alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EXHIBIT 

# i~7D-1

# ~5

PublicRunwayCensus,Continental U.S. 8.000 CI! 

# :J i6 7,000


# ~ r:: G.l C 

## :;; r:: 6,000 0 

## (J 

# .5 III

## 5,000 

# ~ 

# .. 0 Co 

# .. Ci 4.000 

# .2 15 ::J 

# a. 3.000 

# .•.. ('(I III 

## >. ('(I



# ~ 2,000 r:: ::J 362 

# et:


# - 0 

## 1,000 

# .. 146 Q) .Q 

# a E ::J 0 Z 

## 1.763

1,248



# ~

~

40 19 16 5

0 P 

# '-0 W .l:> U1 m --.J 00 ill 

# .... f-> f-> f-> f-> f-> 

### 0 0 0 (::, (::, (::, 

### 0 0 0 0 f-> 

# '-0 W .l:> U1 f-> 

# g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

### 0 

# a (::, 

# a 0 0 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t I t t t t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'V W 

# ..,. U1 0> --.J 

### co co f-> I I t I 

### 0 0 

# a 0 

# a 0 0 0 0 f-> 

# .... .... I-" I-" I-" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

### <:.> 

# ~ !'-' w 

### f'> en 

### ?' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

# a 0 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 

## RunwayLengthRanges(tt)


## Source:Business&CommercialAviation,July2006.
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd.; |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | Omitted. |
|----|----------|

| 5. | Omitted. |
|----|----------|

| Date: January 12, 2015 | By:    | /s/ David Wolfin            |   |
|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | David Wolfin                |   |
|                   |   | Principal Executive Officer |   |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NASIRUDDIN KHAN

of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,

Petitioner,

v.

TARFA FATIMA,

Respondent.

Case No. 12 C 1270

Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court to be heard on the

Verified Petition for Return of Child and Petition for Immediate

Issuance of Show Cause Order to Respondent, The Convention on the

Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at the Hague on

October 25, 1980 and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. 

The Court has jurisdiction over the parties, both of whom were

present before the Court and represented by counsel. 

Having held a hearing on the matter, the Court makes the

following findings: 

1. Prior to April 2011, the Child ZFK was habitually a

resident of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. She resided there with both

of her parents, Petitioner and Respondent.

2 Prior to April 2011, both Petitioner and Respondent had

been domiciled in Edmonton, and both had guardianship rights as to

the child.

Case: 1:12-cv-01270 Document #: 18 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:67
3. Following a visit to India, the child was removed by the

Respondent to the United States without permission of the Petitioner. 

4. Respondent has not met her burden of demonstrating by clear

and convincing evidence that there is a grave risk that the child’s

return to Canada with the Petitioner will imminently expose her to

psychological or physical harm or place her in an intolerable

situation, as required under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention to

justify an order declining to return the child. 

Based on the above findings, the Court rules as follows:

1. Petitioner’s Petition for Return of Child is granted on the

condition that Petitioner will pay the retainer of an attorney of

Respondent’s choosing in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada for the purpose of

representing her in the pending divorce and custody proceedings

there. The Court defers to the judgment of the Canadian courts as to

whether Petitioner should be required to pay all of Respondent’s

legal fees.

2. Petitioner having agreed to that condition, Respondent

shall promptly turn over to Petitioner the passport of the minor

Child ZFK. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge

United States District Court

DATE: 3/23/2012

- 2 -

Case: 1:12-cv-01270 Document #: 18 Filed: 03/23/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:68
### §436. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Apr. 21, 1948, ch. 224, §1, 62 Stat. 197, transferred records, property, and civilian personnel of the Remount Service of the Quartermaster Corps of the Army to the Department of Agriculture effective July 1, 1948, and was omitted from the Code as obsolete.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00291-CR

Arlene MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CR4426

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 15, 2011

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that the case is a “plea-bargain case, and 

the defendant has NO right of appeal.” We must dismiss the appeal “if a certification that shows 

the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 

25.2(d); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Appellant’s counsel has filed written notice with this court that counsel has reviewed the 

record and “can find no right of appeal for Appellant.” We construe this notice as an indication 
04-11-00291-CR

- 2 -

that appellant will not seek to file an amended trial court certification showing that appellant has 

the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d) 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 

177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of the record presented, we agree with 

appellant’s counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this 

appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### Charles R. Beckley, as Ancillary Executor of Dorothy P. Beckley, Deceased, Respondent, v. F. Douglas Speaks et al., Appellants, and Audrey Milburne, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to plaintiff-respondent as against defendants-appellants. The judgment and its affirmance here are without prejudice to the right, if any, of any of .the parties, including the defendants-appellants, to a credit or recovery on the accounting for moneys which may be established to have been properly *760expended in the partnership affairs on account of rental charges or license fees and established as a proper liability of the partnership. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Wade Bryant

*Ernest J. Diette, Jr.,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

No appearance for the appellant (defendant).

Argued November 5

decided November *5,*1974

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted.
### §491. Destruction or dumping of farm produce received in interstate commerce by commission merchants, etc.; penalty

After June 30, 1927, any person, firm, association, or corporation receiving any fruits, vegetables, melons, dairy, or poultry products or any perishable farm products of any kind or character, hereinafter referred to as produce, in interstate commerce, or in the District of Columbia, for or on behalf of another, who without good and sufficient cause therefor, shall destroy, or abandon, discard as refuse or dump any produce directly or indirectly, or through collusion with any person, or who shall knowingly and with intent to defraud make any false report or statement to the person, firm, association, or corporation from whom any produce was received, concerning the handling, condition, quality, quantity, sale, or disposition thereof, or who shall knowingly and with intent to defraud fail truly and correctly to account therefor shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $3,000, or by imprisonment for a period of not exceeding one year, or both, at the discretion of the court.

(Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 309, §1, 44 Stat. 1355.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section constitutes part of section 1 of act Mar. 3, 1927. Remainder of section 1 was classified to section 492 of this title.
#### 18.125 Protest to GAO.

When urgent and compelling circumstances exist, agency protest override procedures allow the head of the contracting activity to determine that the contracting process may continue after GAO has received a protest. (See 33.104(b) and (c).)

[71 FR 38248, July 5, 2006. Redesignated at 72 FR 46344, Aug. 17, 2007. Redesignated at 76 FR 18309, Apr. 1, 2011]
#### 1819.7301 Scope of subpart.

The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs were established and issued under the authority of the Small Business Act codified at 15 U.S.C. 631, as amended, and the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-219), codified with amendments at 15 U.S.C. 638, as amended. The Small Business Act requires that the Small Business Administration (SBA) issue SBIR and STTR Program Policy Directives for the general conduct of the SBIR/STTR Programs within the Federal Government. The statutory purpose of the SBIR Program is to strengthen the role of innovative small business concerns (SBCs) in federally-funded research or research and development (R/R&D). Specific program purposes are to: Stimulate technological innovation; use small business to meet Federal R/R&D needs; foster and encourage participation by socially and economically disadvantaged SBCs, and by SBCs that are 51-percent owned and controlled by women, in technological innovation; and increase private sector commercialization of innovations derived from Federal R/R&D, thereby increasing competition, productivity and economic growth. Federal agencies participating in the SBIR/STTR Programs (SBIR/STTR agencies) are obligated to follow the guidance provided by the SBA Policy Directive. NASA is required to ensure its policies, regulations, and guidance on the SBIR/STTR Programs are consistent with SBA's Policy Directive. Contracting officers are required to insert the applicable clauses identified in 1819.7302 in all SBIR and STTR contracts.

[71 FR 61688, Oct. 19, 2006, as amended at 80 FR 12939, Mar. 12, 2015]
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Juan Manuel Garza, * From the 106th District Court

 of Dawson County,

 Trial Court No. 14-7402.

Vs. No. 11-16-00134-CR * October 13, 2016

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
#### In the Matter of Rocco F. De Perno, Petitioner, against Frank Dulan, as Mayor of the City of Utica, Respondent.

Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. Motion to dismiss petition for legal insufficiency unanimously denied, without costs. (Review of the action of the Mayor of the City of Utica, in removing Rocco F. De Perno as member and chairman of the Municipal Civil Service Commission, which matter was transferred to the Appellate Division for determination by order of Oneida Special Term.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
```

[Federal Register: July 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 136)]
[Notices]               
[Page 41564-41565]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16jy10-120]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

 
Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending July 3, 2010

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under subpart 
B (formerly subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption

[[Page 41565]]

of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a 
final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0167.
    Date Filed: June 29, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: July 20, 2010.
    Description: Application of Virgin America Inc. requesting a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity to engage in foreign 
scheduled air transportation of persons, property and mail between the 
United States and Mexico.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0093.
    Date Filed: July 28, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: July 19, 2010.
    Description: Amendment of Open Joint Stock Company Transaero 
Airlines to its pending application for a foreign air carrier permit to 
include authority to provide scheduled foreign air transportation of 
persons, property and mail (i) from any point or points behind the 
Russian Federation, via any point or points in the Russian Federation 
and intermediate points, to New York, New York and Miami, Florida, and 
(ii) from New York, New York and Miami, Florida, to any point or points 
in the Russian Federation and beyond.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Alternate Federal 
Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-17360 Filed 7-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
#### 203.970 Contract clause.

Use the clause at 252.203-7002, Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights, in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services.

[87 FR 65512, Oct. 28, 2022, as amended at 88 FR 6580, Jan. 31, 2023]
§ 219.120 Evaluation and disposition of applications and proposals for research to be conducted or supported by a Federal department or agency. ( a ) The department or agency head will evaluate all applications and proposals involving human subjects submitted to the Federal department or agency through such officers and employees of the Federal department or agency and such experts and consultants as the department or agency head determines to be appropriate. This evaluation will take into consideration the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained.
( b ) On the basis of this evaluation, the department or agency head may approve or disapprove the application or proposal, or enter into negotiations to develop an approvable one.
EXHIBIT 99.1


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

In connection with the Annual Report of HIA, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the period ending November 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I Alan C. Bergold, the
President, Treasurer and Director of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that;

     (1)  The 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 C. Bergold
                                            ----------------------------------
                                                 Alan C. Bergold, President and
                                                 Treasurer and Director
#### Marva Carlos, Respondent, v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant.

Order, entered September 23, 1964, unanimously reversed, on the law, without-costs,- and motion to strike jury demand denied, without, costs. The order would have been affirmed except for the fact- that the parties and Special Term were bound by the prior Special Term order which directed a trial before a court and a jury and which was not appealed. One Justice at Special Term may not ordinarily set aside or *867materially modify an order rendered by another Justice so sitting. “Setting aside the judicial act of one judge by another of co-ordinate jurisdiction is avoided, wherever possible, as not conducive to the orderly administration of justice.” *(Matter of United Press Assns.*v. *Valente,*281 App. Div. 395, 398, affd. 308 N. Y. 71; also *Kamp*v. *Kamp,*59 N. Y. 212; *Mount Sinai Hosp.*v. *Davis,*8 A D 2d 361.) Concur—Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7457
RAMULUS A. MASON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTIN J. MCDADE, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-98-442-5-H) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramulus A. Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ramulus Mason appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Mason v. McDade , No. CA-98-442-5-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 15, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leonard Custodero, Appellant.

Same decision as in case of *People*v. *Fiore*(16 A D 2d 875). (Appeal from judgment of Oneida Extraordinary Special and Trial Term convicting defendant of conspiracy to obstruct justice in one count and perjury first degree, in two counts.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
17.202 Use of options. ( a ) Subject to the limitations of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, for both sealed bidding and contracting by negotiation, the contracting officer may include options in contracts when it is in the Government's interest. When using sealed bidding, the contracting officer shall make a written determination that there is a reasonable likelihood that the options will be exercised before including the provision at 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options, in the solicitation. (See 17.207(f) with regard to the exercise of options.)
( b ) Inclusion of an option is normally not in the Government's interest when, in the judgment of the contracting officer— ( 1 ) The foreseeable requirements involve— ( i ) Minimum economic quantities (*i.e.,* quantities large enough to permit the recovery of startup costs and production of the required supplies at a reasonable price); and
( ii ) Delivery requirements far enough into the future to permit competitive acquisition, production, and delivery.
( 2 ) An indefinite quantity or requirements contract would be more appropriate than a contract with options. However, this does not preclude the use of an indefinite quantity contract or requirements contract with options.
( c ) The contracting officer shall not employ options if— ( 1 ) The contractor will incur undue risks; e.g., the price or availability of necessary materials or labor is not reasonably foreseeable;
( 2 ) Market prices for the supplies or services involved are likely to change substantially; or
( 3 ) The option represents known firm requirements for which funds are available unless ( i ) the basic quantity is a learning or testing quantity and
( ii ) competition for the option is impracticable once the initial contract is awarded.
( d ) In recognition of ( 1 ) the Government's need in certain service contracts for continuity of operations and
( 2 ) the potential cost of disrupted support, options may be included in service contracts if there is an anticipated need for a similar service beyond the first contract period.
[48 FR 42231, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 53 FR 17858, May 18, 1988; 56 FR 15150, Apr. 15, 1991; 60 FR 42656, Aug. 16, 1995]
1.602-1 Authority. ( a ) Contracting officers have authority to enter into, administer, or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings. Contracting officers may bind the Government only to the extent of the authority delegated to them. Contracting officers shall receive from the appointing authority (see 1.603-1) clear instructions in writing regarding the limits of their authority. Information on the limits of the contracting officers' authority shall be readily available to the public and agency personnel.
( b ) No contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met.