alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Departmentof Transportation
OfficeoftheSecretary ofTransportation

November 27,2012

Mr. John R. Mietus, Jr. Counsel for Orange Air, Inc. 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 300 Bethesda, MD 20817-7500

DearMr. Mietus: · 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

This letter references the November 14, 2012, request you submitted to the Department on behalf of Orange Air, Inc. (Orange Air), for a waiver from the dormancy provisions of §204.7(a) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations. That sectionprovides that-

"an air carrier that has not commenced any type of air transportation operations for which it was found fit, willing, and able within one year of the date ofthat finding, or an air carrierthat, for any period ofone year after the date ofsuch a finding, has notprovided any type ofairtransportation for whichthat kind offinding is required, is deemed no longerto continueto be fit to provide the air transportation for which it was found fit and, accordingly, its authority to provide such air transportation shall be revoked."

As you are aware, by Order 2011-11-31, issued November 28, 2011, the Departmentfound Orange Air fit to engage in interstate and foreign charter passenger operations. The effectiveness ofthe air carrier's authority was conditioned upon Orange Air fulfilling a number ofconditions, including providing us with a copy ofits Air Carrier Certificate and Operations Specifications issued by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") authorizing such operations. To date, the air carrier has not yet made is authority effective and commenced certificated operations. Thus the air carrier is subject to the revocation for dormancyprovisions of§204.7(a).

In your letter, you state that Orange Airhas been working closely withthe FAA, and the air carrier is in its final stages ofthe FAA certification process. You also indicate, however, that Orange Air will not be able to commence operations by November 28, 2012, one year after its fitness finding, and, therefore, requests that the Department grant Orange Air a waiver from §204.7(a), giving the air carrier approximately four months to commence operations.2

The FAA has advised us that Orange Air is making satisfactory progress toward obtaining its FAA certificate, and that the agency knows ofno reason why we should not grant the requested waiver. The FAA states that it fully expects that Orange Air will commence its proposedoperations withinthetime frame indicatedbythe air carrier. Therefore, we grant Orange Air's request for a waiver from §204.7(a). This waiver will expire on March 31,2013.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Vanessa Balgobin ofmy staffat (202) 366-9721.

Chief, Air CarrierFitness Division Office ofAviationAnalysis

cc: Dockets DOT-OST-2011-0073 and DOT-OST-2011-0074

Mr. Jeffrey Hipps Mr. Charley Beers FAA Orlando CM0-29 5950 HazeltineNational Dr. Orlando, FL 32822
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DANIEL MEDINA and NIKITA GROSS,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

PUBLIC STORAGE, INC., a Maryland 

Real Estate Investment Trust,

WILLIS INSURANCE SERVICES OF 

CALIFORNIA, INC., a California 

Corporation, and PS Illinois 

Trust,

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 12-CV-170

Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr.

)

________________________________________________________________

RE-NOTICE OF MOTION

TO: 

Ryan Christopher Williams, Esq.

Dean A. Dickie, Esq.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC

225 West Washington Street

Suite 2600

Chicago, IL 60606

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Friday, February 24, 2012 at 10:30 a.m., 

Plaintiffs Daniel Medina and Nikita Gross shall appear before the 

Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr. or any judge sitting in his stead in 

Room 1041 of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of 

Illinois, Eastern Division, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, 

Illinois and shall present the Motion For Class Certification, a copy 

of which is attached hereto.

Dated: January 31, 2012 s/ Carla D. Aikens___________

Carla D. Aikens

CARLA D. AIKENS, P.C.

P.O. Box 6061

Vernon Hills, IL 60061

Phone: (215) 219-7404

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:12-cv-00170 Document #: 16 Filed: 01/31/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:99
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 31, 2012, the foregoing Notice 

of Motion was filed and served on all counsel of record via the 

Court’s CM/ECF system.

s/ Carla D. Aikens___________

Carla D. Aikens

CARLA D. AIKENS, P.C.

P.O. Box 6061

Vernon Hills, IL 60061

Phone: (215) 219-7404

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:12-cv-00170 Document #: 16 Filed: 01/31/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:100
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Fotios Theodosopoulos

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−04445

Honorable Marvin E. Aspen

NCO Financial Systems, Inc.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, September 5, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Marvin E. Aspen: A Satisfaction of Judgment

having been filed, and all matters in controversy having been resolved, this actin is

dismissed. The status hearing set for 9/6/12 is stricken. Civil case terminated. Judicial

staff mailed notice(gl, )

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: 1:12-cv-04445 Document #: 16 Filed: 09/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:31
#### 217.7801 Prohibition.

In accordance with section 814 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328) as amended by section 882 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Pub. L. 115-91), contracting officers shall not use reverse auctions when procuring items designated by the requiring activity as personal protective equipment or an aviation critical safety item, when the requiring activity advises the contracting officer that the level of quality or failure of the equipment or item could result in combat casualties. See 252.209-7010 for the definition and identification of critical safety items.

[84 FR 50789, Sept. 26, 2019, as amended at 87 FR 76993, Dec. 16, 2022]
22.1019 Additional classes of service employees. ( a ) If the contracting officer is aware that contract performance involves classes of service employees not included in the wage determination, the contracting officer shall require the contractor to classify the unlisted classes so as to provide a reasonable relationship (i.e., appropriate level of skill comparison) between the unlisted classifications and the classifications listed in the determination (see paragraph (c) of the clause at 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards). The contractor shall initiate the conforming procedure before unlisted classes of employees perform contract work. The contractor shall submit Standard Form (SF) 1444, Request For Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate. The contracting officer shall review the proposed classification and rate and promptly submit the completed SF 1444 (which must include information regarding the agreement or disagreement of the employees' representative or the employees themselves together with the agency recommendation) and all other pertinent information to the Wage and Hour Division. Within 30 days of receipt of the request, the Wage and Hour Division will ( 1 ) approve, modify, or disapprove the request when the parties are in agreement or
( 2 ) render a final determination in the event of disagreement among the parties. If the Wage and Hour Division will require more than 30 days to take action, it will notify the contracting officer within 30 days of receipt of the request that additional time is necessary.
( b ) Some wage determinations will list a series of classes within a job classification family, for example, Computer Operators, level I, II, and III, or Electronic Technicians, level I, II, and III, or Clerk Typist, level I and II. Generally, level I is the lowest level. It is the entry level, and establishment of a lower level through conformance is not permissible. Further, trainee classifications may not be conformed. Helpers in skilled maintenance trades (for example, electricians, machinists, and automobile mechanics) whose duties constitute, in fact, separate and distinct jobs may also be used if listed on the wage determination, but may not be conformed. Conformance may not be used to artificially split or subdivide classifications listed in the wage determination. However, conforming procedures may be used if the work which an employee performs under the contract is not within the scope of any classification listed on the wage determination, regardless of job title. (See 29 CFR 4.152.)
( c ) Subminimum rates for apprentices, student learners, and disabled workers are permissible in accordance with paragraph (q) of the clause at 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards.
[54 FR 19816, May 8, 1989, as amended at 72 FR 63081, Nov. 7, 2007; 79 FR 24207, Apr. 29, 2014]
**EXHIBIT 32.1****DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.**This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350,and is filed with respect to the quarterly report onForm 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarterended March 26, 2005 of Dole Food Company, Inc. (the“Issuer”). I, David H. Murdock, Chairman ofthe Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certifythat to the best of my knowledge:     (i) the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements    of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities    Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and      (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Issuer.     /s/ David H. Murdock           David H. Murdock *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer*May 10, 2005
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 142 

Commemorating the 10th anniversary of the tragic events at Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University on April 16, 2007. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2017 

Mr. KAINE (for himself and Mr. WARNER) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 10th anniversary of the tragic events 

at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

on April 16, 2007. 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the 32 victims who lost their 

3 lives as a result of the tragic events at Virginia Poly4 technic Institute and State University (referred to as 

5 ‘‘Virginia Tech’’) on April 16, 2007, Ross A. 

6 Alameddine, Christopher James Bishop, Brian R. 

7 Bluhm, Ryan Christopher Clark, Austin Michelle 

8 Cloyd, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, Kevin P. Granata, 

9 Matthew Gregory Gwaltney, Caitlin Millar 

10 Hammaren, Jeremy Michael Herbstritt, Rachael 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 142 ATS 

1 Elizabeth Hill, Emily Jane Hilscher, Jarrett Lee 

2 Lane, Matthew Joseph La Porte, Henry J. Lee, 

3 Liviu Librescu, G.V. Loganathan, Partahi Mamora 

4 Halomoan Lumbantoruan, Lauren Ashley McCain, 

5 Daniel Patrick O’Neil, Juan Ramon Ortiz-Ortiz, 

6 Minal Hiralal Panchal, Daniel Alejandro Perez 

7 Cueva, Erin Nicole Peterson, Michael Steven Pohle, 

8 Jr., Julia Kathleen Pryde, Mary Karen Read, 

9 Reema Joseph Samaha, Waleed Mohamed Shaalan, 

10 Leslie Geraldine Sherman, Maxine Shelly Turner, 

11 and Nicole Regina White; 

12 (2) recognizes the 17 individuals who survived 

13 the shooting and supports the continued recovery of 

14 those survivors from physical and psychological 

15 wounds; 

16 (3) offers condolences to the families and 

17 friends of the victims; 

18 (4) expresses hope that the memory of each vic19 tim will live on; and 

20 (5) recognizes— 

21 (A) the resilience of the Virginia Tech 

22 community in the decade following the tragedy 

23 of April 16, 2007; and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 142 ATS 

1 (B) that the perseverance of the Virginia 

2 Tech community serves as an example to com3 munities that experience similar tragedies. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
19.503 Reserves. ( a ) In accordance with section 1331 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (15 U.S.C. 644(r)(3)) and 13 CFR 125.2(e)(4), contracting officers may, at their discretion when conducting multiple-award procurements using full and open competition, reserve one or more contract awards for any of the small business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3), when market research indicates— ( 1 ) A total set-aside is not feasible because there is no reasonable expectation of receiving offers that are competitive in terms of fair market prices, quality, and delivery from at least two responsible small business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3), that can perform the entire requirement; and
( 2 ) A partial set-aside is not feasible because— ( i ) The contracting officer is unable to divide the requirement into distinct portions; or
( ii ) There is no reasonable expectation that at least two responsible small business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3) can perform any portion of the requirement competitively in terms of fair market price, quality, and delivery.
( b ) A reserve will result in one of the following: ( 1 ) One or more contract awards to any one or more types of small business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3).
( 2 ) In the case of a solicitation of a bundled requirement that will result in a multiple-award contract, an award to one or more small businesses with a Small Business Teaming Arrangement.
( c ) The specific program eligibility requirements identified in this part apply.
( d ) The limitations on subcontracting and the nonmanufacturer rule (see 19.505) do not apply to reserves at the contract level, but shall apply to orders that are set aside or issued directly to one small business concern under 19.504(c)(1)(ii).
[85 FR 11762, Feb. 27, 2020]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-11143 Summary Calendar

____________________

MARYAM KANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ERICSSON, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas

(95-CV-2138)

_________________________________________________________________ February 27, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Maryam Kany, pro se , appeals from the summary judgment granted

Ericsson, Inc. Kany, who has been on long-term disability leave

since 28 Marc 1994, brought claims against Ericsson, her employer,

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to

e-17, for failure, because of her sex, religion, and national

origin, to provide a healthy work environment, to promote, and to

increase pay. Pursuant to our review of the record, we A FFIRM for- 2 -

essentially the reasons stated by the district court. K any v.

Ericsson, Inc. (95-CV-2138) (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 1996) (unpublished).

Kany’s motion to correct the record on appeal is DENIED as

moot.

AFFIRMED
201.402 Policy. ( 1 ) The Principal Director, Defense Pricing, Contracting, and Acquisition Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) (OUSD(A&S)DPCAP), is the approval authority within DoD for any individual or class deviation from— ( i ) FAR 3.104, Procurement Integrity, or DFARS 203.104, Procurement Integrity;
( ii ) FAR subpart 27.4, Rights in Data and Copyrights, or DFARS subpart 227.4, Rights in Data and Copyrights;
( iii ) FAR part 30, Cost Accounting Standards Administration, or DFARS part 230, Cost Accounting Standards Administration;
( iv ) FAR subpart 31.1, Applicability, or DFARS subpart 231.1, Applicability (contract cost principles);
( v ) FAR subpart 31.2, Contracts with Commercial Organizations, or DFARS subpart 231.2, Contracts with Commercial Organizations; or
( vi ) FAR part 32, Contract Financing (except subparts 32.7 and 32.8 and the payment clauses prescribed by subpart 32.1), or DFARS part 232, Contract Financing (except subparts 232.7 and 232.8).
( 2 ) Submit requests for deviation approval through department/agency channels to the approval authority in paragraph (1) of this section, 201.403, or 201.404, as appropriate. Submit deviations that require OUSD(A&S)DPCAP approval through the Director of the DAR Council via email at *osd.pentagon.ousd-a-s.mbx.dfars@mail.mil .* At a minimum, each request must— ( i ) Identify the department/agency, and component if applicable, requesting the deviation;
( ii ) Identify the FAR or DFARS citation from which a deviation is needed, state what is required by that citation, and indicate whether an individual or class deviation is requested;
( iii ) Describe the deviation and indicate which of paragraphs (a) through (f) of FAR 1.401 best categorizes the deviation;
( iv ) State whether the deviation will have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency and/or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors, and give reasons to support the statement;
( v ) State the period of time for which the deviation is required;
( vi ) State whether approval for the same deviation has been received previously, and if so, when;
( vii ) State whether the proposed deviation was published (see FAR subpart 1.5 for publication requirements) in the Federal Register and provide analysis of comments;
( viii ) State whether the request for deviation has been reviewed by legal counsel, and if so, state results; and
( ix ) Give detailed rationale for the request. State what problem or situation will be avoided, corrected, or improved if request is approved.
[56 FR 36284, July 31, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 61591, Nov. 30, 1995; 61 FR 50451, Sept. 26, 1996; 64 FR 8727, Feb. 23, 1999; 65 FR 6552, Feb. 10, 2000; 68 FR 7439, Feb. 14, 2003; 88 FR 73235, Oct. 25, 2023; 89 FR 60830, July 29, 2024]
#### WENDT et al., Respondents, v. NORTHERN ELECTRICAL MFG. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

Action by William F. Wendt and another against the Northern Electrical Manufacturing Company.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 1 

Extending the life of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 

Ceremonies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Extending the life of the Joint Congressional Committee 

on Inaugural Ceremonies. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF JOINT COMMITTEE. 

4 Effective from January 3, 2017, the joint committee 

5 created by Senate Concurrent Resolution 28 (114th Con6 gress), to make the necessary arrangements for the inau7 guration of the President-elect and the Vice President8 elect of the United States, is continued with the same 

9 power and authority provided for in that resolution. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 1 ATS 

1 SEC. 2. USE OF CAPITOL. 

2 Effective from January 3, 2017, the provisions of 

3 Senate Concurrent Resolution 29 (114th Congress), to au4 thorize the use of the rotunda and Emancipation Hall of 

5 the Capitol by the Joint Congressional Committee on In6 augural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings 

7 and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the 

8 President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the United 

9 States are continued with the same power and authority 

10 provided for in that resolution. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Francisco Olivares, Appellant, v Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

[832 NYS2d 571]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J), entered on or about September 8, 2005, which, inter alia, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to expunge all references to certain charges of misconduct from petitioner’s employment record, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, a tenured teacher employed by respondent Department of Education (DOE), seeks to have references to dismissed misconduct charges expunged from the files of the DOE’s Administrative Trial Unit (ATU). He claims that this is required by Education Law § 3020-a (4) (b). However, the DOE is not required to expunge references to dismissed charges from the ATU files, since the files are not “employment records” within the meaning of Education Law § 3020-a (4) (b). Moreover, pursuant to 8 NYCRR Appendix I, the ATU is required to maintain records of dismissed disciplinary proceedings and charges for a minimum of three years after a final decision has been rendered. Since the last disciplinary ruling involving petitioner was rendered on or about May 14, 2003, the ATU was required to retain records pertaining to that ruling until May 14, 2006. Thus, the ATU could not have legally expunged the records from its files in January 2004 when petitioner commenced this article 78 proceeding. Concur—Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Marlow, Williams and Catterson, JJ.