alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
www.jrtechnologies.com

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590

DOCKET: DOT-OST-2013-0048

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF IATA RESOLUTION 787

22-April-203

Dear Sir, Dear Madam,

We are writing to you in support of the Travel Industry New Distribution Capability 

(NDC). JR Technologies is a small business concern primarily engaged in software 

development and providing back office services to the travel industry.

From a technology provider’s perspective, NDC opens vast new business opportunities 

for competing technologies and innovation. More immediately, in today’s environment 

airlines are developing new capabilities for their own websites without following any 

particular standard. This state of affairs potentially requires us to develop as many direct 

connect solutions as there are airlines. This is not an economically viable scenario and 

prevents our travel agency customers from competing with airlines’ own web sites and 

most importantly from providing their passengers with specific information regarding the 

flights and services and amenities that are available for consideration.

NDC offers a standard through which we would have access to a reliable information 

stream. This enables our customers to compete by offering content rich dynamic 

information to consumers faster and cheaper and to provide consumers with more 

information about fare alternatives, ancillary services, and on board amenities. As a 

common XML based data transmission standard, NDC will make it easier for us to 

access airline data and build applications allowing our customers to better compare and 

contrast complete airline offers.

Sincerely,

George Khairallah

President

From the Desk of

George Khairallah

Tel: +1-248-686-9822

24701 Swanson Road

Southfield, MI 48033
#### § 1202.53 Minimum royalty.

For leases that provide for minimum royalty payments, the lessee shall pay the minimum royalty as specified in the lease.
Exhibit 99.1

Annual Statement of
ComplianceProtective Life Secured Trust 2004-B (the "Trust")

I, Millie
Cicero, a duly elected and acting officer of The Bank of New York ("Indenture Trustee"), do hereby certify on
behalf of the Indenture Trustee, that:

1.     I
have reviewed and examined the performance by the Indenture Trustee of the
collection and distribution of trust money pursuant to
Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the Indenture
pursuant to which the Trust's notes (the "Notes") were issued during the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2004 (the "Relevant
Year"); and

2.     Based
upon my review and examination described in 1 above, and except as provided in the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, dated March 30, 2005, prepared by the Trust's
independent registered public accounting firm in accordance with Section 10 of the Expense and Indemnity
Agreement, to the best of my knowledge, the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to noteholders
pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the
Indenture was performed in a satisfactory manner in all material respects
throughout the Relevant Year.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Indenture Trustee

|By: |  | /s/MILLIE CICERO
      Name:  Millie
      CiceroTitle:    Assistant Treasurer |  |  |  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | 

Date:  March 30, 2005
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/25

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 77.38 W Meters AGL
## THE STATE OF TEXAS MANDATE

TO THE 124TH DISTRIC T COURT OF GREGG COU NTY, GREETINGS: Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 10th day of April, A.D. 2018, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined;
and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Troy Michael Robino, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 17

- 00173

- CR

Trial Court No. 45775

- B

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We note that the appellant, Troy Michael Robino, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs. WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed. WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Co urt of Appeals, with the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 6th day of June , A.D. 2018

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
#### WORTHINGTON, Respondent, v. DUTCH DECORATIVE ART CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

Action by Paul B. Worthington against the Dutch Decorative Art Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Modified.

Stern, Singer & Barr, for appellant.

W. H. Dodd, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The evidence established the plaintiff’s acquiescence in the reduction of his salary subsequent to January 10, 1903, and the judgment should be reduced by $60, representing 12 weeks’ work at $5 per week; that sum being the difference between the original rate of $25 and the reduced rate of $20. The judgment should be modified by reducing it to $130.87, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal. Judgment modified by reducing amount of recovery to the sum of $130.87, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4780

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus FITZROY GUNTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CR01-514-RDB) Submitted: April 19, 2004 Decided: April 29, 2004 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Daniel W. Stiller, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, David I. Salem, Barbara S. Skalla, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Fitzroy Gunter appeals his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), marijuana possession with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and aiding and abetting marijuana possession with intent to distribute, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000). On appeal, Gunter asserts the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence, based on the circumstances of his consent to the search. We review a district court’s legal conclusions underlying a suppression determination de novo, and its factual determinations for clear error. United States v. Sterling , 283 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2002). First, Gunter asserts his consent to the search of his residence exposed him only to liability for violations of state law, not federal law. This argument is meritless. See generally United States v. Boone , 245 F.3d 352, 362 (4th Cir. 2001); see also Florida v. Jimeno , 500 U.S. 248, 251 (1991). Second, Gunter asserts his consent resulted from a custodial interrogation that took place before the police advised him of his rights. The district court rejected Gunter’s assertion based on testimony from the arresting police officer, and the court’s credibility determination is not subject to appellate- 3 - review. See, e.g. , United States v. Beidler , 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm Gunter’s convictions and sentence. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 92.303 Tenant participation plan.

A community housing development organization that receives assistance under this part must adhere to a fair lease and grievance procedure approved by the participating jurisdiction and provide a plan for and follow a program of tenant participation in management decisions.
§ 20.6 General requirements. ( a ) The lamps shall be durable in construction, practical in operation, and suitable for the service for which they are designed and approved.
( b ) The intensity of light, distribution of light, and battery capacity shall be adequate for the use for which the lamp is intended.
( c ) Battery terminals and leads therefrom, as well as the battery gas vents, shall be designed to minimize corrosion of the electrical contacts.
( d ) Bulbs and other replacement parts of the lamps shall be adequately marked as a means of identification.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSingle-Shot Spectrally Resolved UV Rayleigh Scattering Measurements in High Speed FlowA single-shot UV molecular Rayleigh scattering technique to measure velocity in high speed flow is described. The beam from an injection-seeded, frequency quadrupled Nd:YAG laser (266 nm) is focused to a line in a free air jet with velocities up to Mach 1.3. Rayleigh scattered light is imaged through a planar mirror Fabry-Perot interferometer onto a Charged Coupled Device (CCD) array detector. Some laser light is also simultaneously imaged through the Fabry-Perot to provide a frequency reference. Two velocity measurements are obtained from each image. Multiple-pulse data are also given. The Rayleigh scattering velocity data show good agreement with velocities calculated from isentropic flow relations.Document ID19970003004Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsSeasholtz, Richard G.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland,OH United States)*Date AcquiredAugust 17, 2013Publication DateJuly 8, 1996Subject CategoryInstrumentation And PhotographyReport/Patent NumberE-10426NASA--TM 170323NAS 1.15: 170323Meeting InformationMeeting: International Symposium on Applications of Laser techniques to Fluid MechanicsLocation: LisbonCountry: PortugalStart Date: July 8, 1996End Date: July 11, 1996Sponsors:Instituto Superior TecnicoAccession Number97N11779Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-50Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970003004.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
SCPW-22-0000685 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

________________________________________________________________ 

IN RE RONALD CARLSON 

________________________________________________________________ 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.) 

 On November 7, 2022, Ronald Carlson filed a document 

in this court that appears to petition for a writ of coram nobis 

concerning a federal criminal case (CR. No. 98-00091 DAE). This 

court does not have jurisdiction to vacate and set aside federal 

criminal convictions and judgments. See Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes 

§ 602-5 (2016). 

 It is ordered that the petition is dismissed. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 20, 2023. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

 /s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson 

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-22-0000685

20-JAN-2023

08:30 AM

Dkt. 10 ODDP
#### § 970.23 Costs of demolition and relocation of displaced tenants.

Where HUD has approved demolition of a project, or a portion of a project, and the proposed action is part of a program under the Capital Fund Program (24 CFR part 905), the costs of demolition and of relocation of displaced residents may be included in the budget funded with capital funds pursuant to section 9(d) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1437g(d)) or awarded HOPE VI or other eligible HUD funds.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward Campbell, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for enlargement of time to perfect appeal, granted; time enlarged to the March Term, commencing February 27, 1961; appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with the periodic report
      of Delta Financial Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
      June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), I, Hugh Miller, Chief Executive 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; and





2.
            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:  August
        13, 2007





/s/
        Hugh Miller


Hugh
      Miller


*President
      and Chief Executive
      Officer*
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with the periodic report of Delta Financial Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Hugh Miller, Chief
      Executive 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;
                and





2.
            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
      14, 2005













Hugh
      Miller


*President
      and Chief Executive Officer*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Jeff Wang, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of China Finance Online Co.
     Limited;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material fact or omit 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
     report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

     (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
          company, 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)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the company'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; and

     (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
          over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
          the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over
          financial reporting; and

5.   The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
     most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
     company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the company's internal
          control over financial reporting.


Date: June 5, 2008

/s/ Jeff Wang

---------------------
Name: Jeff Wang
Title: Chief Financial Officer

                                       2
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 31096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12682]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  10:00 a.m., Friday, June 20, 2014.

PLACE:  1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance, Enforcement Matters, and 
Examinations. In the event that the times, dates, or locations of this 
or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along 
with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, 202-
418-5964.

Natise Allen,
Executive Assistant.
[FR Doc. 2014-12682 Filed 5-28-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
#### FROST, Respondent, v. HOE et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April Term, 1903.)

Action by Morris Frost, by Sadie Frost, his guardian ad litem, against Robert Hoe and Charles W. Carpenter, doing business under the firm name of R. Hoe & Co.

PER CURIAM.

Order modified as directed in opinion, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. [Nothing for publication in this case.]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Elliott, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 260]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered June 13, 2005, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and aggravated criminal contempt, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to create a record sufficient to permit appellate review of his claim that certain incriminating statements that he made to the police were obtained in violation of his right to counsel *(see People v Kinchen,*60 NY2d 772, 773-774 [1983]; *People v Flournoy,*303 AD2d 762 [2003]). Furthermore, the defendant’s contention that those statements were obtained in violation of his right to remain silent is without merit *(see People v Stanley,*292 AD2d 472, 473 [2002]; *People v Rumph,*260 AD2d 156, 157 [1999]). In addition, the totality of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statements supports the hearing court’s conclusion that they were voluntarily made *(see People v Huntley,*15 NY2d 72, 78 [1965]). Accordingly, the hearing court correctly denied suppression of those statements.

The defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may, in part, not be reviewed on direct appeal because it involves matters dehors the record *(see People v Ruiz,*36 AD3d 722 [2007]). Insofar as we are able to review the defendant’s claim, the defendant was provided with meaningful representation *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 714 [1998]; *People v Thomas,*244 AD2d 271 [1997]).

The defendant’s contentions with respect to his adjudication as a persistent felony offender are without merit *(see*CPL 400.20 [3]; *see also*CPLR 4518 [a]). Furthermore, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, *66485-87 [1982]). Crane, J.P., Krausman, Covello and Garni, JJ., concur.
### §4308. Termination of unsafe operation

If an official charged with the enforcement of this chapter observes a recreational vessel being operated without sufficient lifesaving or firefighting devices or in an overloaded or other unsafe condition (as defined in regulations prescribed under this chapter) and, in the judgment of the official, the operation creates an especially hazardous condition, the official may direct the individual in charge of the recreational vessel to take immediate and reasonable steps necessary for the safety of individuals on board the vessel, including directing the individual in charge to return to a mooring and to remain there until the situation creating the hazard is corrected or ended.

(Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 532; Pub. L. 99–307, §1(9), May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 445.)

| Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
| --- | --- |
| 4308 | 46:1462 |

Section 4308 authorizes an appropriate official to terminate the unsafe operation of recreational vessels. If the official observes the vessel being operated without sufficient lifesaving or firefighting devices or in an overloaded or other unsafe condition (as defined in regulations) and believes the operation creates an especially hazardous condition, the operator may be directed to take immediate and reasonable steps necessary for safety, including returning to a mooring and remaining there until the hazard is corrected or ended. This does not prevent the assessment of any applicable civil penalties nor the pursuing of appropriate criminal action.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–307 substituted "individual in charge" for "operator" in two places.
ON SOLID BLOCK DIAGRAM 

SANITIZED