alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 67.5 Responsibilities. ( a ) The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, under the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, shall: ( 1 ) Establish procedures by which an unaccredited educational institution can apply for DoD designation as a qualifying educational institution.
( 2 ) Publish in the Federal Register DoD requirements and procedures for an unaccredited educational institution to apply for designation as a qualifying education institution.
( 3 ) Annually, provide to the Secretaries of the Military Departments a list of those unaccredited educational institutions that have been approved by the Department of Defense as a qualifying educational institution. This list shall include the year or years for which unaccredited educational institutions are designed as qualifying educational institutions.
( b ) The Secretaries of the Military Departments shall establish procedures to ensure that after September 30, 1995, those Reserve component officers selected for appointment to a grade above First Lieutenant in the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, or Marine Corps Reserve, or Lieutenant (Junior Grade) in the Naval Reserve, or for officers to be federally recognized in a grade above First Lieutenant as a member of the Army National Guard or Air National Guard, who are required to hold a baccalaureate degree, were awarded a baccalaureate degree from a qualifying educational institution before appointment to the next higher grade. For a degree from an unaccredited educational institution that has been recognized as qualifying educational institution by the Department of Defense to satisfy the educational requirements of 10 U.S.C. 12205, the degree must not have been awarded more than 8 years before the date the officer is to be appointed, or federally recognized, in the grade of Captain in the Army Reserve, Army National Guard, Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, or Marine Corps Reserve, or in the grade of Lieutenant in the Naval Reserve.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

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 the Erie Family Life Insurance
Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), we, Jeffrey A. Ludrof, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and
Philip A. Garcia, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jeffrey A. LudrofJeffrey A. Ludrof
President & Chief Executive Officer 
|                                                                           
|/s/ Philip A. GarciaPhilip A. Garcia
Executive VP & Chief Financial Officer

October 29, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Erie Family Life
Insurance Company and will be retained by Erie Family Life Insurance Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alfred *988Landers, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: The evidence in this case is insufficient as a matter of law to establish the crime of grand larceny in the second degree. The circumstantial facts from which the prosecution sought to prove the defendant’s larcenous intent (Penal Law, § 155.05, subd 1) were not established with certainty and, as offered, are as consistent with the hypothesis of defendant’s innocence as they are with that of his guilt (see *People v Montanez,*41 NY2d 53, 57, and cases cited therein). The only rational explanation for the verdict may be found in the improper admission into evidence, over objection, of the NYSIIS record of defendant’s criminal history, coupled with the jury’s application of the court’s charge on the affirmative defense to larceny (Penal Law, § 155.15, subd 1) which tended to shift the burden of proof to the defendant on the critical issue of intent. (Appeal from judgment of Yates County Court—grand larceny, second degree.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Hancock, Jr., JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 724

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

#### § 724.106 Presiding Officer, NDRB Panel.

The senior member of an NDRB Panel shall normally be the Presiding Officer. He/she shall convene, recess and adjourn the NDRB Panel as appropriate.
### §1592. Rules and regulations

(a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall make such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary for the effective enforcement of this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this section.

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Agriculture shall make, jointly or severally, such rules and regulations as they may deem necessary for the effective enforcement of subchapter III of this chapter.

(c) Prior to the promulgation of any rule or regulation under this chapter, due notice shall be given by publication in the Federal Register of intention to promulgate and the time and place of a public hearing to be held with reference thereto, and no rule or regulation may be promulgated until after such hearing. Any rule or regulation shall become effective on the date fixed in the promulgation, which date shall be not less than thirty days after publication in the Federal Register and may be amended or revoked in the manner provided for its promulgation.

(Aug. 9, 1939, ch. 615, title IV, §402, 53 Stat. 1285.)

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

#### Effective Date

See section 1610 of this title.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30693

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IVORY GARNER WILSON, also known as Boo Boo Wilson,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana

(95-CR-60-3-B-M1)

 

June 9, 1998

Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

Ivory Garner Wilson appeals from his sentence following

resentencing for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

cocaine base, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base,

and using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking

crime. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. Wilson
2

contends that he should have been sentenced under the “safety

valve” provision of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) as to

the charge of using and carrying a firearm during a drugtrafficking crime. Wilson contends, for the first time on appeal,

that an unwarranted sentencing disparity exists between his

sentence and that of a codefendant. Wilson also argues, for the

first time on appeal, that the district court erred in failing to

award him a downward departure from the guidelines.

Pursuant to section 5C1.2, for controlled substance offenses

under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 844, 846, 960, or 963, qualified defendants

shall be sentenced in accordance with the applicable guidelines

range, without regard to any statutory minimum sentences. Section

5C1.2; see United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir.

1995). Because using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drugtrafficking crime under section 924(c)(1) is not a qualified

controlled substance offense, the district court did not err in

refusing to apply that provision in sentencing Wilson for using and

carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. See §

5C1.2; § 3553(f).

Even assuming the disparate sentencing issue is within the

scope of this Court’s remand for resentencing, Wilson has not

demonstrated error, plain or otherwise, with respect to his

argument of disparate sentences. See United States v. Brown, 29

F.3d 953, 959 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Sparks, 2 F.3d 574,
3

587 (5th Cir. 1993). The issue of a downward departure was beyond

the scope of the remand and, therefore, not proper for

reconsideration by the district court. United States v. Marmolejo,

 F.3d (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 1998, No. 97-20378), 1998 WL 188089

at *3. Wilson has not demonstrated error, plain or otherwise, in

the district court’s refusal to grant him a downward departure.

And, section 924(c)(1) provides for a mandatory five-year

nonconcurrent sentence. See Brown at 560.

AFFIRMED
From: Bill Sullivan

To: Newton, Brittany (FAA)

Cc: david oliver

Subject: Docket No. FAA-2015-3813

Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 4:15:08 PM

Ms. Newton,

I want to first thank you, I was losing hope as it has been almost a year. Thank you!

The following information is provided per your request:

· Describe the aircraft make(s): DJI

· Model(s): Phantom 3 Professional

· Type(s)(i.e., fixed‐wing, rotorcraft, lighter‐than‐air) for the proposed UAS operation: Quad

Copter, Four Electric Rotors

· The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload):

o Weight: 1280 grams (~ 3 lbs)

o Max Ascent Speed: 5 m/s (~ 11 mph)

o Max Descent Speed: 3 m/s (~ 6 mph)

o Max Speed: 16 m/s (~ 36 mph)

o Max Operating Height: 120 m (393 feet)

o More below:
Please let me know if this is sufficient to answer your questions and to further process my

exemption.

My partner and I have two requests in, obviously this is one of them. The other is docket # FAA2015-3812 both filed on the same day. The information provide per your request is identical

information for the second request.

I want to thank you again!!

Kindest regards,

William Sullivan

404.790.4451

-----Forwarded Message----- 

From: Brittany.Newton@faa.gov

Sent: May 31, 2016 12:07 PM 

To: billsul@mindspring.com

Subject: Missing Aircraft 

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This email is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No.

FAA‐2015‐3813). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to

process your petition.

Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e., fixed‐wing, rotorcraft,

lighter‐than‐air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the

maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the

aircraft manual(s).

Please respond to this email at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,

Brittany Newton
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




         I,  Ronald J.  Tassinari,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer  of
American  Vantage  Companies  (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:

         (1)      the  Company's  Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB  for the annual
                  period  ended  July 31,  2003 (the  "Report"),  to which  this
                  certification  has been made an exhibit,  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.



Dated:  October 24, 2003

                                          /s/ Ronald J. Tassinari
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Ronald J. Tassinari,
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
### §1927a. Loan interest rates charged by Farmers Home Administration; grant funds associated with loans

Effective October 1, 1981, and thereafter, in the case of water and waste disposal and community facility borrowers, and effective November 12, 1983, and thereafter, in the case of housing and farm borrowers, upon request of the borrower, the interest rate charged by the Farmers Home Administration to such borrowers shall be the lower of the rates in effect at either the time of loan approval or loan closing and any Farmers Home Administration grant funds associated with such loans shall be set in amount based on the interest rate in effect at the time of loan approval.

(Pub. L. 99–88, title I, §100, Aug. 15, 1985, 99 Stat. 296; Pub. L. 100–233, title VI, §615(b)(1)(A), Jan. 6, 1988, 101 Stat. 1681.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985, and not as part of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–233 substituted "Effective October 1, 1981, and thereafter, in the case of water and waste disposal and community facility borrowers, and effective November 12, 1983, and thereafter, in the case of housing and farm borrowers" for "Effective November 12, 1983, and thereafter" and "to such borrowers" for "to housing, farm, water and waste disposal, and community facility borrowers".

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

#### Applicability of 1988 Amendment

Pub. L. 100–233, title VI, §615(b)(1)(B), Jan. 6, 1988, 101 Stat. 1682, provided that: "The amendment made by subparagraph (A) [amending this section] shall not apply to any note or other obligation sold under section 1001 of the Omnibus [Budget] Reconciliation Act of 1986 [Pub. L. 99–509, 7 U.S.C. 1929a note] on or before the date of the enactment of this paragraph [Jan. 6, 1988]."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       716630
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     142926
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          140559
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        168148
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   77601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1245864
<COMMON>                                        102180
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       217315
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              54257
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  373752
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            27179
<PREFERRED>                                       6900
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            403336
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               47172
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    27514
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  360011
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  1245864
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       141753
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                              4219
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      121328
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      125547
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          16206
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                4429
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   20635
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          9580
<NET-INCOME>                                     11055
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        576
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    10479
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          8482
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                         8226
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           27880
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### Dorothy Bonadonna et al., Plaintiffs, v. Eileen R. Barry et al., Defendants (and Two Other Actions).

Motion granted to extent of permitting Eileen Barry to file a brief *amicus curies,*upon condition that brief be filed and served on or before March 1, 1961.
Exhibit
21





SUBSIDIARIES
OF THE REGISTRANT





SUBSIDIARIES
OF HURCO COMPANIES, INC.





Name
                      
                      Jurisdiction of
    IncorporationHurco
      B.V.
                        Hurco
      Canada
                      
                      the
      Netherlands
                        CanadaHurco
      Europe Limited
                      
                      United
      KingdomHurco
      GmbH
                        Hurco
      India Private, Ltd.
                      
                      Federal
      Republic of Germany
                        IndiaHurco
      Manufacturing Ltd.
                      
                      Taiwan
      R.O.C.Hurco
      S.a.r.l.
                      
                      FranceHurco
      S.r.l.
                      
                      ItalyHurco
      (S.E. Asia) Pte Ltd.
                      
                      SingaporeNingbo
      Hurco Machine Tool Company, Ltd.
                      
                      China




Hurco
Companies, Inc. is the Company’s headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana,
U.S.A.  The foregoing list does not include other subsidiaries which,
individually or in the aggregate, did not constitute a significant subsidiary as
of October 31, 2010.




63
<PAGE>

                                  "EXHIBIT 21"

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                              --------------------

              Subsidiaries of International Bancshares Corporation
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
        NAME                         BUSINESS                 % OF OWNERSHIP
        ----                         --------                 --------------
<S>                                  <C>                      <C>
IBC Subsidiary Corporation           Bank Holding Company          100%
IBC Life Insurance Company           Credit Life Insurance         100%
IBC Trading Company                  Export Trading                100%
IBC Capital Corporation              Investments                   100%



                   Subsidiaries of IBC Subsidiary Corporation
<CAPTION>
        NAME                         BUSINESS                 % OF OWNERSHIP
        ----                         --------                 --------------
<S>                                  <C>                      <C>
International Bank of Commerce       State Bank                    100%
Commerce Bank                        State Bank                    100%
International Bank of Commerce,
  Zapata                             State Bank                    100%
International Bank of Commerce,
  Brownsville                        State Bank                    100%
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1

 

Structured Asset Trust Unit Repackagings (SATURNS) 

Series 2001-8 Trust 

To liquidate its assets and terminate

 

| CUSIP: | 80409Q200 |
|--------|-----------|
|   |      |
| Symbol | MJN       |

 

 

 

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:**

February 2, 2006

 

 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK – Structured Asset Trust Unit Repackagings (SATURNS), AT&T Corp. Debenture Backed Series 2001-8 Trust (the “Trust”) (New York Stock Exchange Ticker Symbol “MJN”), announced today that a “Trust Wind Up Event” has occurred under the terms of the Trust Agreement governing the Trust and that the Trust will liquidate its assets and terminate. Settlement of a sale of the securities held by the Trust is expected to occur on February 8, 2006, and a liquidation distribution is expected to be made with respect to the Units of the Trust on February 8, 2006. 

 

The Trust Wind Up Event and requirement for termination of the Trust arose after the merger of AT&T Corp. with SBC Communications Inc. (now known as AT&T Inc.), following which AT&T Corp. became a subsidiary of AT&T Inc. Thereafter, AT&T Corp. withdrew from listing on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) the securities held by the Trust, which had previously given rise to reporting obligations for AT&T Corp. under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). AT&T Corp. subsequently terminated its reporting obligations under the Exchange Act, and it is the stated intention of the parent of AT&T Corp., AT&T Inc., not to provide financial reporting information in relation to AT&T Corp. As a result, the Depositor of the Trust would be unable to meet its Exchange Act reporting obligations in relation to the Trust, which circumstance constitutes a Trust Wind Up Event.

 

Contact:

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

 

 

 

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|
MayorStanleyA. Clouse City ofKearney 18 East22nd Street P. 0. Box 1180 Kearney, N 

### E 68848-1180

November 

### 5, 2014


### Michael Martin OfficeofAviation Analysis Department ofTransportation 400 7th

### Street, SW Washington, DC 20590 TELEPHONE· (308) 233-3216

. FAX · (308) 234-6399

**E~MAIL** · mayor@kearneygov.org 

### v;I/EBSJTE ·www.cityofkearney.org



### RE: Kearney's Supporl ofDEN-EAR Route OperatedbyAerodynamics Inc, Dear 

### Mr. Martin: The Essential Air Service program has been and continues to be a vital economic lifeline for communities across the country, and especially in rural Nebraska. The continuing growth of our local economy is sustainable in large part because of the air service that has been supported and connections to the national and international air transportation system that exist today. However, the current provider, Great Lakes Airlines has failed to provide reliable service forthe past several months and does not meet our goal to obtain regional jet service. Consistent with this goal we have demonstrated our commitment by investing invested significantfinancial and staff local resources including: 

### Construction projects • NewAirport Fire Station • New commercial hangar • Newterminal parking lot • Renovated airportterminal • New airport road & entrance 

### Other completed items $2,500,000 $1,500,000 $ 842,000 $1,000,000 $1,400,000

• Completion ofthe required environmental assessment • Completion of air service leakage study • Increased fire department staffing • Designation as a Class 

### II airport Accordingly, the City of Kearney requests the selection of Aerodynamics Inc. (ADI) to provide essential air service for our community. The City of Kearney stands readyto assist and partnerwith ADI in the promotion of regionaljetservice for our community. Ifyou have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerelyyours, CITY OF KEARNEY



# ~~lQ_~ Stanley

### A Clouse Mayor SAC:sjb