alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 110–162—DEC. 26, 2007 121 STAT. 2457 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3470: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Nov. 13, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–162 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 744 West 

Oglethorpe Highway in Hinesville, Georgia, as the ‘‘John Sidney ‘Sid’ Flowers 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JOHN SIDNEY ‘‘SID’’ FLOWERS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 744 West Oglethorpe Highway in Hinesville, 

Georgia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘John Sidney ‘Sid’ 

Flowers Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘John Sidney ‘Sid’ Flowers Post Office Building’’. 

Approved December 26, 2007. 

Dec. 26, 2007 

[H.R. 3470] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
### §510d. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 111–11, title IX, §9605, Mar. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 1349.)
#### HAVERHILL BOX BOARD CO., Respondent, v. COY, HUNT & CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 26, 1905.)

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District. Action by the Haverhill Box Board Company against Coy, Hunt & Co. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed. Robinson & Robinson, for appellant. J. S. Lehmaier, for respondent.

DAVIS, J.

The action was brought to recover the purchase price of certain paper board manufactured by the plaintiff and delivered to defendant on or about November 17, 1903. The defendant admitted the purchase and delivery of these goods, and nonpayment, but seeks to recover damages on four counterclaims, based upon the failure of the plaintiff to fill certain orders for paper sent to them by the defendant and accepted by the plaintiff. As a consequence of plaintiff’s failure to fill these orders, the defendant claims it had to go into the open market and at an increased price buy other paper to meet the demands of its customers, to whom it had previously sold the paper ordered from plaintiff in reliance upon the plaintiff’s promise to deliver within a reasonable time. The plaintiff admitted the receipt and acceptance of these matters, but claimed that the deliveries under them were conditioned upon its being able to obtain pulp to make the paper. The defendant denied this, and by many material questions put to witnesses sought to prove the execution of these orders for the purpose of introducing them in evidence. Upon objection to these questions by the plaintiff, the defendant was not permitted by the court to do this. In sustaining these objections, the court erred many times, to the serious harm of the defendant. Under the circumstances, the judgment should be reversed, with costs to the appellant. Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

SCOTT, J., concurs.

MacLEAN, J.

I concur in the result. Almost if not every one of the questions disallowed by the learned justice implied conclusions or assumptions of facts not proven.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               8
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,604
<PP&E>                                         483,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                 211,601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 311,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,722
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,079
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   311,703
<SALES>                                         23,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,279
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,377
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,054
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,054
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,054
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Robert Summerville *v.*Warden, State Prison

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14649.

*PaulaManginiMontonye,*assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

*Judith Rossi,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided November 25, 1992

The petitioner Robert Summerville’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 29 Conn. App. 162 (AC 10114), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that it should not decide the issue of whether an ineffective investigation by a defense expert witness in a fashion that impairs the petitioner’s defense is impugned to the defense attorney?”
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IMPSAT Fiber Networks on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Héctor Alonso, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,that: 

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

2. The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the registrant. 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by theregistrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

 

Date: May 17, 2004 

 

/s/ Héctor Alonso

Héctor Alonso 

Chief Financial Officer
### §763b. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–34, §2, July 12, 2005, 119 Stat. 377

Section, Pub. L. 87–624, title VI, §623, as added Pub. L. 106–180, §3, Mar. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 53, related to specific criteria for INTELSAT separated entities.
July 8, 2015

Terry Donohue

4028 Sierra Drive Honolulu, HI 96816

Dear Terry Donohue:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 29 th 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 2304), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Brittany Newton Program Analyst, Airmen and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY

ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Firearms Training Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronavan Mohling, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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 Company.



/S/ Ronavan MohlingRonavan MohlingChairman of the Board of Directors andChief Executive OfficerAugust 15, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,613
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,560
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,389
<INVENTORY>                                      2,874
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,006
<PP&E>                                         237,073
<DEPRECIATION>                                  76,869
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,207
<BONDS>                                        122,262
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,020
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,624
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,759
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   252
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,151
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,151
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,151
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1


Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and


Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code


In connection with the Annual Report of OHA Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steve T. Wayne, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:


|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

|    |                                                                                                                                                     
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 14, 2017/s/ STEVEN T. WAYNESteven T. WaynePresident and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OHA Investment Corporation and will be retained by OHA Investment Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Devany, Dennis (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Dennis 

Doug Voss <dvoss@flygreatlakes.com> 

Monday, June 11, 2012 8:37 AM 

Devany, Dennis (OST) 

chow ell @flygreatlakes.com 

RHI-INL-BRD-IMT 

DOT-~T- \""\'1-~ l 1-!:) 

Dor- os.r- 2..01 \- D\t>5" 

D or- osr~ 2.oo'\ · ooo4 

DDT- o~T- z.o ~ t- Olej 

Pursuant to our recent conversations, please consider this e-mail supporting documentation to encourage The Department of Transportation (DOT) to issue a 

new Request for Proposals (RFP) for the following Essential Air Service Routes: 

1. Rhinelander, Wisconsin (RHI) 

2. International Falls, Minnesota (INL) 

3. Brainerd, Minnesota (BRD) 

4. Iron Mountain, Michigan (IMT) 

Great Lakes has since November 23rd 2011, with the issuance of DOT Order 2011-11-30, initiated service to Ten cities from its newly reestablished 

Minneapolis/Saint Paul Hub. With DOT Order 2011-12-6 

dated December 14th 2011 and its short term- short notice emergency selection of Great Lakes to replace Delta Connection at Devils Lake ND on December 1ih 

2011, the company began an aggressively accelerated expansion of its operations. Simultaneously to this expansion the company and Delta Airlines have been 

reengineering it's Reservations System Platforms to facilitate a unique business model that does not rely on a Code Sharing relationship. 

Great Lakes has during this period in time seen its operational perform suffer from a very aggressive expansion rate and believes it must allow some time for our 

MSP Hub system to mature. 

The new business model which relies on significant revisions to the traditional distribution channel methods also requires us to help the communities we are 

serving learn new methods, previously unseen in this industry, for purchasing air travel. Significant enhancements to the new systems, including things such as 

the Delta Sky Miles frequent flyer program are still works in progress. 

MSP Gate and Hub facilities have also become a serious concern for Great Lakes. The new business model requires by its design, ease of connectivity to all major 

carriers serving the Hub to be a prerequisite. Significant ramp space issues- on a going forward basis- would suggest to us that we not add the remaining four 

EAS markets until such time as we are certain that the facilities are available to accommodate the size of the operation. 

While we will continue to be aggressive about the development of our MSP operation, we do not wish to hinder communities from considering alternatives to 

our MSP hub selection and the corresponding near term issues associated with its development. 
If you have any questions regarding this memo please do not hesitate to contact us! 

t])ougfas (j. o/oss 

Chairman and President 

Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 

1022 Airport Parhvay 

Cheyenne, WY 82001 

Office: (307) 432-7010 

Fax: (307) 432-7001 

9 

2
§ 1241.60 Am I subject to a penalty without prior notice and an opportunity to correct? ( a ) We may assess a penalty for a violation identified in paragraph (b) of this section without prior notice or first giving you an opportunity to correct the violation. We will inform you of a violation without a period to correct by issuing an ILCP explaining: ( 1 ) What the violation is.
( 2 ) The amount of the civil penalty. The civil penalty for such a violation begins running on the day it was committed.
( b ) ONRR may assess a civil penalty of up to: ( 1 ) $30,461 per day, per violation for each day that the violation continues if you: ( i ) Knowingly or willfully fail to make any royalty payment by the date specified by statute, regulation, order, or a term of the lease.
( ii ) Fail or refuse to permit lawful entry, inspection, or audit, including refusal to keep, maintain, or produce documents.
( 2 ) $76,155 per day, per violation for each day that the violation continues if you knowingly or willfully prepare, maintain, or submit a false, inaccurate, or misleading report, notice, affidavit, record, data, or any other written information.
( c ) We may use any information as evidence that you knowingly or willfully committed a violation, including: ( 1 ) The act and failure to act of your employee or agent.
( 2 ) An email indicating your concurrence with an issue.
( 3 ) An order that you did not appeal or an order, NONC, or ILCP for which no further appeal is available.
( 4 ) Any written or oral communication, identifying a violation which: ( i ) You acknowledge as true and fail to correct.
( ii ) You fail to or cannot further appeal and fail to correct.
( iii ) You correct, but you subsequently commit the same violation.
[81 FR 50316, Aug. 1, 2016, as amended at 82 FR 18860, Apr. 24, 2017; 83 FR 2909, Jan. 22, 2018; 84 FR 8418, Mar. 8, 2019; 85 FR 7223, Feb. 7, 2020; 86 FR 7810, Feb. 2, 2021; 87 FR 1673, Jan. 12, 2022; 88 FR 2522, Jan. 17, 2023; 89 FR 3886, Jan. 22, 2024]
AUTHORIZATION

        Know all by these presents, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and
appoints each of John M. Lowber, Bonnie J. Paskvan, and Alfred J. Walker,
signing singly, the undersigned's true and lawful attorney-in-fact to:

(1) execute for and on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigned's capacity
as an affiliate of General Communication, Inc. (the "Company"), Form 4, in
accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
rules thereunder;

(2) do and perform any and all acts for and on behalf of the undersigned which
may be necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such Form 4, complete
and execute any amendment or amendments thereto, and timely file such form with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any stock exchange or
similar authority; and

(3) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the
foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit to,
in the best interest of, or legally required by, the undersigned, it being
understood that the documents executed by such attorney-in-fact on behalf of the
undersigned pursuant to this Power of Attorney shall be in such form and shall
contain such terms and conditions as such attorney-in-fact may approve in such
attorney-in-fact's discretion.

        The undersigned hereby grants to each such attorney-in-fact full power
and authority to do and perform any and every act and thing whatsoever
requisite, necessary, or proper to be done in the exercise of any of the rights
and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents and purposes as the
undersigned might or could do if personally present, with full power of
substitution or revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such
attorney-in-fact, or such attorney-in-fact's substitute or substitutes, shall
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this power of attorney and the
rights and powers herein granted. The undersigned acknowledges that the
foregoing attorneys-in-fact, in serving in such capacity at the request of the
undersigned, are not assuming, nor is the Company assuming, any of the
undersigned's responsibilities to comply with Section 16 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

        This Power of Attorney shall remain in full force and effect until the
undersigned is no longer required to file Form 4, with respect to the
undersigned's holdings of and transactions in securities issued by the Company,
unless earlier revoked by the undersigned in a signed writing delivered to the
foregoing attorneys-in-fact.


                                   1
<PAGE>
        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to
be executed as of this 6th day of October 2004.


                                 /s/
                                 ------------------------
                                 Signature


                                 Jerry A. Edgerton
                                 ------------------------
                                 Print Name
### §§822, 823. Repealed. July 3, 1950, ch. 446, §5(2), 64 Stat. 320

Section 822, act Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 145, §34, 39 Stat. 960, related to origin of bills and resolutions.

Section 823, acts Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 145, §34, 39 Stat. 960; May 17, 1932, ch. 190, 47 Stat. 158, related to enacting clauses of bills and resolutions.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal of sections 822 and 823 effective July 25, 1952, see note set out under section 732 of this title.
### §10501. Application

(a) Except for a vessel to which chapter 103 of this title applies, this chapter applies to a vessel of at least 50 gross tons as measured under section 14502 of this title, or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of this title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of this title on a voyage between a port in one State and a port in another State (except an adjoining State).

(b) This chapter does not apply to a vessel on which the seamen are entitled by custom or agreement to share in the profit or result of a voyage.

(c) Unless otherwise provided, this chapter does not apply to a foreign vessel.

(Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 570; Pub. L. 104–324, title VII, §738, Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3941.)

| Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
| --- | --- |
| 10501 | 46:574 |

Section 10501 specifies that vessels over 50 gross tons that are not subject to chapter 103 and are engaged on voyages between two states (except for adjoining states) are subject to the provisions of this chapter. Specifically excluded are foreign vessels and vessels on which seamen share the profits.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–324 inserted "as measured under section 14502 of this title, or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of this title as prescribed by the Secretary under section 14104 of this title" after "50 gross tons".