alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Gorman, Robert (05T)

Thursday, April 17, 2014 5:21 PM

Robert Silverberg; Darren Martin; Alec.Bramlett@aa.com

Robbie Samstein; Hammonds, Karla (OST)

RE:Motion for Leave for Supplemental Filings - Martin and Samstein - American Airlines

- April 14, 2014

p~

'- ~~-.

Gentlemen,

After reviewing Mr. Martin's and Mr. Samstein's motion for leave to file supplemental filings, and American's response

thereto, the motion is granted, as follows:

1. Mr. Martin and Mr. Samstein are permitted to file a joint reply, not to exceed five pages and limited to

responding to the statements of American in its consolidated answer, by April 25, 2014.

2. American is permitted to file a final surreply, not to exceed five pages and limited to the statements in the

reply. This surreply shall be filed within 10 days of the filing of the reply.

A copy of this email will be placed in the docket.

Regards,

Robert M. Gorman

Senior Trial Attorney

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, C-70

Office of the General Counsel

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

West Building 96-413

Washington, DC 20590

Office: 202-366-9350

E-mail: robert.gorman@dot.gov

From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberg@sgbdc.com]

. Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 20144:03 PM

To: Darren Martin; Gorman, Robert COST); Alec.Bramlett@aa.com

Cc: Robbie Samstein

Subject: RE: Motion for Leave for Supplemental Filings - Martin and Samstein - American Airlines - April 14, 2014

Mr. Martin and Mr. Samstein,

Attached please find American's answer to your motion for leave to file supplemental filings.

Regards

Bob Silverberg

1
------- -------- --- -----------------------------

from: Darren Martin [mailto:darren martin02115@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:13 PM

To: Robert.Gorman@dot.gov; Robert Silverberg; Alec.Bramlett@aa.com

Cc: Robbie Samstein

Subject: Motion for Leave for Supplemental Filings - Martin and Samstein - American Airlines - April 14, 2014

Dear sirs,

Please find attached the following motion which was filed on Regulations.gov earlier today.

Thank you,

Darren Martin

2
#### MARCHESE, Respondent, v. BELL TELEPHONE CO. OF BUFFALO, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

Action by Gugliemo Márchese against the Bell Telephone Company of Buffalo.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### § 1801.2 Definitions.

For purposes of this part, the following terms have the meanings indicated:

*NACIC* means the United States National Counterintelligence Center acting through the NACIC Information and Privacy Coordinator;

*Days* means calendar days when NACIC is operating and specifically excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays. Three (3) days may be added to any time limit imposed on a requester by this part if responding by U.S. domestic mail; ten (10) days may be added if responding by international mail;

*Control* means ownership or the authority of NACIC pursuant to federal statute or privilege to regulate official or public access to records;

*Coordinator* means the NACIC Information and Privacy Coordinator who serves as the NACIC manager of the information review and release program instituted under the Privacy Act;

*Federal agency* means any executive department, military department, or other establishment or entity included in the definition of agency in 5 U.S.C. 552(f);

*Interested party* means any official in the executive, military, congressional, or judicial branches of government, United States or foreign, or U.S. Government contractor who, in the sole discretion of NACIC, has a subject matter or physical interest in the documents or information at issue;

*Maintain* means maintain, collect, use, or disseminate;

*Originator* means the U.S. Government official who originated the document at issue or successor in office or such official who has been delegated release or declassification authority pursuant to law;

*Privacy Act* or *PA* means the statute as codified at 5 U.S.C. 552a;

*Record* means an item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by NACIC in a system of records;

*Requester* or *individual* means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who is a living being and to whom a record might pertain;

*Responsive record* means those documents (records) which NACIC has determined to be within the scope of a Privacy Act request;

*Routine use* means, with respect to the disclosure of a record, the use of such record for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which the record is maintained;

*System of records* means a group of any records under the control of NACIC from which records are retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to that individual.
Structured Asset Trust Unit Repackagings (SATURNS), Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp. 
  Series 2003-1 Trust Amends Trust Agreement and Seeks Withdrawal of Listing


CUSIP: 80411A201
Symbol: DKG

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:July 25, 2005



NEW YORK, NEW YORK  Structured Asset Trust Unit Repackagings (SATURNS), Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp. Series 2003-1 Trust (the Trust) (New York Stock Exchange Ticker Symbol DKG), announced today that an amendment has been entered into with respect to the documents governing the Trust and its Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp. Series 2003-1 Callable Units (the
Units). The Amendment sets forth certain conditions under which the Trust may remain outstanding following the termination of reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp., the issuer
  of the debentures held by the Trust; rather than be liquidated in accordance with the previous terms of the Trust. An application has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by MS Structured Asset Corp. as depositor of the Trust
  (MSSAC) for withdrawal from listing of the Units on the New York Stock Exchange, and subject to such withdrawal MSSAC expects to terminate its reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in relation to the Trust.
  Notice of MSSACs application has not yet been published in the Federal Register.

Under the terms of the Amendment, holders of the Units will have the right until August 8, 2005 to elect liquidation of the Trust separately with respect to their Units. MSSAC has sent a notice explaining terms of the election and
liquidation right to existing holders of the Units, and filed a copy of such notice with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This announcement is not an offer to purchase or the solicitation of an offer to purchase with respect to any securities.

|Contact:                          |  |                                                
|--------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|LaSalle Bank National Association |  | Andy Streepey, ABS Trust Services, 312-904-9387

---
§ 947.764 Process for designating areas unsuitable for surface coal mining operations. ( a ) Part 764 of this chapter, *State Processes for Designating Areas Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining Operations,* pertaining to petitioning, initial processing, hearing requirements, decisions, data base and inventory systems, public information, and regulatory responsibilities shall apply to surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
( b ) The Secretary shall notify the Washington Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Ecology of any area designated unsuitable or for which such designation has been requested or terminated.
#### Felix Youssoupoff, Appellant-Respondent, v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

Order, entered on June 20, 1963, denying plaintiff’s motion and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs, upon the ground that neither side in our opinion made out a case for summary judgment. The circumstances surrounding the broadcast are not fully disclosed by the affidavits. We cannot determine from the record before us whether the broadcast represented a fictionalization of the historic facts nor whether the broadcast itself was for commercial purposes to bring it within the proscription of sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law. We decide no other question. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally and Stevens, JJ.; Eager and Steuer, JJ., concur in the following memorandum by Steuer, J.: We are of the opinion that this ease presents no issue of fact and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover. It appears that in January, 1963, defendant telecast a dramatic production entitled “If I Should Die.” The production depicted the killing of Rasputin. Plaintiff was depicted by an actor and mentioned by name. The production was undoubtedly based on an actual occurrence in which plaintiff admittedly participated. Furthermore, the incident depicted was an event of historical import. On the other hand, the production was fictionalized in that the dialogue, the settings, and the appearance, expression and gestures of the actors were all the result of the imagination of the writers and the producers of the presentation. This was a use of plaintiff’s name for the purposes of trade, admittedly without his permission. Unless it comes within some exception to sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law, it is actionable. While the statute makes no exception for informative or news broadcasts, these are excepted and television enjoys the same immunity accorded to other media *(Gautier*v. *Pro-Football,*304 N. Y. 354). ' The immunity granted in respect to informative matter does not extend *866to dramatized or fictionalized versions- of the event -reported *(Binns*v. *Vitagraph Co. of Amer.,*210 N. Y. 51). Nevertheless, we do not feel constrained to dissent from the holding of the majority. Summary judgment is a particularly inept form of relief in most actions of this character. Concededly, the issue of damages is to be left open for trial. And the evidence to establish damage almost invariably is the same evidence required to establish the cause of action. The relief afforded by summary judgment is therefore illusory. No time or effort of either the court or the litigants is spared by resort to it. There are rare eases in which its use may be justified. Instances would be where the plaintiff sought vindication only and was satisfied by nominal damages, and the rare instance where the proof of the infringement of the right involved elements that did not affect the quantum of the recovery. This is not such a case. As the application here does not further plaintiff’s recovery in point of time, or in dispensing with otherwise unneeded proof, the interests of justice are unaffected by the refusal to grant it to him.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,602,717
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,602,717
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,095,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           98,954
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,997,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,095,968
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,147,872
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               749,191
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                398,681
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            398,681
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   398,681
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 1905.3 General. ( a ) No employee shall produce any materials or information in response to a demand without prior authorization as set forth in this part. This part applies to former employees to the extent consistent with applicable nondisclosure agreements.
( b ) This part is intended only to provide procedures for responding to demands for production of documents or information, and is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the United States.
# C_2023320EN.01000301.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/3

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1716 and in Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1715 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses

(2023/C 320/03)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1716 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998 (3) as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1715 (4), concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses.

1

2

3

4

The Council of the European Union has decided that those persons should be included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities, and bodies subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 and Regulation (EU) 2020/1998. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2020/1998, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 25 September 2023, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council's periodic review, pursuant to Article 10 of Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 410 I, 7.12.2020, p. 13.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 221 I, 8.9.2023, p. 6.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 410 I, 7.12.2020, p. 1.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 221 I, 8.9.2023, p. 1.

4

---
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 of DYNASIL CORPORATION OF AMERICA
(the "Company") on Form 10Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Craig T Dunham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Paul
J. Weaver, Chief Financial 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 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 result of
  operations of the Company.

                             /s/ Craig T Dunham
                       -------------------
                       Craig T Dunham
                            President and Chief Executive
                            Officer

                            /s/ Paul J. Weaver
                       -------------------
                       Paul J. Weaver
                       Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2009
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, INDEPENDENT**

**REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-44204, 333-34648, 33-86930, 33-90392, 33-96620,33-97490, and 333-132447) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-45118, 333-40508, 333-44212, 33-41027, 333-13387, 333-13359, 333-13357, 33-80988, 333-56244, 333-48110, 333-35276, 333-34622, 333-94999, 333-92885, 333-87039, 333-55983, 333-55991, 333-34671,333-81414, 333-102747, 33-80992, 33-94790, 333-133830, 333-115123, and 333-128427) of our reports dated March 8, 2006, August 16, 2006 as to the effects of the restatement discussed in Note 2 and subsequent events discussed in Note 18 (whichreport expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement discussed in Note 2), relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of PMC-Sierra, Inc. andmanagement’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of PMC-Sierra, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Independent Registered Public Accountants 

Vancouver, Canada 

August 16, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet as of May 3, 1997, and the condensed
consoldiated statement of operations for the 13 weeks ended May 3, 1997, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                         159,300
<SECURITIES>                                    10,100
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    206,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               397,100
<PP&E>                                         346,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                 202,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 603,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,200
<OTHER-SE>                                    (41,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   603,500
<SALES>                                        224,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               224,000
<CGS>                                          158,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.77)
        

</TABLE>
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Lancer Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-36393 and 333-47998) on Form S-8 of Lancer Corporation of our report dated
March 7, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Lancer Corporation
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss),
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2001, and related consolidated financial statement schedule, which report
appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Lancer
Corporation.

Our report refers to a change in the Company's method of accounting for
derivative instruments and hedging activities.

                                                 KPMG LLP

San Antonio, Texas
March 29, 2002
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05237**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  05237\05237_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 05237\05237_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

05237\Certification Statement Plant ID 05237.pdf Plant certification statement 05237\Supporting Documents\KU-TY - Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05237\05237_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05237\05237_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### Cecily I. Hammer v. Paul D. Hammer.

The motion to amend the decision is denied. The determination of this appeal was made on the record as expressly stated in the memorandum of this court. The reply affidavit of plaintiff’s attorney, sworn to May 18, 1959, alleges the defendant knew at the time the stipulation was entered into that the plaintiff intended to supplement the provision for her support therein, and towards that end had taken a reporter’s examination. Plaintiff’s answering and reply briefs argued that the defendant’s knowledge was ground for affording the plaintiff a hearing on the provision for support contained in the decree to the extent that it was at variance with the stipulation made before the court on May 15, 1957. The record and briefs of the defendant contain no denial of the plaintiff’s statement and do not respond to plaintiff’s argument. Moreover, on this application defendant fails to state his position with regard to the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant’s final opportunity to meet plaintiff’s claim, of which he did not avail himself, was on the argument of the appeal. The argument did not, under the *660circumstances, affect the result compelled by the record and briefs. There is no basis therefore for the assumption that the failure of the defendant’s attorney on the argument to challenge plaintiff’s contention was given the effect of a concession. Concur —Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin and McNally, JJ.