alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION

In the MatterofJett Pro Line Maintenance ) Docket No. TBA 

### ) ) ) 

# ______________________) FAA Case No. 2011WP910076 Judge Goodwin

ANSWER Respondent Jett Pro line Maintenance herebyfiles its Answertothe FAA Complaint in this matteras follows.



### I. Admitted. II. 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3a. Admitted. 3b. Admitted. 3c. Admitted. 3d. Admitted. 3e. Admitted. 3f. Admitted. 3g. Denied. 3h. Denied.

### 3i. Denied. 3j. Denied. 3k. Admitted. 31. Admitted. 3m. Admitted. 3n. Denied. 3o. Denied. 3p. Denied. 3q. Admitted. 3r. Admitted. 3s. Admitted. 3t. Admitted. 4a. Admitted. 4b. Admitted. 4c. Admitted. 4d. Admitted. 4e. Admitted. 4f. Admitted. 4g. Admitted. 4h. Admitted. 4i. Admitted. 4j. Denied.

### 4k. Admitted. 41. Admitted. 4m. Admitted. 4n. Denied. 4o. Denied. 4p. Admitted. 4q. Denied. 4r. Admitted. 4s. Admitted. 4t. Admitted. Sa. Denied. Sb. Admitted. Sc. Admitted. Sd. Admitted. Se. Denied. Sf. Admitted. Ga. Admitted. Gb. Denied. Gc. Denied. Gd. Denied. Ge. Denied. 7a. Denied.7b. Denied. 8a. Denied. 8b. Denied. Ill. la. Denied. lb. Denied. lc. Denied. ld. Denied. le. Denied. 

### lf. Denied. 2. Denied. WHEREFORE, Respondent, by counsel, respectfully requests thatthis matterbe dismissed.

Dated: March 11 , 2014**~·** r-'• '\ ' \

# ~

# ( JJ_Q,-v"' John Craig Weller Aerlex lawGroup 2800 28'h Street Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90405 TEL: (530) 205-9884 FAX: (530) 205-9371U.S. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

In the MatterofJett Pro Line Maintenance) 

### ) ) ) 

# ______________________) Docket No. TBA FAA Case No. 2011WP910076 Judge Goodwin

CERTFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifythat I served 

### a copy ofthe attached Answer by U.S. First Class Mail on the persons listed below. In addition, in accordance with Paragraph 6 ofthe Procedural Order, I also served 

### a copy byfacsimile on the presidingJudge and 

### FAA counsel.

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building-Suite 2W1000

Sam Nugud, President Jett Pro Line Maintenance 8517 Earhart Road, Suite 210 Oakland, CA 94621 Sam Nugud, President Jett Pro line Maintenance P.O. Box 3190 Ontario, CA 91761 Autumn Killingham, Esq. Enforcement Division, AGC-600 Office ofthe Chief Counsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 FAX: 202-267-5769 ONE COPYThe Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Administrative lawJudge Office of Hearing, M·20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey, SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

Dated: March 11, 2014 John Craig Weller Aerlex Law Group 2800 281hStreet Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90405 TEL: 530-205-9884

FAX: 530-205-9371
# _1434187679.vsd
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.8

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

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

     In connection with the Annual Report of 3Si Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 21, 2002              By:  /s/ Jerome K. Thorson
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Jerome K. Thorson, President,
                                             Chief Executive Officer and
                                             Director
#### 1252.211-70 Index for Specifications.

As prescribed in 1211.204-70, insert the following clause:

# Index for Specifications (NOV 2022)

If an index or table of contents is furnished in connection with specifications, such index or table of contents is for convenience only. Its accuracy and completeness is not guaranteed, and it is not a part of the specification. In case of discrepancy between the index or table of contents and the specifications, the specifications shall govern.

(End of clause)
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Mark C. Olds

*John B. Williams,*special public defender, in support of the motion.

Submitted October 22

decided November 1, 1974

The defendant’s motion for review of the trial court’s denial of his motion for a reduction of his bond in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted and the relief requested therein is denied.
##### 



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 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of TeraForce
Technology Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Form 10-K) of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and
for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K. March 31, 2005
    
    /s/ Herman M. FrietschHerman M. FrietschChief Executive OfficerMarch 31, 2005
    
    /s/ Robert P. CappsRobert P. CappsChief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to TeraForce
Technology Corporation and will be retained by TeraForce Technology Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item
601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being
filed as part of the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of
any general incorporation language.
#### Donald J. De Santo, Respondent, v Elinor Zeller, Appellant.

In a defamation action, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 29, 1977, as granted plain*793tiff’s motion for a protective order in its entirety and failed to grant her cross motion for protective order in its entirety. Order modified by deleting therefrom the provision which granted plaintiff’s motion with respect to paragraph No. 24 of defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars and substituting therefor a provision denying plaintiff’s motion with respect to that paragraph, to the limited extent that it requests the names and addresses of persons who heard the allegedly slanderous matter and who may be called as witnesses. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff’s time to serve a bill of particulars with respect to paragraph No. 24, as limited, is extended until 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. The defendant is entitled to the names of all persons who heard the allegedly slanderous matter and who may be called as witnesses. This information should be available to avoid surprise at the trial. Although the plaintiff has included several names in his complaint, if additional persons may be called as witnesses to the alleged slander their identities should also be revealed to the defendant. We note that although Special Term’s order did not specifically enumerate paragraph No. 32 of the defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars, the plaintiff included that paragraph in his motion for a protective order, which motion was granted in its entirety. We agree that that paragraph, as well as the other enumerated paragraphs (except No. 24), are irrelevant to plaintiff’s cause of action and should be stricken from the demand for a bill of particulars. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Hargett, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 09-1149

ASTRID G. ESTRADA; WENDY M. ESTRADA; GUILFREDO E. MUÑOZ;

JOSÉ A. AQUINO; CRUZ F. RIVERA; CARLOS E. TAMUP; JOSÉ BURGOS;

ABELINO M. URIZAR; ISRAEL TEBALAN; ROLANDO NORIEGA;

BORIS CRUZ; ELSA HERNÁNDEZ VILAVICENCIO,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, State Police Department;

STEVEN M. PARE, individually and in his official capacity as

Superintendent of the Rhode Island State Police;

C. THOMAS CHABOT, individually and in his official capacity

as a state trooper employed by the State of Rhode Island,

Defendants, Appellees,

JANE DOE, individually and in her official capacity

as a state trooper employed by the State of Rhode Island,

Defendant.

ERRATA SHEET

Chief Judge Lynch's concurrence in the opinion of this Court

issued on February 4, 2010 is amended as follows:

On page 28, line 3, "I do not rely on it" should be replaced

with "I do not rely on them"

On page 28, line 4, "because the admission is not contained"

should be replaced with "because the admissions are not

contained"
EXHIBIT 10.38
                                                                   -------------

                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT

         THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into
effective as of December 12, 2005, by and among IVOICE TECHNOLOGY, INC., a New
Jersey corporation (the "Company"), DAVID GONZALEZ, ESQ. (the "Escrow Agent")
and CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (the
"Investor").

                                    Recitals:

         WHEREAS, the Company, the Escrow Agent and the Investor entered into a
Standby Equity Distribution Agreement (the "SEDA") and an Escrow Agreement each
dated September 22, 2005 (the "Escrow Agreement").

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual
promises, conditions and covenants contained herein and in the Escrow Agreement
and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         1.    Termination. Each of the parties to this Agreement hereby
               terminate the Escrow Agreement and the respective rights and
               obligations contained therein and any rights and obligations with
               respect to escrow arrangements provided for in the SEDA. As a
               result of this provision, none of the parties shall have any
               rights or obligations under or with respect to the Escrow
               Agreement or the escrow arrangements (including fees) provided
               for in the SEDA.



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed and delivered this
Termination Agreement on the date first set forth above.

IVOICE TECHNOLOGY, INC.                        CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP

By: ____________________                       By: Yorkville Advisors, LLC
Name: Mark Meller                              Its: General Partner
Title: CEO
                                               By: __________________________
                                               Name:  Mark A. Angelo
                                               Title: Portfolio Manager


                                               ESCROW AGENT

                                               By: __________________________
                                               Name: David Gonzalez, Esq.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 583 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

authorize COPS grantees to use grant funds to hire veterans as career 

law enforcement officers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2017 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL, Mr. TILLIS, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HELLER, 

and Mr. CRUZ) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to authorize COPS grantees to use grant 

funds to hire veterans as career law enforcement officers, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Law En5 forcement Heroes Act of 2017’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 583 IS

1 SEC. 2. PRIORITIZING HIRING AND TRAINING OF VET2 ERANS. 

3 Section 1701(b)(2) of title I of the Omnibus Crime 

4 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

5 3796dd(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, including by 

6 prioritizing the hiring and training of veterans (as defined 

7 in section 101 of title 38, United States Code)’’ after ‘‘Na8 tion’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
M. P. No. 74-336.

#### David Reilly *et al.*as Members of the Smithfield School Building Committee *v.*Ray Iafrate *et al.*as Members of the Greenville Water District Water Board.

Petition for writ of certiorari is granted without prejudice to the right of respondents to raise objection thereto at the hearing on the merits.

Paolino and Joslin, JJ. not partici*923pating.

*Stephen E. Cicilline,*for petitioners. *Goldman, Biafore & Hines, John H. Hines, Jr.,*for respondents.
#### Martin W. Juett et al., Appellants, v. Amelia Paesani, Respondent.

— In a negligence action, the plaintiffs (husband and wife) appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated February 12, 1963, which granted the defendant’s motion to direct both plaintiffs (a) to submit to a physical examination; and (lb) to submit for defendant’s inspection *“*all X-rays, if any, taken by the plaintiffs’ physicians ”, Order reversed, and defendant’s motion denied, with $10 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s motion for the examination was made subsequent to plaintiffs’ filing of a note of issue and statement of readiness. Defendant failed to make a motion, within 20 days after such filing, to strike the action from the calendar. Hence, under the Special Rule of this court, defendant is deemed to have waived her right to the examination and inspection sought (cf. *Byrnes*v. *Ban’s Taxi,*18 A D 2d 807). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeid, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         121,230
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  557,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,721
<INVENTORY>                                    169,948
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               970,485
<PP&E>                                       1,297,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                 700,813
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,856,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          670,436
<BONDS>                                         75,923
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,995
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,107,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,856,694
<SALES>                                      1,553,852
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,920,436
<CGS>                                          658,548
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  923,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               282,446
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,635
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,664
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                127,430
<INCOME-TAX>                                    31,019
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             96,411
<DISCONTINUED>                                  11,135
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   107,546
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.91
        

</TABLE>
M. P. No. 75-64.

#### Henri Paul *et ux. v.*Alfred A. Fortier *et al.*

*Gunning, LaFazia & Gnys, Inc., Edward P. Sowa, Jr., Patricia Ryan Recupero,*for plaintiffs-respondents. *Zimmerman, Roszkowski & Brenner, Gerald M. Brenner,*for defendants-petitioners.

Petition for writ of certiorari granted.
#### In the Matter of the Foreclosure of Tax Liens by County of Sullivan, Respondent. Spring Lake Retreat Center, Inc., Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 482]-

Carpincho, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), entered June 6, 2006, which, in a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 11, denied respondent’s motion to vacate and reopen a default judgment entered against it.

This appeal arises out of a tax hen foreclosure proceeding initiated by petitioner pursuant to the provisions of RPTL article 11. By order to show cause dated May 16, 2006, respondent, the owner of record of the subject real property, acknowledged that the 2004 and 2005 real property taxes had not been paid but nonetheless sought relief from a February 27, 2006 judgment of foreclosure vesting title to the premises in petitioner based upon its default. County Court denied the relief, prompting this appeal by respondent. We affirm.

A motion to reopen a default in a proceeding of this type must be brought within one month after the entry of judgment *1096
      *(see*RPTL 1131; *Matter of County of Clinton [Bouchard],*29 AD3d 79, 81 [2006]; *Matter of County of Clinton [Tupaz],*17 AD3d 914, 915 [2005]). Since the instant application was beyond the statutory time period, County Court properly denied the relief sought. Assuming, arguendo, that we were able to reach the merits of the arguments raised by respondent, we would nonetheless find them without merit.

Although respondent relocated its offices outside of the country, it never notified the taxing authorities of its new mailing address until November 2005. As it is incumbent upon property owners to notify tax authorities of address changes *(see*RPTL 1125 [1] [d]; *Matter of Harner v County of Tioga,*5 NY3d 136, 141 [2005]; *Matter of County of Clinton [Bouchard], supra*at 84), and as petitioner followed the exact procedure sanctioned by the Court of Appeals in *Matter of Harner v County of Tioga (supra),*including the mailing of the requisite notice by certified and regular mail* at the address contained on the tax rolls at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, respondent was not deprived of its property without due process.

Respondent’s argument that its November 2005 notice to the town assessor of its new mailing address required petitioner to send notice of these proceedings to that address fails for two reasons. First, this notification came after the commencement of this proceeding. Second, notification to the town assessor is not automatically imputed to petitioner *(see Sendel v Diskin,*277 AD2d 757, 760 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 707 [2001]; *Keiser v Young,*181 AD2d 170, 174 [1992], *lv denied*80 NY2d 761 [1992]).

Mercure, J.B, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Here, as in *Matter of Hamer v County of Tioga (supra),*the certified mail was returned unclaimed, but the first class mail was not.
§ 634.30 Use of traffic accident investigation report data. ( a ) Data derived from traffic accident investigation reports and from vehicle owner accident reports will be analyzed to determine probable causes of accidents. When frequent accidents occur at a location, the conditions at the location and the types of accidents (collision diagram) will be examined.
( b ) Law enforcement personnel and others who prepare traffic accident investigation reports will indicate whether or not seat restraint devices were being used at the time of the accident.
( c ) When accidents warrant, an installation commander may establish a traffic accident review board. The board will consist of law enforcement, engineer, safety, medical, and legal personnel. The board will determine principal factors leading to the accident and recommend measures to reduce the number and severity of accidents on and off the installation. (The Air Force will use Traffic Safety Coordinating Groups. The Navy will use Traffic Safety Councils per OPNAVINST 5100.12 Series).
( d ) Data will be shared with the installation legal, engineer, safety, and transportation officers. The data will be used to inform and educate drivers and to conduct traffic engineering studies.
( e ) Army traffic accident investigation reports will be provided to Army Centralized Accident Investigation of Ground Accidents (CAIG) boards on request. The CAIG boards are under the control of the Commander, U.S. Army Safety Center, Fort Rucker, AL 36362-5363. These boards investigate Class A, on-duty, non-POV accidents and other selected accidents Army-wide (See AR 385-40). Local commanders provide additional board members as required to complete a timely and accurate investigation. Normally, additional board members are senior equipment operators, maintenance officer, and medical officers. However, specific qualifications of the additional board members may be dictated by the nature of the accident.
( f ) The CAIG program is not intended to interfere with, impede, or delay law enforcement agencies in the execution of regulatory responsibilities that apply to the investigation of accidents for a determination of criminal intent or criminal acts. Criminal investigations have priority.
( g ) Army law enforcement agencies will maintain close liaison and cooperation with CAIG boards. Such cooperation, particularly with respect to interviews of victims and witnesses and in collection and preservation of physical evidence, should support both the CAIG and law enforcement collateral investigations.