alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2268a. Acquisition of land; options

(a) The Department of Agriculture is authorized to acquire land, or interest therein, by purchase, exchange or otherwise, as may be necessary to carry out its authorized work: Provided, That no acquisition shall be made under this authority unless provision is made therefor in the applicable appropriation or other law.

(b) Appropriations for the Department of Agriculture which are available for the purchase of land may be expended for options to purchase land: Provided, That not to exceed $1 may be expended for each option to purchase any particular tract or tracts of land unless otherwise provided in appropriation or other law.

(Aug. 3, 1956, ch. 950, §11, 70 Stat. 1034.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 428a of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
#### In the Matter of Edward S. Silver, as District Attorney of the County of Kings, Petitioner, against Irwin Staple, an Attorney, Respondent.

Motion to confirm the report of the Official Referee granted except as to the degree of discipline recommended. 'The Official Referee has recommended that respondent be suspended from. the practice of the law for a period of six months to one year. ■ The court is of opinion that under all the circumstances the respondent should be disbarred. The respondent is disbarred and • his name is ordered to be struck from the roll of attorneys. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
(January 16, 1961)

#### Lawrence Dietz, Jr., Appellant, v. Lucie M. Dietz, Respondent.

Motion for a stay of all proceedings on the part of the defendant-respondent, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal herein, granted, except that defendant-respondent is permitted to proceed with her motion for temporary alimony, returnable January 16, 1961. This stay is granted on condition that appellant be ready to argue or submit the appeal on January 30, 1961, for which date the appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar. The papers on appeal and the appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before January 24, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
LANDFILL GAS: 

GREEN E N E R G Y 

IN YOUR COMMUNIT Y 

CREATING 

United States EPA-430-F-08-028 Environmental Protection November 2008 Agency Air and Radiation (6207J)

FIRST CLASS MAIL 

The Power of Your Landfill
 Did you know that your community’s landfill can be a valuable source of 

energy? The gas emitted from your local landfill is a reliable and renewable fuel option. Unfortunately, if the landfill gas is not collected and converted to energy, this potential community resource will just go to waste! 

What Is Landfill Gas? Most of the waste we generate ends up in landfills, where it decomposes and 

produces landfill gas. Landfill gas released into the air smells bad and contributes to local smog. Additionally, landfill gas is about 50 percent methane, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to global climate change. But there is a way to address these local and global environmental problems. 

Good News for Your Community Instead of allowing landfill gas to escape into the air, your community can capture, 

convert, and use it as a local energy source. Landfill gas is one of the few renewable energy resources that, when used, actually removes pollution from the air. In addition to these environmental benefits, using landfill gas is cost-effective and generates economic opportunities for your community. Read on to find out how. 
 near 

Community: ■ Enhanced image as an innovative 

community 

■ Responsible community planning ■ A safer landfill and reduced odors 

ns 

Energy: ■ A reliable local fuel source 

■ Less need for polluting fossil fuels 

use landfill gas as an energy resource. 

mmunity realize its power potential? 

n 

 for landfill operations 

Clean-burning fuel for community vehicle fleets 

Boiler fuel for schools, municipal buildings, local industry, and hospitals 

fill gas into energy are enjoying these benefits: Commonly Asked 

Questions 

Have other communities done landfill gas energy projects? Yes! More than 400 landfills across the United States are putting their landfill gas to good use. Contact your local landfill, government, or the EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) to see what you can do to encourage project development in your community. What is LMOP? LMOP is a voluntary EPA program that helps communities develop cost-effective landfill gas energy projects. In addition to working at the community level, LMOP partners with utilities, states, the landfill gas industry, tribes, and trade associations to promote the use of landfill gas. How can LMOP help my community? LMOP offers the following products and services, free of charge: ■ Technical information and software to 

assess project options and economics 

■ Assistance locating energy customers, 

project partners, and financial support 

■ A network of experts from the landfill gas 

industry and local communities that are available to provide advice on developing landfill gas energy projects
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | HomeAdult Ed and LiteracyPrograms/InitiativesCareer and Technical EdOffice ContactsCommunity CollegesReports & ResourcesCorrectional Education NewsCommunity College Faculty and Staff 
Home | Students | Faculty and Staff |Initiatives |  Research | STEM

Disclaimer Non-U.S. Department of Education web sites  linked by OCTAE contain information related to OCTAE and are linked as a public  service only. The U.S. Department of Education does not control or guarantee  the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside  information.

**Professional Development for Faculty**
- Department of Energy Visiting Faculty Program
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Higher  Education Faculty Projects
- National Endowment for the Humanities Faculty Awards
- Literacy  Information and Communication System Professional Development Resources  Collection
- Perkins  Collaborative Resource Network Resources

**Open Educational Resources**
- SkillsCommons.org 
- Community  College Consortium for Open Educational Resources 
- The NROC Project

**Communities of Practice**
- Literacy  Information and Communication System
- Perkins  Collaborative Resource Network
- Minority Serving  Community Colleges Community of Practice – Join a community of practice by MSI  type or a broader community of equity-minded affiliates. Members meet regularly  throughout the year, have virtual discussions, and meet up at conferences and  events. (Email  erin.berg@ed.gov  for more information) 

**Additional Resources**
- Check out our other pages (links in the tabs  above) for additional programs or resources that may help your students or assist  your practice. 
   Printable view  Last Modified: 10/12/2023 |
1275 Pennsylvania Ave, NW. Suite 1300, Washington, D.C. 20004

- 1707

November 2 9 , 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor Room W12

- 140

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Sent to web site: http://www.regulations.gov/

Re: Exemption No. 4298 , Docket FAA

- 200 3

- 14245

Ladies/Gentlemen:

In accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR) § 11.61,

Airlines for America (A4A), on behalf of its member airlines, petitions for an extension

of Exemption No. 4298O. This exemption is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2017.

Exemption No. 4298O provides relief from §§ 121.311( g ) and 121.391(d) of Title 14

CFR and permits A4A member airlines ’ required flight attendants to be loca ted at the

mid

- cabin flight attendant station during takeoff and landing on Boeing 767 airplanes.

The conditions and circumstances, in regard to public interest and equivalent levels of

safety, which warranted the original grant of exemption, continue to exist. This

exemption and its predecessor, have been in use for almost twenty years with no

known compromise of safety.

Operator Members : Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Atlas Air, Federal Express, Hawaiian

Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Southwest Air lines, United Airlines, and United Parcel Service

. Associate Members : Air Canada.Docket No. FAA

- 200 3

- 14245

- Exemption No. 4298

November 2 9 , 2016

Page 2

1275 Pennsylvania Ave, NW. Suite 1300, Washington, D.C. 20004

- 1707 Furthermore, the renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. There is no

substantial change to the exemption and the renewal petition does not seek to

establish a precedent, but merely would continue an accepted and established

practice. Accordingly, A irlines for A merica requests that publication and comment

period be waived

. (14 CFR §11.87)

A summary of this p e tition as required by 14 CFR §11.81 is at tached.

If any further information or discussion is required, please call me at (202) 626 403 1

.

Respectfully resubmitted by:

Sophia Ghezai

Director, Aviation Safety and Operations

1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

. Suite 13 00

Washington, D.C. 20004

- 1707

(202) 626

- 4031

sghe zai @airlines.org

Attachment1275 Pennsylvania Ave, NW. Suite 1300, Washington, D.C. 20004

- 1707



### Attachment

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System



### Docket No. FAA

- 2003

- 14245

November, 2 9 , 2016

SUMMARY OF A4A PETITION

Petitioner: Airlines for America

Regulation Affected: 14 CFR § 121.391(d) and 121.311( g )

Description of Relief Sought: E xtension of Exemption No. 4298 : Exemption

No. 4298 provides relief from 14CFR §§

121.391(d) and 121.311( g ) and permits

required flight attendant(s) to be located at the

mid

- cabin flight attendant station during takeoff

and landing on Boeing 767 aircraft.
#### Patsy Salituri et al., Respondents, v. Vincent Erezuma, Appellant.

— Motion for a stay of an assessment of damages pending appeal from order granting summary judgment, granted. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### Harry A. Sharpe v. Empire State Mutual Sales, Inc., et al.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Bastow, JJ.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 USC SS.1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Composite Technology Corporation
(Company) on Form 10-KSB/A (Report) for the year ended September 30, 2001, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof. I, Benton
H Wilcoxon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Benton H Wilcoxon
----------------------------
Benton H Wilcoxon
Chief Executive Officer

Dated: February 3, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Annual Report of Composite Technology Corporation
(Company) on Form 10-KSB/A (Report) for the year ended September 30, 2001, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof. I, Benton
H Wilcoxon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Benton H Wilcoxon
----------------------------
Benton H Wilcoxon
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: February 3, 2004
MEMORANDUM

TO: Assistant Inspector General for Audit

Assistant Inspector General for Evaluation, Inspection

and Management Services

Assistant Inspector General for Investigation

Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology Audit

and Computer Crime Investigations

Counsel to the Inspector General

FROM: Inspector General

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Sign and Issue Inspector General's Subpoenas

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by Section 3(a) of the Inspector General Act of 

1978, as amended (the Act), 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3, I hereby delegate to you, your 

successor in function, and anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the 

authority under Section 6(a)(4) of the Act to issue Inspector General's subpoenas

in furtherance of the duties and functions of the Office of Inspector General 

(OIG).

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the 

authorities delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

None.

III. REDELEGATION

You may redelegate this authority to OIG supervisors. No further redelegation is 

authorized.
Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal 

Delegation Control Officer, and supersedes delegations EF/EFI/112, EF/EFA/126 

and EF/EFA/127. I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken 

by you prior to certification of this delegation.

_________/s/_____________ 

 John P. Higgins, Jr.

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume, 7/13/2004

Certified Date: 7/23/2004

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EF/EFI/148
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1028

KOSSI JAMES KETEVI, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-610-853)

Submitted: September 26, 2003 Decided: February 20, 2004

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Luis E. Perez, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kossi James Ketevi, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming a decision of the immigration judge (IJ) that denies his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Board adopted the opinion of the IJ that concluded Ketevi failed to present credible evidence establishing past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See8 U.S.C.A. § 1158 (West 1999 & Supp. 2003); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000). We have reviewed the administrative record, the IJ’s decision, and the Board’s conclusion, and find that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s ruling that Ketevi failed to establish his refugee status. We have reviewed the IJ’s credibility determinations and conclude that they are supported by specific, cogent reasoning, and therefore are entitled to substantial deference. Figeroa v. INS , 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). We conclude as well that K etevi is not entitled to withholding of removal under INA § 241 or the Convention Against Torture. Based on our review of the record and of the IJ’s decision denying relief, we hold that the IJ did not err in finding that Ketevi failed to show a “clear probability of persecution,” or that it is “more likely than not” that he would face torture if he returned to Togo. See Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th- 3 - Cir. 2002) (“To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2003) (stating that to qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture, an alien must show “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal”). We reject Ketevi’s arguments that the Board did not properly apply the regulations governing affirmance without opinion, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2003). We deny the petition for review. 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. PETITION DENIED
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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/ Alan B. LevanName:
    
    Alan B. LevanTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    March 14, 2007
### Reg ul ato r ·y Eva l uat i o n
Dock e l No . FAA


# t.otrf-AJM-**2cf6 ~.:D**  Directo r ate Id ent i fier: -AD 

### ((mu 

### mak e clumy,c:s to the l'alue .\ in th e tohle hf!Low. you til/IS/ 

### c!/1.\llre 

### the totals uedute (l(; cordillgly. (/ til<'! " do not, dick for To/') illf() unclth<!ll ow oft he dumg<!d 

### cell. Est i mated Costs: Action Costs per P r od u ct (e.g. , airc r an , engi n e, (e.g . , In s pection , prop e ller , appliance)

repl a ce m en t ) Work-hours Labor Part s Cos t Total Costs Number of Total Cost Do not includ e o n- (include cos t ( labor + 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet CO IIdit iOII COS I S h e re acce ss, test ing , ( @ $85 / h parts) Reg i stered a nd clo se - up ) our) Prod u cts



### -R-e- to 

### rtttJ e- o t .:..bo I ts-- Jlj 

## $ 0

___ 

# -- 

# --

_ l 2. <L-- ')(\'\IX 

## c..i

- j {j) 1.... 

### 2.. <1;**if)l1-~**

### --1>~**L~** 

## -/A 2..1 2.. <10**((~** -1-0rt1.u**~** 

## ,_c h nlt'\**~**

### J~S 

## Jt 

# a 0

The kn own numb e r o f products in co mpli a n ce: 0 Total Costs of co mpli a n ce for 

### U . S. fleet: $32, 130 Cos ts cove re d und e r warra n ly 

### Of kn ow n) $0 On-Conditio n Costs: Act io n Work

- hours Labo r cos t Part s Cost Cos t p e r Produ c t (e.g . , In s pectio n. (include a ccess, ( @ $ 85 / h our)

re plac e m e nt) t est in g, a nd clo se up ) 

## $ 0
Specia l co n sideratio n s fo r Econo mi c A n a l ys i s (Use th is fie l d 10 exp l a in any 1hin g in th e Es timat ed Cos t s table that w as ass um ed o r mi g h tn o l be obv i o us. Thisjield c an also be u se d t o e xpla inwarramy co sls ) :

### Executive Ot·det· 12866: 

### Cou ld t he AD be co n s i de r ed a " sig nific ant regula tory ac ti o n "?

# ~ YES* 

# D NO 

### [g) *Exp l anatio n: DOT Rcgulatot·y Policies and Procedures: 

### I s t he AD s i g nificant? 

# G YES* 

# D NO 

### [g) *Ex plan a ti on: Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

### Wi ll the AD ha ve a sign ificant econom i c impact on a s ubstantial num ber of s mall e nti t i es? Explai n for eit her a Y es or N o answe r. 

# 8 YES 

# D N O 

### [g) Ex planation: Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

### This A D cou ld affect intrastate aviation in A l aska. Is it 

### approp r iate to i nc lude s pec ific requirement s for a ircraft opera te d in A la s ka whe r e aviation mi g ht be th e o nl y mode of tran s portation? Y ES* 

# D NO 

### [g) *Ex planation:
**EXHIBIT (12)**

 

**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

 
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | **Twelve  Months Ended  June 30, 2010** | ** **     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
|                                                                 |       |                                                   |           |
| Income before provision for income taxes and fixed  charges (Note A) |       | $                                                      | 115,024,339    |   |
|                                                                 |       |                                                   |           |
| Fixed charges:                                                       |       |                                                   |           |
| Interest on long-term debt                                           |       | $                                                      | 42,105,418     |   |
| Interest on short-term debt                                          |       | 828,441                                                |           |
| Interest on trust preferred securities                               |       | 4,214,583                                              |           |
| Other interest                                                       |       | (1,101,758                                             | )              |
| Rental expense representative of an interest  factor (Note B)        |       | 5,620,003                                              |           |
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | ** **                                             | ** **     |
| **Total fixed charges**                                              | ** ** | **$**                                                  | **51,666,687** | ** ** |
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | ** **                                             | ** **     |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                   |       | 2.23                                                   | x              |

 

NOTEA:          For the purposeof determining earnings in the calculation of the ratio, net income has beenincreased by the provision for income taxes, non-operating income taxes, and bythe sum of fixed charges as shown above.

 

NOTEB:          One-third ofrental expense (which approximates the interest factor).

 

----
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA - 2014 - 0055 Directorate Identifier: 2013 - NM - 167AD

A310 - 28 - 2145 --- 8/21/01

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008