alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 855.8 Application procedures.

To allow time for processing, the application (DD Forms 2400, 2401, and 2402) and a self-addressed, stamped envelope should be submitted at least 30 days before the date of the first intended landing. The verification required for each purpose of use must be included with the application. The name of the user must be the same on all forms. Original, hand scribed signatures, not facsimile elements, are required on all forms. Landing Permit Application Instructions are at attachment 3 to this part. The user is responsible for reviewing this part and accurately completing the forms before submitting them to the approving authority.
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted), Paul O. Koether, the Chief Executive
Officer of Kent Financial Services, Inc., (the "Company"), and Bryan P. Healey,
the Chief Financial Officer  of the Company each hereby certifies
that, to the best of his  knowledge:


1.
              The
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the period ended December
      31, 2007, (the "Annual Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended;
 and


2.
            The
      information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.








Dated:    March
28, 2008








/s/ Paul O.
Koether


Paul O.
Koether


Chief
Executive Officer











/s/ Bryan P.
Healey


Bryan P.
Healey


Chief
Financial Officer
FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT June 26, 2003 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH

CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 03-10594 Non-Argument Calendar

________________________ D. C. Docket N

o. 02-01063-CV-O

RL-19 OMAR, by an

d through his next friend, Kevin Ca

nnon, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOAN LINDSEY, GLORIA BABCOCK, et al., Defendants-Appe llants.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dist

rict of Florida

_________________________ (Jun e 26, 2003)
Before DUBIN

A, MARCUS an

d FAY, Circuit Judges.PER CURIAM:

This is an interlocu

tory appeal fr

om the denial of

a motion to dism

iss on the grounds of qualified im

munity. T

he suit is filed on beha

lf of a child rem

oved from his mother by

personnel of the Flor

ida Departme

nt of Children and Fa

milies. The complaint alle

ges constitutional viola

tions under 42 U.S. C. § 1983 against these individuals. The gr

avamen of the a

llegations is that thes e individuals knowingly and deliberately ignored the physical, mental and emotional harm being caused this child by the intentional infliction of known cruel and unusual punishment that shocks the conscience

of any reasona

ble person. The ruling of the dis

trict court deny

ing the motion to dis

miss is affirm

ed for the reasons set forth in its ORDER of January 14, 2003 which is attached as an appendix.
#### PRYOR v. MERTEN

No. 538P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 483

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1998.
### §345. Replacement of diminished, lost or misapplied funds; restrictions on use; reports of colleges

If any portion of the moneys received by the designated officer of any State for the support and maintenance of cooperative agricultural extension work, as provided in this subchapter, shall by any action or contingency be diminished or lost or be misapplied, it shall be replaced by said State and until so replaced no subsequent appropriation shall be apportioned or paid to said State. No portion of said moneys shall be applied, directly or indirectly, to the purchase, erection, preservation, or repair of any building or buildings, or the purchase or rental of land, or in college-course teaching, lectures in college, or any other purpose not specified in this subchapter.

(May 8, 1914, ch. 79, §5, 38 Stat. 374; June 26, 1953, ch. 157, §1, 67 Stat. 85; Pub. L. 87–749, §1(g), Oct. 5, 1962, 76 Stat. 745; Pub. L. 110–234, title VII, §7403(b), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1246; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VII, §7403(b), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2007.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 made identical amendments to this section. The amendments by Pub. L. 110–234 were repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### Amendments

2008—Pub. L. 110–246, §7403(b), struck out at end "It shall be the duty of said colleges, annually, on or about the first day of January, to make to the Governor of the State in which it is located a full and detailed report of its operations in extension work as defined in this subchapter, including a detailed statement of receipts and expenditures from all sources for this purpose, a copy of which report shall be sent to the Secretary of Agriculture."

1962—Pub. L. 87–749 struck out references to territories and possessions wherever appearing.

1953—Act June 26, 1953, among other changes, inserted "Territory, or possession" after "State," wherever latter term appeared, struck out provision that not more than five per centum of each annual appropriation should be applied to the printing and distribution of publications, and struck out the provision that copies of the required reports should be sent to the Secretary of the Treasury.

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

#### Effective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.
#### In the Matter of Marie Bailey, Respondent, v Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant.

— In a proceeding pursuant to section 608 of the Insurance Law for permission to file a late claim with the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC), the appeals are (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered November 3, 1977, which granted the application and (2) as limited by appellant’s brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, entered March 29, 1978, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the order entered November 3, 1977, dismissed, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order granting reargument. Order entered March 29, 1978, reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and, upon reargument, application denied. On April 19, 1974 the petitioner sustained injuries when the taxicab in which she was a passenger collided with another vehicle. In 1976 she commenced an action against the then defunct taxicab company. The insurer of the taxicab company was in the process of liquidation. No proof of claim was filed by or on behalf of the claimant and, on January 28, 1977, the liquidator of the insurance carrier advised the taxicab company that it would defend the suit but because of the failure to file a proof of claim, no adverse judgment would be paid. A copy of this letter was sent to the claimant. Approximately two months later the claimant sent a letter to MVAIC giving notice of her intent to file a claim. Assuming, without so deciding, that the January, 1977 letter from the liquidator to the insured cab company constituted a disclaimer, the claimant had 10 days to file an affidavit of intent to make a claim against MVAIC (see Insurance Law, § 608, subd [c]). Rather than complying with the time limitations prescribed by statute, the petitioner delayed taking any action for almost two months. "A court is without discretion to allow late filing for any reasons other than those set forth in the statute” *(Matter of Ramos v MVAIC,*54 AD2d 734). No such reasons were presented and it was therefore improper to grant the petitioner’s application. We also note that regardless of the issue of timely notice, there is no proper recourse against MVAIC in the circumstances of this case. The petitioner’s dilemma is a result of the insolvency of the insurance carrier and not because she is an innocent victim of an uninsured motorist. Insolvency is not the equivalent of a disclaimer premised upon some act or omission of the liable party (see Insurance Law, § 608). Therefore, the petitioner’s proper remedy is against the New York Property and *708Liability Insurance Security Fund (see Insurance Law, §§ 333, 334; *StateWide Ins. Co. v Curry,*43 NY2d 298). Mellen, P. J., O’Connor, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
#### 1001.105 Issuance.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

Following is a list of the Company's subsidiaries:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Organized                     Percent of
                                                      Under                         Voting Securities
Name                                                  the Laws of                   Owned by Registrant
----                                                  -----------                   -------------------
<S>                                                   <C>                           <C>
Intelect Network Technologies Company                 Nevada                        100%
Intelect Communications Systems Ltd.                  Bermuda                       100%
Intelect Network Systems Limited                      England                       100%
Intelect Visual Communications Corp.                  Delaware                      100%
DNA Enterprises, Inc.                                 Texas                         100%
</TABLE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                    Percent of
                                                                                    Voting Securities
                                                      Organized                     Owned by Intelect
                                                      Under                         Communications
Name                                                  the Laws of                   Systems Ltd.
----                                                  -----------                   ------------
<S>                                                   <C>                           <C>
Intelect Finance Limited                              Bermuda                       100%
</TABLE>
### NUMBER 13 - 1 9 - 00 38 7 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE BRANSCOMB P.C., SHANNON WILDE, JAMES ROBICHAUX, MICHAEL W. STUKENBERG, JAMES CLANCY, OMAR LEAL, KEITH SIECZKOWSKI, JEFFREY S. DICKERSON, RHONDA JOLLEY, AND GRADY JOLLEY

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

# ORDER

Before Justices Benavides , Hinojosa and Perkes

Per Curiam Order

Relator s Branscomb P.C., Shannon Wilde, James Robichaux, Michael W. Stukenberg, James Clancy, Omar Leal, Keith Sieczkowski, Jeffrey S. Dickerson, Rhonda Jolley, and Grady Jolley f iled a petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for temporary relief and stay in the above cause on August 12 , 2019

. Through this original
pro ceeding, relator s seek to compel the trial court to vacate its July 30 , 2019 discovery2

order

. By their emergency motion for temporary relie f and stay, relators seek to stay all trial court proceedings pending resolution of this original proceeding. The Court, having examined and fully considered the emergency motion for temporary relief and stay , is of the opinion that the motion should be g ranted

. The motion is GRANTED and the trial court proceedings are ordered STAYED pending further order of this Court, or until the case is finally decided. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is e ffective until the case is finally decided.”). T he Court requests that the real part y in interest , Kenton McDonald , or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or be fore the expiration of ten days from the date of
this order. See id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. IT IS SO ORDERED. PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 13th day of A ugust , 2019

.
### §§515 to 515k. Repealed. Pub. L. 108–357, title VI, §611(c), Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1522

Section 515, act Apr. 25, 1936, ch. 249, §1, 49 Stat. 1239, related to tobacco production compacts between States.

Section 515a, act Apr. 25, 1936, ch. 249, §2, 49 Stat. 1240, defined terms as used in this chapter.

Section 515b, act Apr. 25, 1936, ch. 249, §3, 49 Stat. 1240, related to advancement of funds for administrative expenses.

Section 515c, act Apr. 25, 1936, ch. 249, §4, 49 Stat. 1240, related to designation of persons to provide advice with compact administration.

Section 515d, act Apr. 25, 1936, ch. 249, §5, 49 Stat. 1240, related to loans to certain associations of tobacco producers.

Section 515e, act Apr. 25, 1936, ch. 249, §6, 49 Stat. 1241, related to availability of Department of Agriculture records and facilities.

Section 515f, act Apr. 25, 1936, ch. 249, §7, 49 Stat. 1241, authorized appropriations and provided for disposition of repayments of advances or loans.

Section 515g, act Apr. 25, 1936, ch. 249, §8, 49 Stat. 1241, related to availability of funds to other agencies.

Section 515h, act Apr. 25, 1936, ch. 249, §9, 49 Stat. 1241, related to effect of compacts between States producing cigar tobacco on Puerto Rican commerce.

Section 515i, act Apr. 25, 1936, ch. 249, §10, 49 Stat. 1242, related to disposition of receipts from sales of marketing certificates.

Section 515j, act Apr. 25, 1936, ch. 249, §11, 49 Stat. 1242, related to separability of provisions.

Section 515k, act Apr. 25, 1936, ch. 249, §12, 49 Stat. 1242, authorized promulgation of rules and regulations.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal applicable to the 2005 and subsequent crops of tobacco, see section 643 of Pub. L. 108–357, set out as an Effective Date note under section 518 of this title.

#### Short Title

Act Apr. 25, 1936, which was classified to this chapter, was popularly known as the "Tobacco Control Act".

#### Savings Provision

Pub. L. 108–357, title VI, §614, Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1524, provided that: "The amendments made by this subtitle [subtitle A (§§611–614) of title VI of Pub. L. 108–357, amending sections 609, 1282, 1301, 1303, 1314h, 1361, 1371, 1373, 1375, 1378, 1379, 1428, 1433c–1, and 1441 of this title and section 714c of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, repealing sections 511r, 515 to 515k, 625, 1311 to 1314, 1314–1, 1314b, 1314b–1, 1314b–2, 1314c to 1314j, 1315, 1316, 1445, 1445–1, and 1445–2 of this title, and repealing provisions set out as a note under section 1314c of this title] shall not affect the liability of any person under any provision of law so amended with respect to the 2004 or an earlier crop of each kind of tobacco."
§ 37.535 How do I value cost sharing related to real property or equipment? You rarely should accept values for cost sharing contributions of real property or equipment that are in excess of depreciation or reasonable use charges, as discussed in § 37.685 for for-profit participants. You may accept the full value of a donated capital asset if the real property or equipment is to be dedicated to the project and you expect that it will have a fair market value that is less than $5,000 at the project's end. In those cases, you should value the donation at the lesser of: ( a ) The value of the property as shown in the recipient's accounting records (*i.e.,* purchase price less accumulated depreciation); or
( b ) The current fair market value. You may accept the use of any reasonable basis for determining the fair market value of the property. If there is a justification to do so, you may accept the current fair market value even if it exceeds the value in the recipient's records.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FRp^ppy^QE CRItylJNAL,APP.E'AL§.QF TEXAS 

### p.o.Bb^niosfGX^F^^sn^^oN.kt^s^^.T-E^AS^'s-vir—' 

### BUSINESS 

## • STATEOFTEX^"'*"' PENALTY FOR: 

## PRIVATE USE''-' MTNEV BOWES 3/9/2015 GATSON, TIMOTHY MICHAEL . Tr: Q£ 

### On this day, the application for>11?0^Writ,,of habeas Corpus has been received 

## and presented to the Court. ''^^^S£/fi:' Abel Acosta, Clerk 02 1R 3 0006557458 MAR13 2015 3 296iV)(A))M2ipVyJiT82j985-01

TIMOTHY MICHAEL GATSON -TDC# 1084238 

# $ £ 8«
#### Benjamin Fishbain, appellee, v. City of Chicago et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 30,013.

Injunction suit to enjoin defendants from interfering with eonstruction of building. Injunction issued. Appeal from interlocutory order from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Ira Ryner, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Reversed.

Opinion filed March 23, 1925.

Francis X. Busch, Corporation Counsel, for appellants; Albert H. Veeder, William L. Sullivan, Thomas J. Sheehan and Barnet Hodes, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel.

Wilber J. MeGinness, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.77 Delegations of authority. ( a ) *Settlement authority.* The following individuals are delegated the full authority of the Secretary of the Air Force to settle and deny claims: ( 1 ) The Judge Advocate General.
( 2 ) The Deputy Judge Advocate General.
( 3 ) The Director of Civil Law.
( 4 ) The Division Chief of Claims and Tort Litigation.
( 5 ) The Division Chief of Environmental Law and Litigation.
( b ) *Redelegation of authority.* A settlement authority may be redelegated, in writing, to a subordinate judge advocate or civilian attorney. The Chief, AFLOA/JACC may redelegate up to $25,000, in writing, to paralegals assigned to AFLOA/JACC and, upon request, may authorize installation Staff Judge Advocates to redelegate their settlement authority to paralegals under their supervision.
( c ) *Authority to reduce, withdraw, and restore settlement authority.* Any superior settlement authority may reduce, withdraw, or restore delegated authority.
( d ) *Settlement negotiations.* A settlement authority may settle a claim filed in any amount for a sum within the delegated authority. Unsettled claims in excess of the delegated authority will be sent to the next highest level with settlement authority. Unsuccessful negotiations at one level do not bind higher authority.
**EXHIBIT 31.A** **CERTIFICATION**     I, James J. Cleary, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    of El Paso Natural Gas Company;     2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any    untrue statement 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 registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant’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    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably    likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal    control over financial reporting.     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I    have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s    auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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    registrant’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    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. */s/  James    J. Cleary***    James J. Cleary    President    (Principal Executive Officer)    El Paso Natural Gas Company     Date: November 6, 2006