alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
^* 

•••FFARTMBNT OF 

•hAN3P0RiAl!0N 

•:CC^LT OPERATIONS 

SERVED AUGUST 10 2011 '^^^^ ^^ ' ' ^ ^' ^^ 

UvS DEPARTMENl^ OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 

FAA DOCKET No. CP10NM0006 

(Civil Pciiiilly Action) 

DMS FAA-2n 10-0790 

IN THE MATTER OF 

EMPIRE AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CPI0NM0007 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS FAA-2010-0791 

ORDER DENYING MOTION IN LIMINE 

Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant"), on August 9, 

2011, filed a Motion in Limine ("Motion"). It requests that two of Respondents' intended 

witnesses be precluded from testifying because the witnesses' proposed testimony will 

prove irrelevant or immaterial, or because the nature of the proposed te;stimony is 

currently unknown. In the alternative, the Motion asks that any testimony be limited "to 

the facts surrounding (his case." 
Complainanrs Motion is denied as prcmauirc. Arginiicnl cunccniiiig (he nature 

and appropriateness of proposed testimony must await its proffer at Ilie hearing. 

SO ORDERED. 

Qjcl^k c. GJI ~=A 

Altachmenls ~ Service List 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 
FAA Docket Nos. CP10NM0006 

&CP10NM0007 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building -Suite 2W1OOO' 

ONE COPY 

David J. Bronczek, President 

Federal Express Corporation, RespoiiderU 

Delivery Code 7622, BIdg G, 2'"* Floor 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building 8,3^''Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125 

Cynthia Chandler-Snell, Respondent's 

Counsel 

Federal Express Corporation 

Regulatory Division 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building 8,3''^ Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125 

TEL: 901-434-8361 

FAX: 901-434-8283 

Glenn P. Wicks, Respondent's Counsel 

Roncevcrt D. Almond 

The Wicks Group, PLLC 

1215 17"^ Street, NW 

Sumner Annex, Fourth Floor 

Washington, DC 20036 

TEL: 

FAX: 

202-457-7790 

202-457-7799 

Kyle Lomazow, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, OfRce of Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W 

Rcnton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodvvm, 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room EI2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Adininislralion, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building -Suite 2W1000, 

Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### Obex Trading Corporation, Respondent, v Maraven, S. A., Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 19, 1978, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of *forum non conveniens*unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted on condition defendant serves notice on plaintiff, within 20 days after service upon it by plaintiff of a copy of the order to be settled hereon with notice of entry, stipulating that it will not challenge jurisdiction of the Netherlands court and will not object to the taking in New York, for use in the Netherlands action, of depositions of witnesses who reside in or have offices in New York, with costs and disbursements awarded to appellant. In the event of defendant’s failure to comply with these conditions, the order is unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. This suit stems from defendant’s alleged wrongful repudiation of a contract, negotiated through discussions and telexes in Venezuela and England, to sell 150,000 barrels of natural gasoline to plaintiff, a Panamanian corporation. Defendant is a Venezuelan corporation. Neither party is authorized to do business in New York nor maintains offices here and the cargo was not destined for New York. Payment was to be made, in United States dollars, to defendant’s account "with the Chase Manhattan Bank, New York * * * against backing by an irrevocable letter of credit in first class bank USA, opened five days in advance of the date of loading of the tanker” in Venezuela. The Chase Manhattan Bank’s belated confirmation of an irrevocable German letter of credit, which had been transferred to plaintiff’s Bermuda bank and then to the Chase Manhattan Bank, was the ostensible reason for defendant’s cancellation of the contract. These few contacts with New York, unrelated, as they were, to any regular business activity conducted here by defendant, are insufficient to justify New York as a convenient forum. (See, e.g., *Irrigation & Ind. Dev. Corp. v Indag, S. A.,*37 NY2d 522; *Mollendo Equip. Co. v Sekisan Trading Co.,*56 AD2d 750, affd 43 NY2d 916.) Moreover, plaintiff has a forum available in the Netherlands, where it has offices and where it has already commenced another action against defendant wherein it makes the same claims as those being advanced in this suit and where defendant has posted substantial security. The record does not demonstrate that forum is an unsuitable one. Plaintiff’s interest in deposing employees of the Chase Manhattan Bank can be protected by requiring defendant to agree to the taking of such depositions in New York. Settle order. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Markewich, Silverman, Lynch and Yesawich, JJ.
#### 201.602-70 Contract clause.

Use the clause at 252.201-7000, Contracting Officer's Representative, in solicitations and contracts when appointment of a contracting officer's representative is anticipated.
75

Appendix II. 

Time series of monthly mean sea level

after removal of seasonal cycle 

showing the derived linear trend

Note: Derived linear trends and 95% confidence intervals for trends are shown.

Vertical solid lines indicate times of major earthquakes. Dashed vertical lines

indicate beginning and end of periods of suspect data.
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
#### 231.100 Scope of subpart.
**Office of the General CounselSenior Staff & Phone Numbers**

| **Immediate Office** |
|----------------------|
Exhibit 23


                       Consent of Independent Accountants

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  prospectuses
constituting  part of the  Registration  Statements of Form S-8 (Nos.  33-17925,
33-78562, 33-61712, 33-64205, 333-17131, 333-45381) and Form S-3 (Nos. 33-61712)
of ELXSI Corporation of our report dated March 12, 1999 appearing on page F-1 of
this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Orlando, Florida
March 29-1999
223.302 Hazardous material identification and notice of material safety data. ( e ) The contracting officer shall also provide hazard warning labels, that are received from apparent successful offerors, to the cognizant safety officer.
[70 FR 73150, Dec. 9, 2005, as amended at 89 FR 66284, Aug. 15, 2024]
#### 22.1020 Seniority lists.

If a contract is performed at a Federal facility where employees may be hired/retained by a succeeding contractor, the incumbent prime contractor is required to furnish a certified list of all service employees on the contractor's or subcontractor's payroll during the last month of the contract, together with anniversary dates of employment, to the contracting officer no later than 10 days before contract completion. (See paragraph (n) of the clause at 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards.) At the commencement of the succeeding contract, the contracting officer shall provide a copy of the list to the successor contractor for determining employee eligibility for vacation or other fringe benefits which are based upon length of service, including service with predecessor contractors if such benefit is required by an applicable wage determination.

[54 FR 19816, May 8, 1989, as amended at 72 FR 63081, Nov. 7, 2007; 79 FR 24207, Apr. 29, 2014]
April 11, 1975.

M. P. No. 75-103.

#### In re Bristol International Brotherhood of Police Officers Local 304.

*John P. Hawkins,*for petitioner.

Matter considered by Chief Justice Roberts on April 11, 1975, on Petition requesting the Chief Justice to appoint a third arbitrator under the provisions of Sec. 28-9.2-8 of the General Laws 1956, as amended, to arbitrate a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Town of Bristol and Bristol International Brotherhood of Police Officers Local 304 on all of the unresolved issues between said parties. After consideration it was ORDERED:

1. The Petition of Bristol International Brotherhood of Police Officers Local 304, requesting the Chief Justice to appoint a third arbitrator, is hereby granted.

2. John J. Hall of 245 Sharon Drive, Warwick, Rhode Island, is hereby appointed as the third member and chairman of the said Arbitration Board under the provisions of Sec. 28-9.2-8 of the General Laws 1956, as amended.
#### Mitchell & Morgan, Inc., v. Adrian Baumgart, as Ancillary Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Schneebalg, Deceased.

Motion for resettlement granted to the extent of resettling the order of this court entered on May 8,1962 *(ante,*p. 758) by adding the following: *“*and it is further ordered, that compliance with said order be had within thirty days from the date of the service upon the attorneys for defendant-appellant of a copy of this order with notice of entry.” Submit resettled order. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
# \00*-l&E COPY


### CCA # 13-14-00175-CR 

## OFFENSE: Capital Murder STYLE: Manuel Pena v. The StateofTexas COUNTY: Cameron TRIAL COURT: 107th District Court MOTION TRIAL COURTS: 2009-CR-1438-A FOR REHEARING IS: 

### TRIAL COURTJUDGE: Hon. Benjamin EurestiJr. DATE: June 25, 2015 DISPOSITION: Affirmed JUDGE: Gina M. Benavides DATE: 

# JUSTICE: L PC S PUBLISH: DNP: CLK RECORD: x SUPP CLK RECORD RPT RECORD: x SUPP RPT RECORD STATE BR: x SUPP BR APP BR: x PROSE BR



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

# PRO S£ Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# K^t^ f//0t//SLdir DATE: _ JUDGE:


### CCAIS:. JUDGE: 

# iuS i^*^=~ MOTION FOR REHEARING IN 

### ON 

### CCA# 

# \OQ*t'lf Disposition: DATE: JUDGE: 

### SIGNED:. PUBLISH: PC: DNP: MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS: 

### ON JUDGE:
*Today, the Administration released the fiscal year 2025 budget request for the U.S. Department of Education. “President Biden’s budget raises the bar in education by investing in evidence-based strategies and partnerships that will improve outcomes from cradle to career. With these investments, we can deliver an excellent education to all students, improve learning conditions, build pathways to college and careers, and increase postsecondary education affordability and access. By answering the President’s call to action, Congress would provide states and communities with invaluable resources to bolster a talented, diverse teaching workforce; expand access to multilingual programs; increase school-based mental health services; and meet the needs of students with disabilities. Through this budget, the President prioritizes fiscal responsibility while making bold strides to narrow opportunity and achievement gaps. I look forward to working alongside states, districts, and communities as they leverage these investments to promote access, opportunity, and excellence for all students,” said Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona.*

The following materials show what this budget provides for the programs and activities of the Department of Education:

- Press Release
- The FY 2025 Education Budget Summary and Background Information  [ PDF , 1.2MB] provides program information and detailed budget tables.
- The FY 2025 Education Budget Key Highlights  [ PDF , 446KB]
- FY 2025 Justifications of Appropriations Estimates to the Congress 

### FY 2025 Budget for the entire U.S. Government

- The President’s FY 2025 Budget for the entire United States Government
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

The companies listed below are all of the subsidiaries of ACR
Group, Inc. as of February 28, 2006. All of the companies are wholly-owned.



|                                   |  |                       
|---------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                 |  | State of Incorporation
|                                   |  |                       
|                                   | 
|ACR Supply, LLC                    |  | Nevada                
|                                   | 
|ACR Supply, LP                     |  | Texas                 
|                                   | 
|CAC Distributors, Inc.             |  | Texas                 
|                                   | 
|Contractors Heating and Supply, LP |  | Texas                 
|                                   | 
|ETI Texas, Inc.                    |  | Tennessee             
|                                   | 
|Florida Cooling Supply, Inc.       |  | Nevada                
|                                   | 
|Heating and Cooling Supply, LLC    |  | Nevada                
|                                   | 
|Lifetime Filter, Inc.              |  | Texas                 
|                                   | 
|Total Supply, Inc.                 |  | Nevada                
|                                   | 
|Valley Supply, Inc.                |  | Texas                 
|                                   | 
|West Coast HVAC Supply, Inc.       |  | Nevada                
|                                   | 
|Westbrook GP, LLC                  |  | Texas
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Winfred Johnson, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered December 2, 1976 convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him to four years to life, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to one year to life, and otherewise affirmed. The defendant was charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree arising out of two sales of cocaine to an undercover police officer. He was permitted by the narcotics prosecutor to plead guilty to the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree on the understanding that he would receive a sentence of four years to life. That sentence was in fact thereafter imposed. Special circumstances disclosed by the record persuade us, as they apparently persuaded the sentencing Judge, that the sentence agreed to and fixed is excessive. At the time the plea was entered, defendant stated without contradiction that he was induced to enter the unlawful transactions by a close friend who, unknown to him, was acting as a confidential informant. According to the defendant’s uncontradicted statement, the friend told the defendant that he required help because of financial difficulties, and the friend received the greater part of the proceeds from the transactions. The defendant, 29 years of age at the time of these events, had never previously been arrested for a crime and had been gainfully employed throughout his adult life. Although expressing the view that a lesser sentence was warranted under the circumstances, the sentencing Judge felt obligated to honor the sentence commitment that he had made at the time of the plea. We agree with him that the sentence imposed is excessive and accordingly reduce it as indicated. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Burns, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
23.107-4 Products that contain, use, or are manufactured with ozone-depleting substances or products that contain or use high global warming potential hydrofluorocarbons. ( a ) *Authorities.* ( 1 ) Title VI of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7671, *et seq.*).
( 2 ) Section 706 of Division D, title VII of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8).
( 3 ) EPA regulations, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone (40 CFR part 82).
( b ) *Program.* The EPA SNAP Program.
( c ) *Agency program* s. Agencies shall implement cost-effective programs to minimize the procurement of materials and substances that contribute to the depletion of stratospheric ozone and/or result in the use, release, or emission of high global warming potential hydrofluorocarbons.
( d ) *Procedures.* Agencies shall— ( 1 ) Give preference to the procurement of acceptable alternative chemicals, products, and manufacturing processes that reduce overall risks to human health and the environment by minimizing— ( i ) The depletion of ozone in the upper atmosphere; and
( ii ) The potential use, release, or emission of high global warming potential hydrofluorocarbons; and
( 2 ) In preparing specifications and purchase descriptions and in the acquisition of products and services— ( i ) Comply with the requirements of title VI of the Clean Air Act; section 706 of division D, title VII of Public Law 111-8; and 40 CFR 82.84(a)(2) through (5);
( ii ) Substitute acceptable alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, as identified under 42 U.S.C. 7671k, to the maximum extent practicable, as provided in 40 CFR 82.84(a)(1), except in the case of Class I substances being used for specified essential uses, as identified under 40 CFR 82.4(n); and
( iii ) Unless a particular contract requires otherwise, specify that, when feasible, contractors shall use another acceptable alternative in lieu of a high global warming potential hydrofluorocarbon in products and services in a particular end use for which EPA's SNAP program has identified other acceptable alternatives that have lower global warming potential.
( e ) *Resource.* Refer to EPA's SNAP program website at *https://www.epa.gov/snap* for the list of alternatives found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G, as well as supplemental tables of alternatives.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Noel Barbosa, Appellant.

Order, entered on August 29, 1960, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.


This certification is provided pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, and is filed with respect to the quarterly
report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for
the quarter ended June 19, 2004 of Dole Food Company, Inc.
(the Issuer). I, David H. Murdock, Chairman of
the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer,
certify that 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.           

July 29, 2004

| |                                                    
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ DAVID H. MURDOCK                               
| |                                                    
| | David H. Murdock                                   
| | Chairman, President and Chief Executive
    Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998  
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998  
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998  
<CASH>                                           3,452,916  
<SECURITIES>                                             0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                      550,057  
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0  
<INVENTORY>                                      1,727,096  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,196,350  
<PP&E>                                           2,514,725  
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,333,695) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,066,670  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,909,442  
<BONDS>                                                  0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0  
<PREFERRED>                                             45  
<COMMON>                                         1,193,452  
<OTHER-SE>                                         272,708  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,066,670  
<SALES>                                                  0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,539,941  
<CGS>                                              437,713  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      437,713  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,109,809  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 305,390  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,663,347) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,663,347) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0  
<CHANGES>                                                0  
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,663,347) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.15) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.15) 
                                               


</TABLE>
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21

- 0349

_________________ SE SSEL SAGORIN, as successor to interest to YELLOWSTONE LODGING, LLC,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. SUNRISE HEATING AND COOLING, LLC, EXCELLENCE HEAT ING & COOLING, LLC, BRIAN MEDRAIN, ZACK NELSON, DAIKIN NORTH AMERICA, LLC, DAKIN APPLIED AMERICAS, INC., THERMAL SUPPLY, INC., LATERAL ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC, AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, LESLIE JONGBERG III, d/b/a MONTANA MOBILE MOUNTAIN COOLING SERVICES, DOUG'S CONSTR. AND REPAIR, INC., CHRIS BAKER, JAMIE WRIGHT, TRAVIS JORDAN, SCOTT PHELAN, ESQUIRE INTERMOUNTAIN LAW, LLC, and DODD LAW FIRM, P.C.,

Defendants and Appellees. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operatin g Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five

- justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Sessel Sagorin, to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Peter B. Ohman, District Judge

. For the Co urt,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 2 2022

02/02/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0349
22.901 Policy. Executive Order 11141, February 12, 1964 (29 FR 2477), states that the Government policy is as follows: ( a ) Contractors and subcontractors shall not, in connection with employment, advancement, or discharge of employees, or the terms, conditions, or privileges of their employment, discriminate against persons because of their age except upon the basis of a bona fide occupational qualification, retirement plan, or statutory requirement.
( b ) Contractors and subcontractors, or persons acting on their behalf, shall not specify in solicitations or advertisements for employees to work on Government contracts, a maximum age limit for employment unless the specified maximum age limit is based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, retirement plan, or statutory requirement.
( c ) Agencies will bring this policy to the attention of contractors. The use of contract clauses is not required.