alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON DC 

United Airlines, Inc. 

Complainant, 

v. 

The Port of Authority of New York 

and New Jersey 

Respondent. 

ERRATA ORDER 

FAA Docket No. 16-14-13 

On February 18, counsel for Complainant, United Airlines, Inc., filed a Motion pursuant to 

14 CFR § 16.19, requesting an extension of time to March 27, to Answer Respondents' 

Motion for Summary Judgment (Reply). 

Counsel advised that the Complainant needs the additional time in order to adequately 

respond to the Respondent's allegations, assertions, and relief requested in the 

Respondent's Motion for Swnmary Judgment Dismissing the Complaint. Counsel further 

advised that the Respondent does not oppose this request for an extension of time. 

Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition of airport-related 

complaints. [See, Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement 

Proceedings, Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (October 16, 1996).] The rule provides that 

an extension of time may be granted where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete 

consideration of matters before the agency. See 14 CFR § 16.ll(a). 

An extension of time is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, Complainant is 

hereby granted an extension of time in which to file its Reply. The Complainant's Reply is 

now due on March 27, 2015 

/ 

., 1r,_t 0at fn 

/ Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport 

Date 

Compliance and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 23, 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail 

(first class, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy of the foregoing Order addressed to: 

Counsel for Respondent 

Carlene V. Mcintyre, Assistant General Counsel 

Arnold D. Kolikoff, Attorney 

Faith Tabafunda, Attorney 

THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY 

Law Department 

225 Park Avenue South, 14th Floor 

New York, NY I 0003 

Counsel for Complainant 

Keith J. Harrison, Esq. 

Gerald F. Murphy, Esq. 

Steven J. Seiden, Esq. 

CROWELL & MORING LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Robert S. Span, Esq. 

Alan K. Steinbrecher, Esq. 

Sophy Chen, Esq. 

STEINBRECHER & SPAN LLP 

1155 F Street, N.W., Suite 1050 

Washington, DC 20004 

Hand-Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00
#### § 57.5046 Protection against radon gas.

Where radon daughter concentrations exceed 10 WL, respirator protection against radon gas shall be provided in addition to protection against radon daughters. Protection against radon gas shall be provided by supplied air devices or by face masks containing absorbent material capable of removing both the radon and its daughters.
UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

WEST BAY ONE, INC., P laintif f,
v. Civil Action No. 10-481 (RMC/JMF ) ENID EDDING S; CRYSTAL PA BREZIS; and DOE S 1-726, Defendan ts.

MEMORAN DUM ORD ER Fr an L aker

(“L aker ”) ha s become awa re of the exist ence of a subpoe na ser ved upon an Interne t Service Provider

(“I SP”) that might disclose whe ther he downloaded illeg ally a film. 1 Plaintiff is the copy

rig ht owner of

this film and served that subpoe na. As the matter now

stands, L aker

has not y et bee n named a s a def endant but has move d to quash the subpoena

on the g rounds that (1) the subpoena w as not serve d on him; (2) he lives more than 100 miles fr om the District of Columbia; (3) the subpoena s “imposed an undue burden on Mova

nts that raises sig nificant c onstitut ional questions;” and (4) the under lying c ase must be dismis sed for

lack of persona l jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction and mootness. Motion t o Quash Subpoens [sic] [#100] at 1. Acc ordingto L aker , “[i] t is im proper to impose on a third par

ty the burde n of any

subpoena . . . in a id of a c ase that does not belongin this Court i n the first plac e.” I d.

“F ran” may

be a ma n or woman’ s name. I

am guessinga man a

nd apolog ize if Ihave guessed 1 wrong .First, L aker relies on Rule 45 of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e, but the rights g rante d by

that Rule may

be asse rted only

by the per son subject to the subpoena , unless a privileg e in the matter s to be disclosed is asser ted by a third par

ty . Novak v. Capital Mg mt. & Deve lopment Corp., 241 F.R.D 389, 394 (D.D .C. 2007). The only possible “privileg e” that L aker could claim is in the disclosure by the I SP of his i dentity
. But, that ship has sailed; L aker 2 has identified himself on the public r ecor d, obviating a ny conce rn about his “privacy ”. Second, L aker

has not bee n serve d with the subpoena a nd it does not impose any burden on him whatsoever . I f L aker is trying to move to dismiss the case for lac k of jurisdiction over his person or the subje ct matter, he will have to wait until he is in fact named as a defe ndant. As J udg e Colly er ha s pointed out, the def enses he may

have to liability

are not at issue mere ly 3 beca use a subpoe na wa s serve d on an I SP. I t is therefor e, her eby , ORDERED that the Motion to Quash Subpoens [s ic] [ #100] i s DENIED. I note that L aker , if named a s a def

endant, r eser

ves all of the de fense s he may have to this ac tion. SO ORDERED.

_____________________________ JOHN M. F ACCIOLA UNITED STAT ES MAGISTRATE JUDG E

J udg e Colly er ha s conclude d, as have many other judg es, that there is no such privileg e. West 2 Ba y One, Inc. v. Doe s 1-1,653, 270 F.R.D. 13, 15 ( D.D.C. 2010). See Memora

ndum Opinion [ #36] at 5. 3 23
<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


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Panavision Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald O. Perelman,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (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/ RONALD O. PERELMAN
--------------------------------
Ronald O. Perelman
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4446

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JOSE ROSA CAMPA-MACIAS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:06-cr-00070-FDW-1) 

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 23, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

David L. Hitchens, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID L. HITCHENS, PLLC, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Jose Rosa Campa-Macias pled guilty to possession with 

intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting in 

violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009) 

and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006) and was sentenced to seventy-one months 

of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there 

are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following 

issue: whether Campa-Macias voluntarily consented to the search 

of his vehicle which contained the drugs at issue. 

 By pleading guilty Campa-Macias has waived all 

antecedent non-jurisdictional defects, including the denial of a 

motion to suppress. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 

(1973); United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir. 

1993). Once a plea of guilty has become final, this Court’s 

inquiry is limited to whether the underlying plea was counseled 

and voluntary. United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 

(1989). Our review of the record reveals Campa-Macias knowingly 

and voluntarily pled guilty. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in 

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

2 
3 

United States for further review. If the client requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave 

to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state 

that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
#### § 580.29 Will BOEM monitor the environmental effects of my activity?

We will evaluate the potential of proposed prospecting or scientific research activities for adverse impact on the environment to determine the need for mitigation measures.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer, 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 The Dixie Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 1, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) that he is the Chief Executive Officer of the Company and 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



/s/DANIEL K. FRIERSONDaniel K. Frierson, Chief Executive Officer
Date:    May 9, 2006



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Dixie Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Dixie Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Gasoline Distribution

              																	United States. Congress. Joint Economic Committee. Subcommittee on Consumer Economics					 and 	Ninety-Third Congress, 1973-1975. 						*Gasoline Distribution : Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Consumer Economics of the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, Ninety-Third Congress, Second Session, March 12 and 14, 1974*,												Washington: 								U.S. Government Printing Office, 										March 12 and 14, 1974,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/895,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION



I, Bernard Kravitz certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dionics, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuers other certifying officers 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Dated:    July 14, 2008

By:

/s/ Bernard Kravitz

Bernard Kravitz,

Principal Financial Officer
#### § 56.18012 Emergency telephone numbers.

Emergency telephone numbers shall be posted at appropriate telephones.
§ 560.221 When does a lease issued in a sale held after November 2000 get a royalty suspension? ( a ) We will specify any royalty suspension for your RS lease in the Notice of OCS Lease Sale published in the Federal Register for the sale in which you acquire the RS lease and will repeat it in the lease document. In addition: ( 1 ) Your RS lease may produce royalty-free the royalty suspension we specify for your lease, even if the field to which we assign it is producing.
( 2 ) The royalty suspension we specify in the Notice of OCS Lease Sale for your lease does not apply to any other leases in the field to which we assign your RS lease.
( b ) You may apply for a supplemental royalty suspension for a project under 30 CFR part 203, if your lease is located: ( 1 ) In the Gulf of Mexico, in water 200 meters or deeper, and wholly west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude; or
( 2 ) Offshore of Alaska.
( c ) Your RS lease retains the royalty suspension with which we issued it even if we deny your application for more relief.
[76 FR 64623, Oct. 18, 2011. Redesignated at 81 FR 18175, Mar. 30, 2016]
Report of Independent Accountants

To the Shareholders and Trustees of
The Berwyn Funds

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of The
Berwyn Funds (the "Funds") for the year ended December 31, 2001 we
considered their internal controls, including control activities for
safeguarding securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures
for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements
 and to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to
provide assurance on internal control.

The management of the Funds is responsible for establishing
and maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally, controls
 that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's objective of preparing
financial statements for external purposes that are fairly presented in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America.  Those controls include the
safeguarding of assets against unauthorized acquisition, use or
disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or fraud
may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any evaluation
of internal control to future periods is subject to the risk that controls
may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the
effectiveness of their design and operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily disclose
all matters in internal control that might be material weaknesses under
 standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants.  A material weakness is a condition in which the design or
operation of one or more of the internal control components does not
reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by
error or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to the
financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected
within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing
their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters involving
internal control and its operation, including controls for safeguarding
securities, that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined above
 as of December 31, 2001.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Trustees,
management and the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not
intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
February 18, 2002
1

2
### §2425. Government access to information on Administration computers

#### (a) Procedures required

The Administrator shall establish procedures to govern access to information on Administration computers. Those procedures shall, at a minimum, provide that any individual who has access to information on an Administration computer shall be required as a condition of such access to provide to the Administrator written consent which permits access by an authorized investigative agency to any Administration computer used in the performance of the duties of such employee during the period of that individual's access to information on an Administration computer and for a period of three years thereafter.

#### (b) Expectation of privacy in Administration computers

Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any provision of law enacted by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–508; 100 Stat. 1848)), no user of an Administration computer shall have any expectation of privacy in the use of that computer.

#### (c) Definition

For purposes of this section, the term "authorized investigative agency" means an agency authorized by law or regulation to conduct a counterintelligence investigation or investigations of persons who are proposed for access to classified information to ascertain whether such persons satisfy the criteria for obtaining and retaining access to such information.

(Pub. L. 106–65, div. C, title XXXII, §3235, Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 961; Pub. L. 113–66, div. C, title XXXI, §3145(c), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 1071.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 99–508, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1848. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1986 Amendment note set out under section 2510 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and Tables.

#### Amendments

2013—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 113–66 inserted "(Public Law 99–508; 100 Stat. 1848)" after "of 1986".