 of the IRS code, including the requirements of section 42(h)(5), apply. The general partner may also be the sponsor, so long as it meets the requirements of this part for sponsors and general partners.
[78 FR 37113, June 20, 2013]
#### NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO. v. STATE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 14, 1903.)

Action by the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company against the state of New York.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Steven
      Walin, Chief Executive Officer of GVI Security Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”),
      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(i)
      The
      Company’s accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
      June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(ii)
      The
      information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/
              Steven
              WalinSteven
                Walin
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              Dated:
                August 15, 2006
### SUBCHAPTER VII—EMERGENCY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
#### § 91.20 Exceptions.

The HUD Field Office may grant a jurisdiction an exception from the submission deadline for plans and reports and from a requirement in the implementation guidelines for good cause, as determined by the field office and reported in writing to HUD Headquarters, unless the requirement is required by statute or regulation.

[71 FR 6962, Feb. 9, 2006]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DARRELL C. SCHRODER,

 Appellant,

v.

JAMES & HAUGLAND, P.C. F/K/A

JAMES, GOLDMAN & HAUGLAND,

P.C.,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00086-CV

Appeal from the

County Court No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2006-2376) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination whether the appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Finding that Appellant did not timely file the notice

of appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

A civil appeal is perfected when the notice of appeal is filed. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1;

Restrepo v. First Nat’l Bank of Dona Ana County, N.M., 892 S.W.2d 237, 238 (Tex.App.--

El Paso 1995, no pet.)(applying former TEX.R.APP.P. 40(a)(1)). When no motion for new trial or

request for findings of fact and conclusions of law is filed, the notice of appeal must be filed

within thirty days after the judgment is signed. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1; Restrepo, 892 S.W.2d at 238.

When a motion for new trial is timely filed, the notice of appeal is due within ninety days after

the judgment is signed. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1(a)(1). An untimely notice of appeal will be 

considered timely if it is filed within fifteen days after the due date and includes a reasonable

explanation for the Appellant’s failure to file on the due date. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3; Verburgt
-2-

v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

The judgment in this case was signed on November 19, 2007. Appellant filed a timely

motion for new trial on December 19, 2007. Thus, the notice of appeal was due no later than

February 17, 2008. Appellant did not file a notice of appeal until March 6, 2008. Therefore,

Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. By letter dated March 7, 2008, the clerk of this

Court notified Appellant of our intent to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction because the

appeal had not been perfected. TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3. Appellant has not responded to the clerk’s

notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

May 15, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
### §356. Approval of installations by Commission

Insofar as is necessary to carry out the purposes and requirements of this part, the Commission shall have authority, for any ship subject to this part—

(1) To approve the details as to the location and manner of installations of the equipment required by this part or of equipment necessitated by reason of the purposes and requirements of this part.

(2) To approve installations, apparatus, and spare parts necessary to comply with the purposes and requirements of this part.

(3) To prescribe such additional equipment as may be determined to be necessary to supplement that specified in this part, for the proper functioning of the radio installation installed in accordance with this part or for the proper conduct of radio communication in time of emergency or distress.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, §358, formerly §356, as added May 20, 1937, ch. 229, §10(b), 50 Stat. 194; renumbered §358, Aug. 13, 1954, ch. 729, §2(a)(1), 68 Stat. 706; amended Pub. L. 103–414, title III, §303(a)(19), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4295.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This part, referred to in text, commences with section 351 of this title.

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–414 struck out "(a)" before "Insofar as".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective May 20, 1937, see section 16 of act May 20, 1937, set out as a note under section 351 of this title.
### §1706. Printing and sale of extra copies of documents

The Director of the Government Publishing Office shall furnish to applicants giving notice before the matter is put to press, not exceeding two hundred and fifty to any one applicant, copies of bills, reports, and documents. The applicants shall pay in advance the price of the printing. The printing of these copies for private parties may not interfere with the printing for the Government.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1279; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(c)(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §114 (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, §42, 28 Stat. 607; June 30, 1932, ch. 314, §307, 47 Stat. 409).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–235 substituted "Director of the Government Publishing Office" for "Public Printer".
(No. 87-CC-3588

#### Ronald Louis, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed May 3, 1989.*

*Order filed February 24, 1993.*

Ronald Louis, *pro se,*for Claimant.

Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Diann K. Marselek, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

ORDER

Montana, J.

This cause comes on to be heard on the Respondent’s *174motion to dismiss, due notice having apparently been given and the Court being advised;

The Claimant, an inmate at a State penal institution, brought this claim seeking compensation for various items, including a stereo, which he alleges were lost due to the negligence of the Respondent.

The Respondent moved for dismissal of the claim on the grounds of fraud pursuant to section 14 of the Court of Claims Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.14). It is the Respondents position that the Claimant has attempted to perpetrate a fraud on this Court by submitting an altered sales slip as proof of the value of the stereo. In support of its motion, Respondent offered a copy of the decision of the Administrative Review Board to which the Claimant had previously submitted his claim. This document was described as a departmental report and offered as *prima facie*evidence pursuant to Rule 14 of the Court of Claims Regulations (74 Ill. Adm. Code 790.140).

The Respondents motion is denied. Rule 14 (74 Ill. Adm. Code 790.140) only accords *prima facie*evidence status to *facts.*We will admit the copy of the decision of the Administrative Review Board for the limited purpose of showing the fact that the Claimant has exhausted his administrative remedies. Its relevance for any other purpose is not apparent at this time. We will not accept as *prima facie*evidence of the truth of the matter asserted the Boards observations, conclusions, or findings on issues of fact involving litigation before the Board.

That the Board observed that a sales slip was “very noticeably altered” is not relevant to the proceeding here. This Court is not an appeals body for the Board. Proceedings here in cases such as the one at bar are *de novo.*The *175Claimant has not even tried to introduce the sales slip at issue. It is not in the record.

Motion denied.

ORDER

Frederick, J.

This matter coming to be heard upon the motion of the Respondent, State of Illinois, *ex rel.*Department of Corrections, to dismiss this cause for want of prosecution, due notice having been given to the parties hereto, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ordered that the instant claim be dismissed for want of prosecution.
###### 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.

#### § 982.501 Overview.

This subpart describes program requirements concerning the housing assistance payment and rent to owner under the HCV program.

[80 FR 8246, Feb. 17, 2015]
§ 60.120 Evaluation and disposition of applications and proposals for research to be conducted or supported by a Federal department or agency. ( a ) The department or agency head will evaluate all applications and proposals involving human subjects submitted to the Federal department or agency through such officers and employees of the Federal department or agency and such experts and consultants as the department or agency head determines to be appropriate. This evaluation will take into consideration the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained.
( b ) On the basis of this evaluation, the department or agency head may approve or disapprove the application or proposal, or enter into negotiations to develop an approvable one.
### §57101. Placement of vessels in National Defense Reserve Fleet

(a) In General.—Any vessel acquired by the Maritime Administration of 1,500 gross tons or more or such other vessels as the Secretary of Transportation determines are appropriate shall be placed in the National Defense Reserve Fleet.

(b) Removal From Fleet.—A vessel placed in the Fleet under subsection (a) may not be traded out or sold from the Fleet, except as provided in section 57102, 57103, or 57104 or chapter 533, 537, 573, or 575 of this title, or section 308704 of title 54.

(c) Authority of Federal Entities To Transfer Vessels.—All Federal entities are authorized to transfer vessels to the National Defense Reserve Fleet without reimbursement subject to the approval of the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Navy with respect to Ready Reserve Force vessels and the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all other vessels.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1658; Pub. L. 112–213, title IV, §§406, 407, Dec. 20, 2012, 126 Stat. 1571; Pub. L. 115–91, div. C, title XXXV, §3502(b)(7), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1911; Pub. L. 118–31, div. C, title XXXV, §3514(j)(3), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 811.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 57101 | 46 App.:1160(j). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title V, §510(j), as added Pub. L. 89–254, §2, Oct. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 980; Pub. L. 97–31, §12(91), Aug. 6, 1981, 95 Stat. 161. |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "vessel acquired by the Maritime Administration" are substituted for "vessel heretofore or hereafter acquired under this section, or otherwise acquired by the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation under any other authority" to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (b), the words "except as provided in section 57102, 57103, or 57104 or chapter 533, 537, 573, or 575 of this title" are substituted for "except as provided for in subsections (g) and (i) of this section. This limitation shall not affect the rights of the Secretary of Transportation to dispose of a vessel as provided in other sections of this subchapter or in subchapters VII or XI of this chapter" because of the restatement.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2023—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 118–31 inserted ", or section 308704 of title 54" before period at end.

2017—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–91, which directed striking out "maintained under section 11 of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 (50 App. 1744)", was executed by striking out "maintained under section 11 of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 (50 App. U.S.C. 1744)" before period at end, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

2012—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–213, §406, inserted "of 1,500 gross tons or more or such other vessels as the Secretary of Transportation determines are appropriate" after "Administration".

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 112–213, §407, added subsec. (c).
### **CHAPTER 15—EMERGENCY RAIL SERVICES**

Sec.
661.
Definitions.
662.
Guarantee of certificates.
663.
Inspection of accounts, books, etc., of railroad receiving financial assistance.
664.
Issuance of obligations to Secretary of the Treasury.
665.
Utilization of services and facilities of Federal departments and agencies; reimbursement; consultation with Board; coordination of activities with Federal departments and agencies.
666.
Court supervision of expenditures; findings; report to Secretary.
667.
Audit by Comptroller General; report to Congress.
668.
Guarantee fees; amount; deposit.
669.
Repealed.
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Ridgewood Energy L Fund, LLC (the Fund) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Fund hereby certifies, 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 their knowledge: (1)
	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund. Dated:
	
	March 30, 2007
	
	
	
	
	
	RIDGEWOOD ENERGY L FUND, LLCBy:
	
	/s/
	
	ROBERT E. SWANSONName:
	
	Robert E. SwansonTitle:
	
	President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Dated:
	
	March 30, 2007By:
	
	/s/
	
	KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRYName:
	
	Kathleen P. McSherryTitle:
	
	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  A signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to Ridgewood Energy L Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy L Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this report or as a separate disclosure document.