alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §41308. Exemption from the antitrust laws

(a) Definition.—In this section, "antitrust laws" has the same meaning given that term in the first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12).

(b) Exemption Authorized.—When the Secretary of Transportation decides it is required by the public interest, the Secretary, as part of an order under section 41309 or 42111 of this title, may exempt a person affected by the order from the antitrust laws to the extent necessary to allow the person to proceed with the transaction specifically approved by the order and with any transaction necessarily contemplated by the order.

(c) Exemption Required.—In an order under section 41309 of this title approving an agreement, request, modification, or cancellation, the Secretary, on the basis of the findings required under section 41309(b)(1), shall exempt a person affected by the order from the antitrust laws to the extent necessary to allow the person to proceed with the transaction specifically approved by the order and with any transaction necessarily contemplated by the order.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1128.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 41308 | 49 App.:1384. | Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, §414, 72 Stat. 770; restated Oct. 24, 1978, Pub. L. 95–504, §30(a), 92 Stat. 1731; Feb. 15, 1980, Pub. L. 96–192, §27, 94 Stat. 47. |
| | 49 App.:1551(a)(6) (related to 49 App.:1384). | Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, 72 Stat. 731, §1601(a)(6) (related to §414); added Oct. 4, 1984, Pub. L. 98–443, §3(c), 98 Stat. 1704. |
| | 49 App.:1551(b)(1)(C) (related to 49 App.:1384). | Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, 72 Stat. 731, §1601(b)(1)(C) (related to §414); added Oct. 24, 1978, Pub. L. 95–504, §40(a), 92 Stat. 1745; Oct. 14, 1982, Pub. L. 97–309, §4(b), 96 Stat. 1454; Oct. 4, 1984, Pub. L. 98–443, §3(a), 98 Stat. 1703. |

Section

Subsection (a) is substituted for "the 'anti-trust laws' set forth in subsection (a) of section 12 of title 15" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

In subsection (b), reference to 49 App.:1378 and 1379 is omitted as obsolete.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3480

To direct the President to withdraw from the Dominican Republic-Central 

America-United States Free Trade Agreement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2005

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To direct the President to withdraw from the Dominican 

Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 

Agreement.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Trade for All 

5 Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL FROM DR-CAFTA. 

7 Pursuant to article 22.7 of the Dominican Republic8 Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement, 

9 entered into on August 5, 2004, with the Governments 

10 of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gua-
2

•HR 3480 IH 

1 temala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, the President of the 

2 United States shall withdraw the United States from that 

3 Agreement.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.27F

                  LETTER SUPPLEMENTAL TO SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT
                RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
                     PAKISTAN LIMITED DATED 17TH JULY, 1997

We, International Wireless Communications Limited ("IWC") and South Asia
Wireless Communications (Mauritius) Limited ("South Asia") refer to:

     1.   the shareholders agreement of even date hereto (the "Shareholders
          Agreement") between ourselves relating to our investment in
          International Wireless Communications Pakistan Limited ("IWC
          Pakistan"); and

     2.   the share purchase agreement of even date hereto (the "Share Purchase
          Agreement") between Motorola International Development Corporation and
          IWC Pakistan relating to the purchase of shares in Pakistan Mobile
          Communications (Pvt.) Ltd. ("PMCL").

We agree that notwithstanding any other provision of the Shareholders Agreement,
South Asia alone shall have the right to determine whether or not IWC Pakistan:

     (a)  elects to postpone Closing of the Share Purchase Agreement until 16th
          September, 1997 by reason of the License not having been re-issued by
          13th August, 1997 (the "License Condition"); and

     (b)  exercises its right by 13th September, 1997 not to acquire the shares
          in PMCL pursuant to the Share Purchase Agreement 1997 by reason of the
          License Condition not having been fulfilled. 

It is further agreed that if the License Condition is not fulfilled and South
Asia shall on behalf of IWC Pakistan decide that IWC Pakistan shall not complete
the purchase of the shares in PMCL under the Share Purchase Agreement, South
Asia shall procure that the shares held by it in IWC Pakistan are forthwith
transferred at cost to IWC and that the directors nominated by it to the board
of IWC Pakistan forthwith resign. 


/s/ Robin Maule               
----------------------------------------------
for and on behalf of
International Wireless Communications Limited

/s/ Antonio Yeung             
----------------------------------------------
for and on behalf of
South Asia Wireless Communications (Mauritius) Limited 

Dated 16th July, 1997
§ 28.10 Application procedures. ( a ) Each applicant seeking approval of a fuse for use with direct current in providing short-circuit protection for trailing cables shall arrange for submission, at applicant's own expense, of the number of fuses necessary for testing to a nationally recognized independent testing laboratory capable of performing the examination, inspection, and testing requirements of this part.
( b ) The applicant shall insure, at his own expense, that the examination, inspection, and testing requirements of this part are properly and thoroughly performed by the independent testing laboratory of his choice.
( c ) Upon satisfactory completion by the independent testing laboratory of the examination, inspection, and testing requirements of this part, the data and results of such examination, inspection, and tests shall be certified by both the applicant and the laboratory and shall be sent for evaluation of such data and results to the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Approval and Certification Center, 765 Technology Drive, Triadelphia, WV 26059. Fees calculated in accordance with part 5 of this title shall be submitted in accordance with § 5.40.
( d ) The certified data and results of the examinations, inspections, and tests required by this part and submitted to MSHA for evaluation shall be accompanied by a proposed plan for quality control which meets the minimum requirements set forth in Subpart D of this part.
( e ) Each applicant shall deliver to MSHA at his own expense, three fuses of each size and type which may be necessary for evaluation of the examination, inspection, and test results by the Bureau.
( f ) Applicants or their representatives may visit or communicate with Approval and Certification Center in order to discuss the requirements for approval of any fuse, or to obtain criticism of proposed designs; no charge shall be made for such consultation and no written report shall be issued by MSHA as a result of such consultation.
[37 FR 7562, Apr. 15, 1972, as amended at 43 FR 12316, Mar. 24, 1978; 52 FR 17515, May 8, 1987; 60 FR 35694, July 11, 1995; 70 FR 46343, Aug. 9, 2005; 73 FR 52212, Sept. 9, 2008]
Editorial Note on Part 1206
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1206 (formerly part 206) appear at 67 FR 19111, Apr. 18, 2002.

§ 1206.118 What reporting adjustments must I make for transportation allowances? ( a ) If your actual transportation allowance is less than the amount that you claimed on form ONRR-2014 for each month during the allowance reporting period, you must pay additional royalties due, plus late payment interest calculated under §§ 1218.54 and 1218.102 of this chapter from the date when you took the deduction to the date when you repay the difference.
( b ) If the actual transportation allowance is greater than the amount that you claimed on form ONRR-2014 for any month during the period reported on the allowance form, you are entitled to a credit plus interest.
----

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

|   | (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/                Peter T.                Socha                                                   Peter                T. Socha President                and Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### § 56.6308 Initiation systems.

Initiation systems shall be used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
§ 254.45 Verifying the capabilities of your response equipment. ( a ) The Regional Supervisor may require performance testing of any spill-response equipment listed in your OSRP to verify its capabilities if the equipment: ( 1 ) Has been modified;
( 2 ) Has been damaged and repaired; or
( 3 ) Has a claimed effective daily recovery capacity that is inconsistent with data otherwise available to BSEE.
( b ) You must conduct any required performance testing of booms in accordance with BSEE-approved test criteria. You may use the document “Test Protocol for the Evaluation of Oil-Spill Containment Booms,” available from BSEE, for guidance. Performance testing of skimmers also must be conducted in accordance with BSEE approved test criteria. You may use the document “Suggested Test Protocol for the Evaluation of Oil Spill Skimmers for the OCS,” available from BSEE, for guidance.
( c ) You are responsible for any required testing of equipment performance and for the accuracy of the information submitted.
[76 FR 64462, Oct. 18, 2011, as amended at 81 FR 36153, June 6, 2016]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (the “Commission”) is suspending all in-person hearings, settlement judge conferences, and mediations until May 31, 2021.

# DATES:

*Applicable:*                         December 9, 2020.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sarah Stewart, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, at (202) 434-9935.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In view of the risks presented by the novel coronavirus COVID-19, the Commission's Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge (“OCALJ”) is, effective December 9, 2020, suspending all in-person hearings, settlement judge conferences, and mediations until May 31, 2021.

At the discretion of the presiding administrative law judge and in coordination with the parties, hearings may proceed by videoconference or by telephone. Similarly, settlement judge conferences and mediations may be held by videoconference or by telephone. If the parties agree that an evidentiary hearing is not needed, cases may also be presented for a decision on the record.

The parties will be notified if the hearing needs to be rescheduled. OCALJ will reassess the risks presented by in-person hearings prior to May 31, 2021, and issue a subsequent order informing the public as to whether the suspension of in-person hearings will continue.

The presiding administrative law judge may be contacted with questions regarding this notice.

Authority:30 U.S.C. 823.

Dated: December 9, 2020.

Sarah L. Stewart,

Deputy General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

[FR Doc. 2020-27491 Filed 12-14-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Jackson, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 6, 1975 (the date on the clerk’s extract is March 13, 1975), convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of grand larceny in the third degree, and the sentence imposed thereon, and the said count is dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. Since it clearly appears that, under the facts of this case, defendant could not have committed robbery in the first degree without also having committed grand larceny in the third degree, the guilty verdict as to the former count required the dismissal of the latter count as a matter of law (see CPL *300.40,*subd 3, par [b]; *People v Grier,*37 NY2d 847; *People v Johnson,*54 AD2d 586). Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Margett and O’Con-nor, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Herbert H. Weitz, an Attorney.

Motion (1) for leave to open the default of respondent on the motion to confirm the Referee’s report; (2) to vacate the order of disbarment; (3) for leave to reargue the *452motion to confirm; and (4) for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order of this court dated July 6, 1960, confirming the Referee’s report and disbarring the respondent is denied in all respects. The arguments and alleged assignments of error sought to be advanced by the respondent have been fully considered on the merits and found to be without substance. Moreover, respondent misconceives this court’s holding with respect to finding him responsible for the acts of the partnership. In doing so it was found as a fact that respondent must have known of and concurred in the acts committed by his partner. Thus, even assuming that respondent has made out a sufficient case for opening the default, which he has not, there is no warrant for doing so on the merits. Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
# Fourth Court of App eals

San Antonio, Texas

April 8, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00685

- CR

Dennis AVELAR

- SOLORANO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR0605

Honorable Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presid ing



### O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief

is due on or before June 8, 2020 . No further extensions will be granted absent extenuating

circumstances.

_______________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the sa id

court on this 8th day of April, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
April 6, 2012 

Mr. Larry E. Williams 

President and CEO 

Ballistic Recovery Systems 

1110 Brickel Avenue, Suite 603 

Miami, FL 33131 

Dear Mr. Williams: 

This is in response to your April 29 and June 16, 2011, letters sent to the public docket 

(No. FAA-2011-0492) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS). 

On March 21, 2012, you sent an email to Mr. Dan Bachelder of the Aircraft Maintenance 

Division. In your email you stated that it will serve as the formal notification that BRS 

agrees to withdraw its petition for exemption. 

Therefore, the FAA will take no further action on your petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James M. Crotty 

Acting Manager, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division 

cc: 

Mr. Boris Popov
§ 553.31 How can I use a surety bond as OSFR evidence? ( a ) Each bonding company that issues a surety bond that you submit to BOEM as OSFR evidence must: ( 1 ) Be licensed to do business in the State in which the surety bond is executed;
( 2 ) Be certified by the U.S. Treasury Department as an acceptable surety for Federal obligations and listed in the current Treasury Circular No. 570;
( 3 ) Provide the surety bond on Form BOEM-1020; and
( 4 ) Be in compliance with applicable statutes regulating surety company participation in insurance-type risks.
( b ) A surety bond that you submit as OSFR evidence must include all the information required by § 553.41.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

s0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

139188

_____________ _______________ _____________

In re WALTER D. BALENGER.

_____________ _______________ _____________ WALTER D. BALENGER, Deceased, HARRY BALENGER, MIKE BALENGER, GREG BALENGER, DEBBIE VARGO, ANNA NICKELL, SCOTT BALENGER, and TRICIA BALENGER, Appellees,

v SC: 139188 COA: 284438 Delta Probate Court: 05-020136-DE WENDY BALENGER, Personal Representative of the Estate of WALTER D. BALENGER, Deceased, Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 21, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00366

- CR

Eric Gerard Holmes Jr.

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1085668D )

March 27, 2014

Opinion by Justice Gardner

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s j udgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Anne Gardner

__________________ Justice Anne Gardner
## SUBTITLE VI—MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS

#### PART A—GENERAL

Chapter
Sec.
301.
Motor Vehicle Safety
30101
303.
National Driver Register
30301
305.
National Motor Vehicle Title Information System
30501

#### PART B—COMMERCIAL

311.
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety
31101  1

313.
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators
31301
315.
Motor Carrier Safety
31501
317.
Participation in International Registration Plan and International Fuel Tax Agreement
31701

#### PART C—INFORMATION, STANDARDS, AND REQUIREMENTS

321.
General
32101
323.
Consumer Information
32301
325.
Bumper Standards
32501
327.
Odometers
32701
329.
Automobile Fuel Economy
32901
331.
Theft Prevention
33101

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1997**—Pub. L. 105–102, §2(17), Nov. 20, 1997, 111 Stat. 2205, substituted "National Motor Vehicle Title Information System" for "National Automobile Title Information System" in item for chapter 305.

1  So in original. Probably should be "31100".
#### Etta Eysaman, Respondent, v. Town of Little Falls, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. (Appeal from judgment of Herkimer Trial Term for plaintiff in a negligence action. The order denies a motion to set aside the verdict and for dismissal of the complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
·-..:- 

# NorthwestAlabama CouncilofLocal Governments

Keith Jones ExecutiveDirector 

### kjones@nwscc.edu 

### (256) 389-0500 (256) 389-0599- Fax May4,2012 Mr. Dennis DeVany Chief, Essential Air Service Division Office ofAviation Analysis DepartmentofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue SE, Washington, D.C. 20590 

### P.O. Box 2603, Muscle Shoals,Alabama35662

Reference; DOT-OST-2008-0209, 2001-10685,2009-0305, 2000-7856 Greenville, MS, laurel/Hattiesburg, MS, Tupelo, MS and Muscle Shoals, AL EAS Dear Mr. DeVany, RogerHayes Chairman Jerry Groce Vice Chairman

The Northwest Alabama Council of local Governments wishes to lend its support to the proposal of Silver Airways to provide essential airservice at Muscle Shoals, Alabama as replacement forcurrent Delta Air Lines service. Local air service that provides an effective connection to the national and international air transportation system is critical to the economic well-being ofthe Shoals Area and the NACOLG regjon. The 37 municipalities and counties we represent rely on our local airservice for both business and leisure travel. The Silver Airways proposals offer us a modern 34-seat turboprop aircraft and flights to Atlanta, which is not only the largest hub airport in the world but also a popular business and leisure travel destination from the NACOLG region in its own right. We believe the Silver air service proposals represent the best option for retaining our local air service long term and building up traffic so that governmentsubsidies can eventually be reduced or eliminated. We urge the Department ofTransportation to award SilverAirways the designation to provide Muscle Shoals, Alabama's essential airservice.

Planning for the Future of NorthwestAlabama www.nacolg.com