alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 235 (Monday, December 7, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26805]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 97

[WT Docket No. 19-348; Report No. 3163; FRS 17254]


Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Proceedings

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the 
Commission's proceeding by David R. Siddall, on behalf of ARRL, The 
National Association for Amateur Radio.

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before December 
22, 2020. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before January 
4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Markman, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-7090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document, Report No. 3163, released November 16, 2020. The full text of 
the Petition can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission 
will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress 
or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.
    Subject: Facilitating Shared Use in the 3.1-3.55 GHz Band, FCC 20-
138, published 85 FR 64062, October 9, 2020, in WT Docket No 19-348. 
This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 
47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26805 Filed 12-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Kajima USA exemption request (Docket No. FAA-2015-3581)

List of aircraft for proposed UAS operation:

Make: Tuffwing

Model: UAV Mapper

Type: Fixed Wing

Maximum Weight: 4.4 lbs

Make: DJI

Model: Phantom 2 Vision +

Type: Rotorcraft (Quadcopter)

Maximum Weight: 2.8 lbs

Make: DJI

Model: Phantom 3 Professional

Type: Rotorcraft (Quadcopter)

Maximum Weight: 2.8 lbs

Make: DJI

Model: Inspire 1

Type: Rotorcraft (Quadcopter)

Maximum Weight: 6.5 lbs
#### § 242.40 Mortgagee certificate.

At initial endorsement, the mortgagee shall execute a Mortgagee Certificate in a form prescribed by HUD.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**News Release****July 3, 2000**

**Trading Symbols:**TRBD (EASDAQ)

**TURBODYNE ANNOUNCES MANAGEMENT CHANGES**

**Carpinteria, CA—July 3, 2000**—Effective July 8, 2000, Peter Kitzinski will relinquish his post as General Manager of Turbodyne Europe GmbH and his position as VP Corporate Finance Europe of TurbodyneTechnologies Inc. (EASDAQ:TRBD). Mr. Kitzinski has served in these capacities for several years and has assisted the Company to develop strong relationships with European automotive manufacturers and the investment community. 

Mr. Kitzinski will continue to serve as a Member of the Board of Directors of Turbodyne Technologies Inc. and as a Member of its Executive Committee where his special focus on financial and investment matters will be ofcontinuing assistance to the Company. 

Turbodyne Europe GmbH will continue to have its office located in Frankfurt, Germany, where Markus Kumbrink and Maxime Kremer will continue to provide day to day support for Turbodyne’s business and shareholder interestsin Europe. 

Professor Dr.-Ing. Peter Hofbauer, Chairman of the Board of Turbodyne Technologies Inc., said, “The Board appreciates the contribution that Peter Kitzinski has made to the Company and respects the personal and privatereasons for his decision.” He added, “We are very pleased that he will continue to be an active Member of the Board of Directors.” 

Turbodyne Technologies Inc., a California based high technology company, specializes in the development of charging technology for internal combustion engines plus the development and manufacturing of high-tech assemblies forelectrically assisted turbochargers and superchargers. Turbodyne Technologies Inc.’s headquarters is located in Carpinteria, CA; the European business location is Frankfurt, Germany. 

Contacts: 

Kenneth Fitzpatrick, VP Group Finance—Investor Relations at Turbodyne Headquarters: (800) 566-1130 Markus Kumbrink, Turbodyne Frankfurt Investor Relations: +49-69-69-76-73-13 Peter Weichselbraun—Media Contactat Turbodyne Headquarters: (800) 566-1130

****
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3294 

To suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet black 661 liquid feed. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2005 

Mr. CASTLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet black 661 liquid 

feed. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PRO-JET BLACK 661 LIQUID FEED. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.13.01 Aryl substituted pyrazonyl 

[[[substituted phenyl 

azo]substituted naphthenyl] 

Azo phenyl]azo, sodium salt 

(PMN No. P03–78) (provided for in subheading 

3204.14.30) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 3294 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
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 appear ing therefore, Appellant is granted an extension of time

until December 30 , 20 2 2 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
§ 60.115 IRB Records. ( a ) An institution, or when appropriate an IRB, shall prepare and maintain adequate documentation of IRB activities, including the following: ( 1 ) Copies of all research proposals reviewed, scientific evaluations, if any, that accompany the proposals, approved sample consent forms, progress reports submitted by investigators, and reports of injuries to subjects.
( 2 ) Minutes of IRB meetings, which shall be in sufficient detail to show attendance at the meetings; actions taken by the IRB; the vote on these actions including the number of members voting for, against, and abstaining; the basis for requiring changes in or disapproving research; and a written summary of the discussion of controverted issues and their resolution.
( 3 ) Records of continuing review activities, including the rationale for conducting continuing review of research that otherwise would not require continuing review as described in § 60.109(f)(1).
( 4 ) Copies of all correspondence between the IRB and the investigators.
( 5 ) A list of IRB members in the same detail as described in § 60.108(a)(2).
( 6 ) Written procedures for the IRB in the same detail as described in § 60.108(a)(3) and (4).
( 7 ) Statements of significant new findings provided to subjects, as required by § 60.116(c)(5).
( 8 ) The rationale for an expedited reviewer's determination under § 60.110(b)(1)(i) that research appearing on the expedited review list described in § 60.110(a) is more than minimal risk.
( 9 ) Documentation specifying the responsibilities that an institution and an organization operating an IRB each will undertake to ensure compliance with the requirements of this policy, as described in § 60.103(e).
( b ) The records required by this policy shall be retained for at least 3 years, and records relating to research that is conducted shall be retained for at least 3 years after completion of the research. The institution or IRB may maintain the records in printed form, or electronically. All records shall be accessible for inspection and copying by authorized representatives of the Federal department or agency at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
Docket No: FA A - 2016 - 046 1 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 159 - AD
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Thomas Kirchner, certify that: 

  1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-KSB of FalconTarget, Inc.;  

  2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;  

  3) Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;  

  4) The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  

  a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based upon such evaluation; and  

  c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and  

  5) The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):  

  a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information and 

  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: October 12, 2007

By:   /s/   Thomas Kirchner 

    Thomas Kirchner

    Chief Executive Officer
#### Pete Afionis, Respondent, v. States Marine Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered, with costs to defendant-appellant unless plaintiff-respondent, within 10 days of notice of entry of the order entered herein, stipulates to reduce the verdict to $4,000, in which event the judgment, as thus modified, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the verdict of $12,000 is excessive. It was influenced in some part by the reception in evidence of medical opinion of conditions not pleaded or stated in the bill of particulars, e.g., an inflamed condition of the plaintiff’s gums and the aggravation of a kidney condition and by medical opinion expressing a vague possibility of a future detachment of the retina upon which the court reserved decision on a motion to strike out. The case went to the jury without decision on the motion and with this medical opinion left in the record. We are of opinion also that there was marked exaggeration of those injuries concerning which the proof was technically correct and within the pleadings. It is our duty, within the frame of our statutory power to review facts (Civ. Prac. Act, § 608), to evaluate the exeessiveness or inadequacy of jury verdicts. The power to interfere with verdicts which are against the weight of evidence has always been regarded an inherent power of the court, both at Trial Term and in the Appellate Division *(Schmidt*v. *Brown,*80 Hun 183; *Schroeder*v. *Syracuse Tr. Corp,,*9 A D 2d 1012). The fixing of an alternative amount which the court regards as being within the area which it would not regard as excessive is not a substitution of the court’s “ verdict ” for that of the jury. It is, rather, a procedural mechanism to the respondent’s advantage. He may follow the usual course upon the setting aside of a verdict held to be against the weight of evidence and go to a new trial;.or he may, if he is so advised, accept the alternative of the lower verdict and resulting judgment. Concur—■ Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally and Bergan, JJ.; Eager, J., dissents in part in the following memorandum : I dissent insofar as the court would reduce the verdict of $.12,000 to $4,000 on the plaintiff’s stipulation to accept a verdict in such lesser sum. I agree that, on the record here, the verdict is contrary to law and, in amount, is against the weight of the evidence. I cannot, however, agree to the drastic reduction in the verdict proposed by the court. The relevant and admissible testimony of the plaintiff and his experts would, in my opinion, if believed by the trier of the facts, warrant a verdict greatly in excess of the said sum of $4,000 but less than $12,000. If this be so, then the determination here amounts to no more than an effort to compromise the action, and this is not the function of an appellate court. Under the circumstances hero, where the fixing of plaintiff’s damages depends chiefly upon the resolving of issues of credibility which should be determined by a trier of the facts, I would unconditionally grant a new trial. Settle order on notice.
§ 891.135 Amount and terms of capital advances. ( a ) *Amount of capital advances.* The amount of capital advances approved shall be the amount stated in the notification of fund reservation, including any adjustment required by HUD before the final closing. The amount of the capital advance may not exceed the appropriate development cost limit.
( b ) *Estimated development cost.* The amount of the capital advance may not exceed the total estimated development cost of the project (as determined by HUD), less the incremental development cost associated with excess amenities and design features to be paid for by the Sponsor under § 891.120.
### §53409. Special rule regarding age of participating Fleet vessels

Any age restriction under section 53402(b)(4) of this title shall not apply to a participating Fleet vessel during the 30-month period beginning on the date the vessel begins operating under an operating agreement under this chapter, if the Secretary determines that the program participant for the vessel has entered into an arrangement to obtain and operate under the operating agreement for the participating Fleet vessel a replacement vessel that, upon commencement of such operation, will be eligible to be included in the Fleet under section 53402(b) of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 116–283, div. C, title XXXV, §3511(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4418.)
#### In re petition of Arthur J. Hoppe, insolvent debtor.

#### Arthur J. Hoppe, appellant, v. Sam Levenfeld, appellee.

Gen. No. 28,520.

Petition for release from imprisonment under Insolvent Debtor’s *599Act. Petitioner remanded to custody. Appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Frank S. Righeimer, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 2, 1923.

E. Leslie Cole and R. W. Marrow, for appellant. Morris M. Chaikin, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Laurie Laine, Respondent, v. Sutherland Press, Inc. et al., Appellants, Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion to rescind the order of this court, entered July 14, 1960. Order modified by extending appellants’ time to perfect appeal, file note of issue and file and serve record and brief to October 10, 1960, and to be ready for argument at the Term of this court commencing October 31, 1960.
**Exhibit 12**

 

**NEENAH PAPER, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

**STATEMENT REGARDING THE COMPUTATION OF**

**RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

**(Dollars in millions, except ratio ofearnings to fixed charges)**

 
| ** **                                                        | ** ** | **Year  Ended December 31,** | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                        | ** ** | **2009**                          | ** ** | **2008** | ** ** | **2007** | ** ** | **2006** | ** ** | **2005** | ** ** |
|                                                              |       |                              |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Income (loss) from continuing operations before taxes             |       | $                                 | (6.8       | ) | $ | (44.3 | ) | $ | 28.5 |   | $ | 28.8 |   | $ | 43.4 |   |
| Plus fixed charges                                                |       | 24.2                              |       | 26.0 |   | 26.1 |   | 19.8 |   | 18.7 |   |
| Numerator                                                         |       | $                                 | 17.4       |   | $ | (18.3 | ) | $ | 54.6 |   | $ | 48.6 |   | $ | 62.1 |   |
| Interest expense (including amortization of debt issuance  costs) |       | $                                 | 23.4       |   | $ | 25.0 |   | $ | 25.5 |   | $ | 19.4 |   | $ | 18.5 |   |
| Interest portion of rent expense (a)                              |       | 0.8                               |       | 1.0 |   | 0.6 |   | 0.4 |   | 0.2 |   |
| Fixed charges                                                     |       | $                                 | 24.2       |   | $ | 26.0 |   | $ | 26.1 |   | $ | 19.8 |   | $ | 18.7 |   |
|                                                              |       |                              |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (b)                            |       | —                            |       | — |   | 2.1 | x | 2.5 | x | 3.3 | x |

 

----

(a)                        Representsone-third of rent expense which is deemed to be the financing portion of thelease agreements.

(b)                       Thedeficit of earnings to fixed charges for the years ended December 31, 2009and 2008 was $6.8 million and $44.3 million, respectively.

 

----
### SUBCHAPTER II—RULES, REGULATIONS, ORDERS, AND STANDARDS
## ZUCKERT SCOUTT &- 

## RASENBERGER, L.L.P.

ATI'ORN E YS P:_T**Li~Vv** 888 Seventeenth Street, Nw, Washington, DC 20006-3309 Telephone [202] 298-8660 Fax [202] 342-0683 wwwzsrlawcom

JOHN E. GILLICK


### November 27, 2012



### Via regulations.gov and email

Esta Rosenberg, Esq. Division Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Office of International Aviation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 DIRECT DIAL (202) 973-7939 jegillick@zsrlaw.com



### Re: Application of Virgin America for a Statement of Authorization under 14 C.F.R. Part 212 (U.S.-Singapore); Docket OST-2012-0201

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

We have polled the air carrier representatives on the attached service list regarding the above-referenced Application and received no objections. Accordingly, we respectfully request expedited consideration ofthis Application.

cc: All parties listed on the attached service list. Very truly yours,

John E. Gillick Jonathon H. Foglia Counsel to Virgin America Inc.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing letter of Virgin America Inc. to be served, this 27th day ofNovember, 2012, via email transmission, on the following persons:

robei1.wirick@aa.coin rpommer(a),atlasair.coin sascha.vanderbellen@delta.conl

sam etta.c.bamett@delta.com chm1ers@evergreenairlines.co1n ranjit.seth@evergreenairlines.com robert.foster@evergreenairlines.com anbird@fedex.cmn gbleopard@fedex.com kevin.Inontgotnery@polaraircargo.com peter.beckett@polaraircargo .com jonathan.linde@united.com steve.monissey@,united.com dan.weiss@united.com lhalloway@crowell.com (Counsel for United Air Lines) gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United Air Lines) anita.mosner@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) jennifer.nowak@hklaw.coin (Counsel for United Parcel Service) howard kass@usairways.com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com mlbenge@zsrlaw.com (Counsel for World Airways/North American Airlines) john.allen@faa.gov urskr@state. gov susan.kurland@dot.gov esta.rosenberg@dot. gov brett.kruger@dot.gov todd.homan@dot.gov peter.irvine@dot.gov john.allen@faa.gov info@airlineinfo .com
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128630 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128630 COA: 251652 Kent CC: 03-004118-FH JONATHON ELSEY CURL, a/k/a JONATHON ELSBY CURL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 15, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6373

RICKY A. WALKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH WILSON, Assistant Warden, M.C.A.C.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge.

(CA-96-249-HAR)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky A. Walker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Walker v. Wilson, No. CA-96-249-HAR (D. Md. Feb. 26, 1996).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED