alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §41761. Purpose

The purpose of this subchapter is to improve service by jet aircraft to underserved markets by providing assistance, in the form of Federal credit instruments, to commuter air carriers that purchase regional jet aircraft for use in serving those markets.

(Added Pub. L. 106–181, title II, §210(a), Apr. 5, 2000, 114 Stat. 96.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable only to fiscal years beginning after Sept. 30, 1999, see section 3 of Pub. L. 106–181, set out as an Effective Date of 2000 Amendments note under section 106 of this title.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350
of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of NCO Group, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify with respect to
the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2005 (the "Report") 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.





Date:  November 9, 2005                 /s/ Michael J. Barrist
       ----------------                 -----------------------------------
                                        Michael J. Barrist
                                        Chief Executive Officer


Date:  November 9, 2005                 /s/ Steven L. Winokur
       ----------------                 -----------------------------------
                                        Steven L. Winokur
                                        Chief Financial Officer


         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         103,365
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  189,344
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                       7,063,621
<DEPRECIATION>                                 558,504
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,505,117
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                      5,228,015
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,060,119
<COMMON>                                     2,060,119
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,060,119
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,932,815
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               610,632
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  328,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,455
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             184,420
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 88,638
<INCOME-TAX>                                    88,638
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             88,638
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  7,024
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    66,083
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
<FN>
<F1>The Operating Partnership does not report using a classified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S. C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q Quarterly Report of Eldorado Resorts LLC and Eldorado Capital Corp. (collectively, the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: August 12, 2002 |  | By: |  | /s/DONALD L. CARANODonald L. Carano
Chief Executive Officer of Eldorado Resorts LLC
and Eldorado Capital Corp.
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
§ 285.706 How do I nominate a CVA for BSEE approval? ( a ) A CVA must be nominated by the lessee and approved by BSEE before conducting any verification or certification activities for which they have been nominated. If you intend to use multiple CVAs, you must nominate a general project CVA who will manage the overall project verification and certification approach and who will ensure consistency and oversight among the CVAs, especially in transition areas between different CVAs. The general project CVA must be nominated no later than COP submission. ( a ) A CVA must be nominated by the lessee and approved by BSEE before conducting any verification or certification activities for which they have been nominated. If you intend to use multiple CVAs, you must nominate a general project CVA who will manage the overall project verification and certification approach and who will ensure consistency and oversight among the CVAs, especially in transition areas between different CVAs. The general project CVA must be nominated no later than COP submission. ( b ) For each CVA that you nominate, you must submit to BSEE a list of documents used in your design that you will forward to the CVA and a qualification statement that includes the following: ( 1 ) Previous experience in third-party verification or experience in the design, fabrication, installation, or major modification of offshore energy facilities; ( 2 ) Technical capabilities of the individual or the primary staff for the specific project, including relevant professional licenses, certifications, and accreditations; ( 3 ) Size and type of organization or corporation; ( 4 ) In-house availability of, or access to, appropriate technology (including computer programs, hardware, and testing materials and equipment); ( 5 ) Ability to perform the CVA functions for the specific project considering current commitments; ( 6 ) Previous experience with BOEM and BSEE requirements and procedures, if any; and ( 7 ) The scope and level of work to be performed by the CVA, including all relevant reports and facilities that the CVA will verify or certify. ( c ) Individuals or organizations acting as CVAs must not function in any capacity that will create a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest. The CVA must not have prepared, or been directly involved in, any work related to the preparation of design, fabrication, installation, modification, or repair plans for which they will provide verification or certification services. ( d ) The verification and certification must be conducted by or under the direct supervision of a registered professional engineer. ( e ) BSEE will approve or disapprove your CVA as part of BOEM's review of your COP or, when required, of your SAP or GAP. ( f ) You must nominate a new CVA for BSEE approval if the previously approved CVA: ( 1 ) Is no longer able to serve in a CVA capacity for the project; or ( 2 ) No longer meets the requirements for a CVA set forth in this subpart. [88 FR 6413, Jan. 31, 2023, as amended at 89 FR 42717, May 15, 2024]
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.815 Subsurface safety devices in shut-in wells—dry trees. ( a ) You must equip all new dry tree completions (perforated but not placed on production) and completions that are shut-in for a period of 6 months with one of the following: ( 1 ) A pump-through-type tubing plug;
( 2 ) A surface-controlled SSSV, provided the surface control has been rendered inoperative; or
( 3 ) An injection valve capable of preventing backflow.
( b ) When warranted by conditions such as permafrost, unstable bottom conditions, hydrate formation, and paraffin problems, the District Manager must approve the setting depth of the subsurface safety device for a shut-in well on a case-by-case basis.
800 Independence Ava., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

October 17, 2011 

Mr. Richard L. Newman 

Post Office Box 23 

Lexington Park, MD 20653 

Dear Mr. Newman: 

We reviewed the July 5, 2010, petition for rulemaking that you posted to the Department of 

Transportation’s Federal Docket Management System (Docket No. FAA-2010-0718). Your 

petition seeks changes to § 25.351(d) Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

You suggested redefining the yaw maneuver condition to include “rudder control is 

suddenly reversed to full opposite deflection” instead of “rudder control is suddenly returned 

to neutral.” 

You provided rationale based on two events; the American Airlines flight 587 accident and 

Air Canada flight 190 incident. You mentioned evidence that indicates that changes to 

training programs, regarding the use of rudder control, may not be effective, even though the 

changes were made after the American Airlines flight 587 accident. 

As a result of the American Airlines flight 587 accident, the FAA promotes improved 

training. The FAA also required changes to the operational limitations for in-service 

airplanes, and Amendment 25-130, Maneuvering speed limitation statement (75 FR 49815), 

added a new part 25 standard that reads as follows: 

Section 25.1583(a)(3)(ii): Rapid and large alternating control inputs, especially in 

combination with large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, and full control inputs in more than 

one axis at the same time, should be avoided as they may result in structural failures at any 

speed, including below the maneuvering speed. 

In addition, the FAA is using the issue paper process, defined in FAA Order 8110.4C, Type 

Certification, to request that applicants account for reversed pedal inputs throughout the 

flight envelope for new type certification programs. The FAA now ensures that all new 

programs are evaluating rudder pedal reversal using the issue paper process. 

Although we appreciate your concern, your proposal only addresses a single reversal and 

may not adequately address the issue. We are considering rulemaking action to address 

rudder usage and this item will be considered. 
2

The FAA has determined that the issue identified in your petition is a safety concern. 

However, we are denying your request for rulemaking because (1) your proposed standard 

may not be adequate, (2) the FAA is already addressing new type certification programs 

through the issue paper process, (3) we have proposed improved operating limitation 

standards to address control reversals, and (4) we are considering rulemaking action in the 

area of design standards to address rudder usage concerns. 

Based on the above, we are closing Docket No. FAA-2010-0718. We will put your 

comments and arguments for rule change in a database, which we will examine as we 

consider future rulemaking. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frank P. Paskiewicz 

Acting Deputy Director 

 Aircraft Certification Service
### §24701. National rail passenger transportation system

Amtrak shall operate a national rail passenger transportation system which ties together existing and emergent regional rail passenger service and other intermodal passenger service.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 923; Pub. L. 105–134, title I, §101(a)(1), Dec. 2, 1997, 111 Stat. 2572.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 24701(a) | 45:561(b). | Oct. 30, 1970, Pub. L. 91–518, §401(b), 84 Stat. 1335. |
| 24701(b) | 45:561(c). | Oct. 30, 1970, Pub. L. 91–518, §401(c), 84 Stat. 1335; Nov. 3, 1973, Pub. L. 93–146, §9, 87 Stat. 551. |

Section

In subsection (a), before clause (1), the text of 45:561(b) (1st sentence words after 3d comma) is omitted as obsolete because no regional transportation authority provided intercity rail passenger transportation after May 1, 1971. The words "On May 1, 1971" and "begin" are omitted as executed. The words "between points" and "either" are omitted as surplus. In clause (2), the words "under contract with Amtrak" are substituted for 45:561(b) (last sentence) for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words. The words "at any time subsequent to May 1, 1971" are omitted as executed.

In subsection (b), the words "concerning auto-ferry service . . . railroad or any other" are omitted as surplus.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1997—Pub. L. 105–134 substituted section catchline for former catchline which read "Operation of basic system" and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows:

"(a) By Amtrak.—Amtrak shall provide intercity rail passenger transportation within the basic system unless the transportation is provided by—

"(1) a rail carrier with which Amtrak did not make a contract under section 401(a) of the Rail Passenger Service Act; or

"(2) a regional transportation authority under contract with Amtrak.

"(b) By Others With Consent of Amtrak.—Except as provided in section 24306 of this title, a person may provide intercity rail passenger transportation over a route over which Amtrak provides scheduled intercity rail passenger transportation under a contract under section 401(a) of the Act only with the consent of Amtrak."
#### Nereus Shipping Company, S. A., Respondent, v. Johnson & Higgins, Inc., Appellant.

Order, entered on April 15, 1960, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 and subdivision 6 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and Noonan, JJ.
### §30128. Vehicle rollover prevention and crash mitigation

(a) In General.—The Secretary shall initiate rulemaking proceedings, for the purpose of establishing rules or standards that will reduce vehicle rollover crashes and mitigate deaths and injuries associated with such crashes for motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of not more than 10,000 pounds.

(b) Rollover Prevention.—One of the rulemaking proceedings initiated under subsection (a) shall be to establish performance criteria to reduce the occurrence of rollovers consistent with stability enhancing technologies. The Secretary shall issue a proposed rule in this proceeding by rule by October 1, 2006, and a final rule by April 1, 2009.

(c) Occupant Ejection Prevention.—

(1) In general.—The Secretary shall also initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish performance standards to reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants from outboard seating positions. In formulating the standards the Secretary shall consider various ejection mitigation systems. The Secretary shall issue a final rule under this paragraph no later than October 1, 2009.

(2) Door locks and door retention.—The Secretary shall complete the rulemaking proceeding initiated to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, relating to door locks and door retention, no later than 30 months after the date of enactment of this section.

(d) Protection of Occupants.—One of the rulemaking proceedings initiated under subsection (a) shall be to establish performance criteria to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216 relating to roof strength for driver and passenger sides. The Secretary may consider industry and independent dynamic tests that realistically duplicate the actual forces transmitted during a rollover crash. The Secretary shall issue a proposed rule by December 31, 2005, and a final rule by July 1, 2008.

(e) Deadlines.—If the Secretary determines that the deadline for a final rule under this section cannot be met, the Secretary shall—

(1) notify the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce and explain why that deadline cannot be met; and

(2) establish a new deadline.

(Added Pub. L. 109–59, title X, §10301(a), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1939.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of enactment of this section, referred to in subsec. (c)(2), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 109–59, which was approved Aug. 10, 2005.

#### Codification

Section 10301(a) of Pub. L. 109–59, which directed that this section be added at the end of subchapter II of chapter 301, without specifying the title to be amended, was executed by adding this section at the end of subchapter II of this chapter, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
#### James H. Mansfield *vs.*Alexander M. Fleck.

June 16, 1876.

Practice — Offer of Judgment. — When an offer of judgment is made, and served, pursuant to Gen. St. *c.*66, *\*241, the plaintiff has ten full days thereafter, excluding the day of service, in ■which to accept or reject the offer, and to give notice thereof in case of acceptance. In case the trial is begun before the expiration of this period, without any action by the plaintiff upon the offer, it thereby becomes ineffectual for any purpose.

This action was brought in the district court for Mower county, and ivas regularly on the calendar for trial at the March term, 1875. On March 2d — the first day of the term — the defendant duly served an offer to allow judgment to be taken against him for $100, and costs to the date of the offer. The offer was not accepted. On March 12th the cause was tried by a jury, and plaintiff had a verdict for but $50. The defendant thereupon objected to any costs being taxed against him, and claimed that, as the verdict was less than his offer, his costs and disbursements should be taxed against the plaintiff, and deducted from the verdict. The district court, *Page,*J., presiding, overruled defendant’s objection and claim, and held that the plaintiff ivas entitled to costs. Judgment was entered accordingly, and the defendant appealed.

*E. 0. Wheeler,*for appellant.

*Crandall & French,*for respondent.

Cornell, J.

An offer of judgment, pursuant to Gen. St. *c.*66, § 241, to be of any effect upon the recovery of costs occasioned by the trial, must be made and served ten days before the commencement of the trial. The plaintiff is entitled to the full period of ten days in which to accept or reject the offer, and, in case of acceptance, to give notice thereof. *Pomeroy*v. *Hulin,*7 How. Pr. 161. In ascertaining this period, the day of service of the offer must be excluded, (Gen. St. *c.*66, § 68,) and the trial must be *62regarded as a single point of time identical with its commencement. The offer in this case was served March 2d, and the trial of the action regularly commenced on the 12th of the same month. As the plaintiff had the whole of this latter day in which to decide upon the question of acceptance or rejection, and, in case of acceptance, to give notice thereof, it follows that the offer came too late to be effectual for any purpose.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 99.3

                        Report of Independent Accountants



To the Board of Directors of Ford Motor Credit Company:


Re: Amended and Restated Transfer and Servicing Agreement among Ford Credit
Floorplan LLC, as Transferor, Ford Credit Floorplan Master Owner Trust A, as
Issuer, Ford Motor Credit Company, as Servicer, dated as of December 19, 2002

We have examined management's assertion about Ford Motor Credit Company and its
subsidiaries' ("Ford Credit") compliance with the minimum servicing standards
identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP"), to the extent such procedures
are applicable as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004 included in the
accompanying management assertion (Exhibit I). Management is responsible for
Ford Credit's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about Ford
Credit's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about Ford Credit's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination of Ford Credit's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Ford Credit has complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 7, 2005

<PAGE>

                                                                       Exhibit I



Ford Motor Credit Company                                    One American Road
                                                             P.O. Box 1732
                                                             Dearborn, MI  48121




                  Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance
                     with USAP Minimum Servicing Standards


March 7, 2005


Re: Amended and Restated Transfer and Servicing Agreement among Ford Credit
Floorplan LLC, as Transferor, Ford Credit Floorplan Master Owner Trust A, as
Issuer, Ford Motor Credit Company, as Servicer, dated as of December 19, 2002


As of and for the year ended December 31, 2004, Ford Motor Credit Company and
its subsidiaries have complied in all material respects with the minimum
servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP"), to
the extent such procedures are applicable.





/s/ Terry Chenault
-----------------------------------------
President of Global Operations Technology




/s/ Neil Schloss
-----------------------------------------
Assistant Treasurer
Order entered June 17 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 1 2
- 0 1325
- CR
SERGIO PAR A MO , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No. F1 1
- 53228
- M



### O RDER
The Court ORDER S court reporter Debi Harris to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental record containing a copy of State’s Exhibit no. 4, a CD with photos.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Debi Harris, Deputy Official Court Reporter, 194th Judicial District Court, and to counsel for all parties.
/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE