alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
February 17, 2012 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

1200 New Jersey Av. SE 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

'"f"l f : 1 ': ~ !· -~~-~I '2 ~· ~~. 1 l. • ! I 8 - ~- .J. ~. ~ _, ...... ·, 1 i""-'"'~ • ~.r 

Ref: Sun Country Slot Exemption-Docket Number FAA-2012-0089 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

www.ICCUonline.com 

Sun Country Airlines has requested an exemption from the slot limit for Ronald Reagan Washington 

National Airport (DCA) set forth in 93.123(a), to permit the FAA to create air carrier slots during certain 

limited hours for Sun Country's use. The proposed air carrier slots would replace two slot exemptions 

under DOT Order 2010-12-16 awarded to Sun Country. On January 6, 2012, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the DOT Order, and Sun Country will lose its existing 

se.r\lke betwee'n DCA a'nd'Uinsirig's Capital Region International Airport. Specifically, Sun Country desires 

o·ne ·daily slot during 'each-of the 1000 and 1100 hours. The proposed exemption would permit Sun 

Country to continue operating its existing services and avoid an inequitable result of the Court's order. 

When the need to travel to Washington D.C. arises, we prefer to fly out of Lansing's Capital Region 

International Airport. By allowing Sun Country Airline multipliable slots would increase the likely hood of 

us using a closer and more convenient airport (Lansing). 

The Sun Country DCA service is essential to the economic growth ofthe Greater Lansing Region. The · 

daily service is the only large aircraft (737-800) service to Washington Reagan Airport, in the state of 

Michigan outside of Detroit. Prior to Sun Country, the regional community had requested the 

introduction of this service from numerous other airline operators without success. Accordingly, it is 

critical that the FAA take the necessary steps to ensure the continuation of the Sun Country slots at the 

established flight times-in support of Greater Lansing's business and economic growth. 

Your immediate approval ofthis exemption, so that Sun Country can begin to enter flights schedules for 

sale for the balance of 2012, will be greatly appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

~-o~. 0'1 . ) . Jay Andersi ·President/tEo , ': : .·· ' .... 

lsabe.liaCominunlt'y Credit Union>'· 

'· .·• ·. •' 

"•. ,' .. -.. -._. 

~·- ._.. ·_ \ :.,. . . .. ' :-. . '. 

. .. · ,. -~ . :. 

.,_ ....... ~ ... : >": -~ 

2400 South Isabella Road • PO Box 427, Mt. Pleasant, Ml 48804-0427 • 989.773.5927 or 1.866.773.5927
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                       150
<INVENTORY>                                     15,208
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,952
<PP&E>                                          77,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,301
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,318
<BONDS>                                         19,833
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        442
<COMMON>                                         1,026
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,843
<SALES>                                         26,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,108
<CGS>                                           22,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,869
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   183
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 620
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (601)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (125)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (476)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (476)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.36)


</TABLE>
#### Linda Lee, an Infant, by Her Guardian ad Litem Margie Lee, et al., Respondents, v. Elkay Shoes, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants. Elkay Shoes, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Al Florant et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Motion by plaintiffs to amend the decision (22 A D 2d 890) of this court rendered December 7, 1964, granted. 'The decision is amended: (a) so as to delete from the third paragraph the provision making it a condition precedent to plaintiffs’ right to accept the reduced sum of $6,000, that Elkay Shoes, Inc., the defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant shall file and serve a stipulation consenting to reduce proportionately its recovery over against the third-party defendants and consenting to the modification and entry of judgment accordingly; and (b) so that said third paragraph, as amended, shall read as follows: *“*Judgment and order reversed on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, witli costs to abide the event, unless, within sixty days after entry of the order hereon, the infant plaintiff and her guardian ad litem shall serve and file a written stipulation consenting to reduce to $6,000 the amount of the verdict in the infant plaintiff’s favor, and consenting to the modification and entry of judgment accordingly. If such stipulation be filed, then the order and the judgment, as thus reduced and modified, are affirmed, without costs.” Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
No. 287.

#### F. R. Glascock et al. *v.*Ellis McDaniel et al., Minors, by J. O. Cravens, Guardian.

Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.

Submitted March 22, 1920.

Decided April 19, 1920.

*Per Curiam.*

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of *576September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726. *Mr.*

*William B. Moore*and *Mr. George 8. Ramsey*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. Grant Foreman, Mr. James D. Simms*and *Mr. Charles F. Runyan*for defendants in error.
#### Covenant Broadcasting Corporation et al. *v.*Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Hamden

*John A. Oliva,*in support of the petition.

*John H. Anderson,*assistant town attorney, in opposition.

*John II. Anderson,*assistant town attorney, in support of the motion.

Submitted October 22

decided November 12, 1974

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County is denied.

The defendant’s motion to dismiss the “appeal” from the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County is granted.
#### 1552.211-78 Advisory and assistance services.

As prescribed in 1511.011-78, insert the following contract clause in all contracts for advisory and assistance services.

# Advisory and Assistance Services (JUL 2016)

All reports containing recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency shall include the following information on the cover of each report: (a) Name and business address of the contractor; (b) contract number; (c) contract dollar amount; (d) whether the contract was subject to full and open competition or a sole source acquisition; (e) name of the EPA Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and the COR's office identification and location; and (f) date of report.

(End of clause)

[50 FR 14360, Apr. 11, 1985; 50 FR 15425, Apr. 18, 1985. Redesignated at 55 FR 39622, Sept. 28, 1990, as amended at 60 FR 21994, May 4, 1995. Redesignated at 61 FR 57339, Nov. 6, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 33573, June 20, 1997; 80 FR 29986, June 26, 2015; 81 FR 31528, May 19, 2016]
### §1448a. Address to newly naturalized citizens

Either at the time of the rendition of the decree of naturalization or at such other time as the judge may fix, the judge or someone designated by him shall address the newly naturalized citizen upon the form and genius of our Government and the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship; it being the intent and purpose of this section to enlist the aid of the judiciary, in cooperation with civil and educational authorities, and patriotic organizations in a continuous effort to dignify and emphasize the significance of citizenship.

(Feb. 29, 1952, ch. 49, §2, 66 Stat. 10.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act which comprises this chapter.

Section was previously classified to section 154 of former Title 36, Patriotic Societies and Observances.

#### Prior Provisions

Similar provisions were contained in act May 3, 1940, ch. 183, §2, 54 Stat. 178, which was classified to section 727a of this title prior to repeal by act Feb. 29, 1952.
Eveready Battery Company, Inc.


                               September 17, 1999


[Name]


Dear  [Name]:

Due  to  your  critical  role in the spin-off process, you will be entitled to a
double  bonus  payment  for  the  next  fiscal  year.

As you may know, bonus payments will be made in April and November of next year.
Should  you  remain  on  the  payroll until January 15, 2001 you will receive an
additional  retention  bonus equal to the total of those two (2) payments.  This
payment  will be made no later than February 1, 2001.  The January, 2001 payment
is  not  eligible  for  any  deferred  compensation  plan.

For example:   Bonus  target  of  45%
               Salary  of  $100,000
               Target met in March:  Payment  $22,500  in  April,  2001
               Target met in April-October:  Payment $22,500 in  November,  2000
               Additional retention payment on or about January 15, 2001:$45,000

This  plan  has  been  limited to a small number of your peers, so please do not
discuss  this  plan  with  other  associates.

Thank you in advance for making the new Energizer a success.  This is one way to
say  your  efforts  will  be  worthwhile.

                                   /s/  J.  Patrick  Mulcahy

                              Schedule of Recipients


1.  Mr. Klein
2.  Mr. Rose
3.  Mr. McClanathan
4.  Mr. Conrad
5.  Mr. Corbin
6.  Mr. Strachan
7.  Mr. Mannix
###### Editorial Note on Part 842

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

#### § 842.116 Payment of claims against NAFIs.

Substantiated claims against NAFIs must not be paid solely from appropriated funds. Claims are sent for payment as set out in this subpart. Do not delay paying a claimant because doubt exists whether to use appropriated funds or NAFs. Pay the claim initially from appropriated funds and decide the correct funding source later.

[81 FR 83700, Nov. 22, 2016]
#### Betty Fried, Appellant, v. Mervin Fried, Respondent.

In an action for a declaratory judgment; for an injunction restraining the plaintiff’s husband from prosecuting an action for a divorce in the State of Georgia; and for a separation, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 31, 1962, as denied her motion for tempo*841rory alimony and counsel fees; for prospective accountant’s fees; and for sole occupancy of the premises owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety, with a direction that the husband pay the carrying charges of the premises. Order modified by adding to its second decretal paragraph (which denies the motion for temporary alimony and counsel fees) a provision granting plaintiff leave to apply to the trial court for an award of counsel fees. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. The stipulation entered into in open court in a prior action for a separation by the husband against his wife is susceptible of the interpretation that it was intended as a separation agreement, thus barring the right to temporary alimony and counsel fees *(Brock*v. *Brock,*1 A D 2d 973; *Turns*v. *Tunis,*286 App. Div. 1126). However, whether the parties in fact had such intention should not be determined on affidavits, but after a trial. Though an award for counsel fees may be made to a wife in an action to restrain her husband from prosecuting an action for a divorce in another State (Civ. Prae. Act, § 1169-a; Domestic Relations Law, § 237), the wife here had paid $1,000 as a retainer fee to her attorney, and Special Term properly considered such payment in denying her motion *(Hirschberg*v. *Hirschberg,*7 A D 2d 869; *Glaser*v. *Glaser,*12 A D 2d 936). Under the circumstances, however, the wife should be granted leave to present her application for counsel fees to the trial court, which may then make such allowance therefor, if any, as may be appropriate on the basis of all the proof adduced. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Rabin and Hopkins, J.T., concur.
Second Department,

August, 1963

(August 27, 1963)

#### In the Matter of William G. O’Donnell, Respondent, v. James Ryan et al., Appellants, and William Meisser et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Nassau, Respondents.

In a proceeding under section 330 of the Election Law, to declare invalid the petition designating James Ryan and Lottie Werner as the candidates, to be voted upon at the forthcoming primary election, for the party positions of committeeman and committeewoman, respectively, of the County Committee of the Democratic party from the 61st Election District, 4th Assembly District in the County of Nassau, etc., the designated candidates and the Committee on Vacancies appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 26, 1963 upon the decision of the court after a hearing, which declared said designating petition to be invalid and directed the Board of Elections to reject it. Order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs; petition in this proceeding dismissed, and designating petition declared to he valid. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. Concededly, only one of the signatures on the designating petition is vulnerable and may be deemed to be invalid. The remaining signatures, however, are free from all irregularity or claim of fraud, and are admittedly valid. The irregularities incident to the one challenged signature are in no way connected with the remaining signatures. Whatever wrongdoing there was, permeated only the one signature, not the entire petition. Since the number of remaining valid signatures is sufficient, the designating petition must be held to be good. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
No. 7932.

#### Turpin *v.*Hagerty, Recorder.

(Decided September 29, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Messrs. Goebel & Bettmger,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. J. Shroder*and *Mr. 8. B. Deal,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
### §1186. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 2, §216, as added Nov. 6, 1986, Pub. L. 99–603, title III, §301(c), 100 Stat. 3411, which related to admission of temporary H–2A workers, was renumbered §218 by Pub. L. 100–525, §2(l)(2), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2612, and transferred to section 1188 of this title.
### §7755. Protection for mail handlers

This chapter shall not apply to any employee of the United States in the performance of the duties of the employee in handling the mail.

(Pub. L. 106–224, title IV, §435, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 453.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title IV of Pub. L. 106–224, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 438, known as the Plant Protection Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title IV to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7701 of this title and Tables.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



We hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of Reliability Incorporated (the Issuer) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 (the Periodic Report):



| | 1. | 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Larry Edwards       |  | /s/ Carl V. Schmidt    
|Larry Edwards           |  | Carl V. Schmidt        
|Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief Financial Officer
|August 15, 2005         |  | August 15, 2005
### §§108, 109. Repealed. June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title IV, §403(a)(13), 66 Stat. 279, eff. Dec. 24, 1952

Section 108, act Feb. 5, 1917, ch. 29, §23, 39 Stat. 892, related to duties of immigration officers. See section 1103(a) of this title.

Section 109, acts Feb. 5, 1917, ch. 29, §24, 39 Stat. 893; June 10, 1921, ch. 18, §304, 42 Stat. 24; May 29, 1928, ch. 864, 45 Stat. 954; Feb. 21, 1931, ch. 270, 46 Stat. 1205; May 2, 1932, ch. 156, 47 Stat. 145; June 20, 1942, ch. 426, 56 Stat. 373, related to officers and employees. See sections 1103(a) and 1353 of this title.
ILND 450 (Rtty. 10/13) Judgment in aCivil Action

MariseliGomez

Plaintiff(s)

PNC Bank

Defendant(s)

Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):

t] in favor of plaintiff(s)

and against defendant(s)

in the amount of $

which f] includes

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

)

)

) CaseNo. 12 C 1274

)

)

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

pre-j udgment interest.

E do., not include pre-judgment interest.

Postjudgment interest accmes on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment.

Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s).

in favor of defendant(s)

and against plainti ff(s)

Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s).

A other: Final judgment is enterd approving the terms of the settlement. This action is dismissed

with prejudice.

This action was (check one):

I tried by ajury with Judge

I tried by Judge

I decided by Judge

Date: 1 ltl 1 l,-

presiding, and thejury has rendered a verdict.

without a jury and the above decision was reached.

a motion

Thom k of Court

lsl ,Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:12-cv-01274 Document #: 140 Filed: 07/22/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1774
### §1156. Unused immigrant visas

If an immigrant having an immigrant visa is denied admission to the United States and removed, or does not apply for admission before the expiration of the validity of his visa, or if an alien having an immigrant visa issued to him as a preference immigrant is found not to be a preference immigrant, an immigrant visa or a preference immigrant visa, as the case may be, may be issued in lieu thereof to another qualified alien.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 1, §206, 66 Stat. 181; Pub. L. 89–236, §6, Oct. 3, 1965, 79 Stat. 916; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, §308(d)(4)(D), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–618.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–208 substituted "denied admission to the United States and removed" for "excluded from admission to the United States and deported".

1965—Pub. L. 89–236 substituted provisions allowing immigrant visas or preference immigrant visas to be issued to another qualified alien in lieu of immigrants excluded or deported, immigrants failing to apply for admission, or immigrants found not to be preference immigrants, for provisions relating to revocation of approval of petitions which, with minor amendments, were transferred to section 1155 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–208 effective, with certain transitional provisions, on the first day of the first month beginning more than 180 days after Sept. 30, 1996, see section 309 of Pub. L. 104–208, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1965 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by Pub. L. 89–236, see section 20 of Pub. L. 89–236, set out as a note under section 1151 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lawrence Mills, Appellant.

Motion granted and time for argument of appeal enlarged to include September 1962 Term.
- 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

Financial AidFINANCIAL AID PROFESSIONALS

## Top 100 Originators of FFELP  Loans -- FY99 and FY98

#### (Sequenced from High to Low on FY99 $ Amount GuaranteedDollars in Millions)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Louis Girardi, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers and on appellant’s typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file six copies of his typewritten brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the March Term, commencing February 27, 1961; the appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. Motion for assignment of counsel denied. The appeal is from an order denying appellant’s *coram nobis*application. It appears from the motion papers that appellant either has in his possession a copy of the original papers to be used in the consideration of this appeal or has full knowledge of the contents of such papers. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jeanne C. Cullinan, Appellant. Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Decision affirmed, without costs (see, Labor Law, § 597, subd *2; Matter of Spirson [Levine],*53 AD2d 772). Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Staley, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Luis Guilin

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07763

Honorable James B. Zagel

Walgreen Co.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, August 27, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable James B. Zagel:Motion to withdraw as attorney

[53] is granted. The appearance of attorney Dana Marie Pesha is withdrawn. Notice of

motion hearing 9/4/2012 is stricken.Mailed notice(drw, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 55 Filed: 08/27/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:420