alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 10
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 10
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 10
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 10
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 10
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 10
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 10
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 10
U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

November 27,2012 

Mr. John R. Mietus, Jr. 

Counsel for Orange Air, Inc. 

6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 300 

Bethesda, MD 20817-7500 

Dear Mr. Mietus: · 

1200 New Jersey 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) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. That section provides 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 of that finding, or an air carrier that, for any period of one year after 

the date of such a finding, has not provided any type of air transportation for 

which that kind of finding is required, is deemed no longer to continue to 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 Department found 

Orange Air fit to engage in interstate and foreign charter passenger operations. The 

effectiveness of the air carrier's authority was conditioned upon Orange Air fulfilling a 

number of conditions, including providing us with a copy of its 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 

dormancy provisions of §204.7(a). 

In your letter, you state that Orange Air has been working closely with the FAA, and the air 

carrier is in its final stages of the 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 of no reason why we should not grant the 

requested waiver. The FAA states that it fully expects that Orange Air will commence its 

proposed operations within the time frame indicated by the 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 of my staff at (202) 366-9721. 

Chief, Air Carrier Fitness Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

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

Mr. Jeffrey Hipps 

Mr. Charley Beers 

FAA Orlando CM0-29 

5950 Hazeltine National Dr. 

Orlando, FL 32822
#### 2131.205-3 Bad debts.

*Erroneous benefit payments.* If the contractor or OPM determines that a FEGLI Program benefit has been paid in error for any reason, the contractor shall make a diligent effort to recover such erroneous payment from the recipient. The contracting officer shall allow an unrecovered erroneous payment to be charged to the contract provided the contractor demonstrates that the recovery of the erroneous payment was attempted in accordance with a system that is approved under 2146.270(b) and that either a diligent effort was made to recover the erroneous overpayment or it would not be cost effective to recover the erroneous overpayment. The contractor's compliance with a system that is approved under 2146.270(b) will be deemed to be a diligent effort to recover the erroneous overpayment.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 47 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 47

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer 
      Financial Protection relating to ``Arbitration Agreements''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 20, 2017

Mr. Crapo (for himself, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Scott, 
Mr. Heller, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Corker, Mr. Sasse, 
   Mr. Moran, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. 
  Wicker, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Lankford, Mr. 
 Strange, and Mr. Cochran) introduced the following joint resolution; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer 
      Financial Protection relating to ``Arbitration Agreements''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating 
to ``Arbitration Agreements'' (82 Fed. Reg. 33210 (July 19, 2017)), and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Albert Francis, Respondent.

— Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated February 10, 1978, which, after a hearing, granted defendant’s motion to suppress the identification testimony of the complaining witnesses, Jeffrey Muldoon and Ramona Mirro. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion denied. We have examined the folders of photographs used by the police in seeking a photographic identification by the witnesses and find that there was no suggestiveness in the procedure employed. While the defendant’s picture appears in each of the three folders used by the police, there are other pictures contained therein which are also repeated. It is true that the witnesses should not have been shown the folders together; however, that fact appears to have had no effect here, as complainant Mirro remained unable to make a positive identification despite the fact that complainant Muldoon had already done so. Regarding Mirro’s identification of the defendant in Criminal Court, we also find no suggestiveness to have been present, since, among other factors, the identification was spontaneous (it occurred prior to the case having been called). Titone, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
#### Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, v. Joseph Engels, as Executor of Mary Cava, Deceased, et al., Appellants.

In an action arising out of an automobile accident, brought by an automobile liability insurance carrier, as subrogee of a claim of the insured owner of the automobile, for indemnity against the estate and distributees of the deceased driver thereof, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 10, 1963, which: (1) denied their motion for a protective order, pursuant to statute (CPLR 3103), so as to suppress (as allegedly privileged) a certain written statement given by defendant Josephine Engels; and (2) directed that the said defendant Josephine Engels and the defendant Anthony Cava appear for pretrial examination pursuant to a notice theretofore given. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Other considerations aside, it is our opinion that the privilege here asserted was waived when, in compliance with the demand served by defendants’ attorney pursuant to statute (CPLR 3101, subd. [e]), the plaintiff’s attorneys furnished the defendants’ attorney with a copy of the allegedly privileged statement; and when such statement was submitted as an exhibit to the Special Term and as part of the record on appeal to this court (cf. *People*v. *Ryan,*40 Ill. App. 2d 352; *Matter of Warrington [State of New York],*277 App. Div. 1076, affd. 303 N. Y. 129; *Matter of Krup,*173 Misc. 578; *Baxter*v. *Baxter,*92 Misc. 567, 570, affd. 173 App. Div. 998; *Matter*of’ *Saxl,*27 Misc 2d 658). The pretrial examination of the defendants Josephine Engels and Anthony Cava shall proceed on 10 days’ written notice at the place specified in the order, or at such time and place as the parties may mutually fix by written stipulation. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [41 Misc 2d 49.]
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3308

_____________________________

CHRISTOPHER LYNN CORMIER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

W. Joel Boles, Judge.

May 15, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Christopher Lynn Cormier, pro se, Appellant.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
209.571-8 Solicitation provision and contract clause. ( a ) Use the provision at 252.209-7008, Notice of Prohibition Relating to Organizational Conflict of Interest—Major Defense Acquisition Program, if the solicitation includes the clause at 252.209-7009, Organizational Conflict of Interest—Major Defense Acquisition Program; and
( b ) Use the clause at 252.209-7009, Organizational Conflict of Interest—Major Defense Acquisition Program, in solicitations and contracts for systems engineering and technical assistance for major defense acquisition programs or pre-major defense acquisition programs.
[75 FR 81913, Dec. 29, 2010]
#### NEW ORLEANS FURNITURE EXPORT COMPANY, Inc., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 3510.

United States District Court, S. D. Mississippi, Jackson Division.

April 5, 1965.

Earl Thomas, Jackson, Miss., H. L. Hammett, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.

R. E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for defendant.

WILLIAM HAROLD COX, Chief Judge.

This is a suit for the recovery of income taxes imposed and collected by the United States under 26 U.S.C.A. § 531 et seq. The plaintiff is a wholly owned *88subsidiary of the New Orleans Manufacturing Company. The surpluses of the corporation used for the assessments were as follows: 1957 — eleven thousand seven hundred twenty-seven dollars eighty-one cents; 1958 — sixteen thous- and nine hundred ninety-five dollars eighty-three cents; 1959 — thirteen thousand nine hundred eighty dollars seventy-one cents. The taxpayer was required to pay fourteen thousand nine hundred sixty-two dollars eighty-six cents and sues for a recovery of that amount plus interest from March 29, 1962. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The New Orleans Manufacturing Company had a loss each year in excess of the amount stated. There is no evidence before the Court that the plaintiff corporation was formed or availed of for the purpose of avoiding income taxes for such years to its stockholders by permitting such earnings and profits to accumulate instead of being divided or distributed. The taxpayer had no definite plan for expansion. It lent the manufacturing company one hundred twenty-two thousand one hundred forty-nine dollars forty-nine cents in 1957. The ratio of the taxpayer’s cash to debt for 1957 was fifty-four to one; for 1958, it was 40 to 1; and for 1959, it was 40 to 1. The undisputed, positive testimony in the case is to the effect that a tax motive did not in any manner or to any extent influence the accumulation in question.

The accountant for the taxpayer testified without contradiction that under existing regulations of the Internal Revenue Department that the taxpayer was not liable for this 27%% assessment under the facts and circumstances stated. The taxpayer is a mere holding company and that of itself is prima facie evidence of the purpose to avoid the income tax with respect to shareholders; and earnings and profits of the corporation were thus permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs and immediate requirements of the business, but the taxpayer has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that under the facts and circumstances in this ease, such was not its purpose and it was not liable for the tax for the years in suit.

The Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of such taxes erroneously assessed and collected from it together with 6% interest thereon from and after March 29, 1962. A judgment accordingly may be presented for entry.
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 48 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to parental rights. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2017 

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. RISCH, Mr. GRASSLEY, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relating to parental rights. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States: 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 48 IS 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The liberty of parents to direct the up3 bringing, education, and care of their children is a funda4 mental right. 

5 ‘‘SECTION 2. The parental right to direct education 

6 includes the right to choose, as an alternative to public 

7 education, private, religious, or home schools, and the 

8 right to make reasonable choices within public schools for 

9 one’s child. 

10 ‘‘SECTION 3. Neither the United States nor any State 

11 shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its 

12 governmental interest as applied to the person is of the 

13 highest order and not otherwise served. 

14 ‘‘SECTION 4. The parental rights guaranteed by this 

15 article shall not be denied or abridged on account of dis16 ability. 

17 ‘‘SECTION 5. This article shall not be construed to 

18 apply to a parental action or decision that would end life. 

19 ‘‘SECTION 6. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any 

20 source of international law be employed to supersede, mod21 ify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this 

22 article.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

SEARCH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss)
(in thousands except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                       Year Ended      Six Months Ended       Year Ended
                                                                     March 31, 1997     March 31, 1996     September 30, 1995
                                                                     --------------    ----------------    ------------------
<S>                                                                     <C>                 <C>                <C>
Weighted Average Shares:
  Common Stock outstanding at end of period                               3,163               3,119               1,347
  Adjustment for weighting of shares                                        203              (1,875)               (226)
  Common Stock equivalents assumed outstanding                               --                  62                  --
                                                                        -------             -------            --------
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding     [A]                               3,366               1,306               1,121
                                                                        =======             =======            ========
  Net Income (Loss)                     [B]                             $(4,871)            $(2,998)           $(20,134)
                                                                        =======             =======            ========
Computation of net income (loss) per share:
  Net income (loss) divided by weighted average shares
    outstanding                       [B]/[A]                           $ (1.45)            $ (2.29)           $ (17.96)
                                                                        =======             =======            ========
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



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 Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robin S. McRae, Secretary/Treasurer, Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer 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/ Robin S. McRae

By  ____________________________________

Robin S.  McRae

Secretary/Treasurer and Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer

Date:  April 12, 2004
Case: 1:12-cv-03687 Document #: 210 Filed: 03/29/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:3160
Case: 1:12-cv-03687 Document #: 210 Filed: 03/29/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:3161
Case: 1:12-cv-03687 Document #: 210 Filed: 03/29/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3162
Case: 1:12-cv-03687 Document #: 210 Filed: 03/29/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:3163
Case: 1:12-cv-03687 Document #: 210 Filed: 03/29/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:3164
Case: 1:12-cv-03687 Document #: 210 Filed: 03/29/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:3165
EXHIBIT 21
                                   QMS, INC.
                          SUBSIDIARIES AND TRADE NAMES

             Unless indicated otherwise, each of the following is a
                      wholly owned subsidiary of QMS, Inc.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  State or Other
                                                 Jurisdiction of                     Other Names Under Which
  Legal Name of Subsidiary                        Incorporation                      Subsidiary Does Business
----------------------------                      -------------                      ------------------------

<S>                                      <C>                                         <C>
QMS Circuits, Inc.                              Delaware                             QCI

QMS Foreign Sales, Inc.                         U.S. Virgin Islands

QMS Canada, Inc.                                Canada


As of December 10, 1996
</TABLE>
**Exhibit      32.0**

**Written      Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial      Officer**

**Pursuant      to 18 U.S.C. **
**1350**

|   | (1) | The                accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the                quarter                ended March 3, 2007, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents,                in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                              |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/                Fred R. Adams, Jr.                                    |   |   |   |
| Fred                R. Adams, Jr.Chairman                of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |        |
| /s/              Timothy A. Dawson                                                                                             |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Timothy                A. DawsonVice                President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and                Secretary |   |   |        |
|                                                                                                                           |   |   |   |
| Date:                April                9,                2007                                                               |   |   |   |

----
EXHIBIT 10-U
------------
(C-XIII)

                           ALLONGE TO DEMAND NOTE


      Reference is made to that certain Demand Note, dated as of March 25,
1993 (the "Note"), made by Carlyle Real Estate Limited Partnership-XIII, an
Illinois limited partnership ("Carlyle XIII"), in favor of Carlyle
Investors, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Investors"), in the original
principal amount of $600,000.

      In consideration for the return of capital made by Investors to
Carlyle XIII as of the date hereof in the amount of $400,000, the
undersigned hereby reduces the outstanding principal balance of the Note to
$200,000.  Such reduction shall not serve to reduce or cancel any accrued
and unpaid interest which may be outstanding on the Note.

      This Allonge shall be attached to and become a part of the Note.



Dated as of October 31, 1996.              CARLYLE INVESTORS, INC.
                                           a Delaware corporation


                                           By:___________________
                                           Its:__________________

Acknowledged and Agreed:

CARLYLE REAL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP-XIII
an Illinois limited partnership

By:   JMB REALTY CORPORATION,
      a Delaware corporation
      Corporate General Partner

      By:__________________
      Its:_________________