alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0036 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 213 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
#### In the Matter of Francis P. Amorelli et al., Respondents, v. Frederic S. Berman, as City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator, Appellant, and Judith Chirgwin, Intervenor.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 7, 1966, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta and Rabin, JJ., concur; Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment, with the following memorandum: In our opinion the facts and circumstances warranted the finding of the Administrator that the subject housing accommodation constitutes a part of a multiple dwelling; he therefore properly denied the issuance of a certificate of eviction (Rent, Eviction and Rehabilitation Regulations, § 55; see *Matter of Berger*v. *Herman,*15 A D 2d 792; *Matter of Elman*v. *Weaver,*9 A D 2d 694; *Matter of Cuccia*v. *Weaver,*9 A D 2d 689).
#### § 15b.42 Procedures.

The procedural provisions applicable to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to this part. These procedures are found in 7 CFR 15.5-15.11 and 15.60-15.143.
§ 1719.3 Policy and Federal Register Notices. ( a ) Eligible entities (see § 1719.2 and § 1719.4) are permitted to participate in the Rural Energy Saving Program on the condition that loan funds will be used to make loans to Qualified consumers for the purpose of implementing EE measures.
( b ) The Agency will issue annual Federal Register notices each year specifying the amount of funds available under this Part. Notices may also include program priorities and loan application periods. The Administrator in setting funding priorities and application periods may consider the amount of available funds, the nature and amount of unfunded loan applications, prior commitments, Agency resources, Agency priorities and policy goals, and any other pertinent information.
( c ) In making loans under this Part, the Administrator may consider a proposed EE Program's effect on existing RUS borrowers and the integrity of the RUS portfolio and deny or limit approval of a specific RESP loan application on that basis if it is determined that such requested loan would have a negative effect on existing RUS or RESP borrowers or the RUS loan portfolio.
( d ) The Administrator may, on a case-by-case basis, grant an exception to any requirement or provision of this subpart provided that such an exception is in the best financial interests of the Federal government. Exercise of this authority cannot be in conflict with applicable law.
( e ) With regard to the rules of grammatical construction, unless the context otherwise indicates, “includes” and “including” are not limiting, and “or” is not exclusive.
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1467.13 Modifications. ( a ) *Easements.* ( 1 ) After an easement has been recorded, no modification will be made in the easement except by mutual agreement with the Chief and the participant. The Chief will consult with FWS and the Conservation District prior to making any modifications to easements.
( 2 ) Approved modifications will be made only in an amended easement, which is duly prepared and recorded in conformity with standard real estate practices, including requirements for title approval, subordination of liens, and recordation.
( 3 ) The Chief may approve modifications to facilitate the practical administration and management of the easement area or the program so long as the modification will not adversely affect the wetland functions and values for which the easement was acquired or when adverse impacts will be mitigated by enrollment and restoration of other lands that provide greater wetland functions and values at no additional cost to the government.
( 4 ) Modifications must result in equal or greater environmental and economic values to the United States and address a compelling public need, as determined by the Chief.
( b ) *WRPO.* Insofar as is consistent with the easement and applicable law, the State Conservationist may approve modifications to the WRPO that do not affect provisions of the easement in consultation with the participant and with consideration of site specific technical input from the FWS and the Conservation District. Any WRPO modification must meet WRP regulations and program objectives, comply with the definition of wetland restoration as defined in § 1467.3, must result in equal or greater wildlife benefits, wetland functions and values, and ecological and economic values to the United States.
**Exhibit 31.2**I, William E. Alvarez, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 of PatriotCapital Funding, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Dated this 10th day of August, 2006.     By: /s/ William E. Alvarez, Jr.     **William E. Alvarez, Jr.**    **Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officerand Secretary**
#### § 1787.3 Products constituting a portion of a purchase order or contract.

Where a supplier or contractor offers or furnishes several products under a purchase order or contract, the provisions of this part apply to each product individually.
§ 1717.853 Loan terms and conditions. ( a ) *Terms and conditions.* A loan, bond or other financing instrument, for which a lien accommodation or subordination is requested from RUS, must comply with the following terms and conditions: ( 1 ) The maturity of the loan or bond used to finance facilities or other capital assets must not exceed the weighted average of the expected remaining useful lives of the assets being financed;
( 2 ) The loan or bond must have a maturity of not less than 5 years, except for loans or bonds used to refinance debt that has a remaining maturity of less than 5 years;
( 3 ) The principal of the loan or bond must be amortized at a rate that will yield a weighted average life not greater than the weighted average life that would result from level payments of principal and interest; and
( 4 ) The loan, or any portion of the loan, may bear either a variable (set annually or more frequently) or a fixed interest rate.
( b ) *RUS approval.* Loan terms and conditions and the loan agreement between the borrower and the lender are subject to RUS approval. However, RUS will usually waive its right of approval for distribution borrowers that meet the conditions for advance approval of a lien accommodation or subordination set forth in § 1717.854. RUS may also waive its right of approval in other cases. RUS's decision to waive its right of approval will depend on the adequacy of security for RUS's loans, the current and projected financial strength of the borrower and its ability to meet its financial obligations, RUS's familiarity with the lender and its lending practices, whether the transaction is ordinary or unusual, and the uncertainty and credit risks involved in the transaction.
#### § 160.6 Standard designations for turpentine.

Spirits of turpentine within the meaning of the act and the provisions in this part shall be designated as “gum spirits of turpentine,” “steam distilled wood turpentine,” “destructively distilled wood turpentine,” or “sulphate wood turpentine,” as the case may be.
#### § 1780.2 Purpose.

Provide loan and grant funds for water and waste projects serving the most financially needy communities. Financial assistance should result in reasonable user costs for rural residents, rural businesses, and other rural users.
#### Lawrence Sherman et al. *v.*John Kemish et al.

Alcorn, C. J., House, Cotter, Ryan and Shapiro, Js.

Argued May 5

decided May 11, 1971

*Robert M. Davidson,*for the appellant (defendant Grilmore).

*L. Douglas Shrader,*for the appellant (defendant Marcus).

*Emanuel Margolis, Herbert L. Cohen,*and *Lawrence P. Weisman,*for the appellees (plaintiffs).

Per Curiam.

In this matter an intervening defendant has applied for a suspension of the appellate rules and for an expedition -of the appeal. After a full hearing it appears that all of the other parties are in agreement that unless the procedural safeguards on appeal are followed, justice to all of the parties cannot be assured. It further appears that *565due to applicable statutory and charter requirements, a suspension of the normal appellate procedure would not result in accomplishment of the objective sought by the applicant.

The application is denied.
118 So.2d 877

#### RALPH’S FLEET, INCORPORATED, v. AMERICAN MARINE CORPORATION.

No. 44976.

March 21, 1960.

Sydney J. Parlongue, New Orleans, for appellant.

Charles D. Marshall, Charles W. Howard,.' Jr., New Orleans, for appellee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff, Ralph’s Fleet, Incorporated,, having secured a writ sequestering two locomotive steam cranes owned by it on. the-*437allegation they were in the possession of the defendant, American Marine Corporation, and it was feared they might be concealed, parted with, or removed from the court’s jurisdiction during the pendency of the suit, appealed suspensively to this court from a judgment dissolving the writ following a trial on defendant’s motion in which it disclaimed any title to, possession or custody of, the property, and averred that the plaintiff was free at all times to move the cranes at will. The appellee, contending the appeal was improvidently granted inasmuch as the property is now in plaintiff’s possession and it cannot, therefore, be irreparably injured by the interlocutory ruling complained of,1 has moved for its dismissal.

A perusal of the record clearly shows this court is without appellate jurisdiction over the matter. While there is a ' reconventional demand filed by the defendant in which it claims damages totalling $7,387 for the illegal use of its facilities in securing the removal of the cranes under the sequestration process, our jurisdiction is governed by the main demand,2 and the record not only reflects defendant’s disclaimer of any right or title in and to the sequestered property (which is now in plaintiff’s possession), but neither the value thereof nor the value of any loss plaintiff may have sustained by being deprived of the use thereof is affirmatively shown.3

Inasmuch as we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, it necessarily follows that we are without authority to rule on the motion to dismiss that appeal.4 This court, therefore, availing itself of the provisions of RS 13 :4441, will transfer the case to the proper appellate court.5

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that this appeal be transferred to the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans, provided the record is filed in that court within 30 days from the date upon which this decree shall become final; otherwise, the appeal shall be dismissed. The costs incurred in this court shall be paid by the appellant.

1

. Article 566 of the Code of Practice. See, also, State ex rel. Roth v. Judge of Twenty-Third District, 37 Da.Ann. 846; and 33 Tulane Law Review 664.

2

. Section 1 of Article VII of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921. See, Louisiana State Rice Milling Co. v. Gage, 162 La. 350, 110 So. 555; Succession of Solari, 218 La. 671, 50 So.2d 801; State ex rel. Claiborne v. Distefano, 229 La. 1098, 87 So.2d 705.

3

. Section 10 of Article VII of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921. See, Jackson v. Golson, 236 La. 735, 109 So.2d 75; Smith v. Holland, 234 La. 125, 99 So.2d 49; Succession of Gaudin, 233 La. 235, 96 So. 2d 500.

4

. See, Netter v. Reggio, 113 La. 723, 37 So. 620.

5

. Article VII, Section 29, of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Theresa Sagoo, Respondent, v. Mele Mfg. Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, and Special Fund For Reopened Cases, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Gibson, P. J.

Appeal by employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which discharged the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under section 25-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, upon finding that medical reports filed subsequent to the last payment of compensation on January 4, 1962 and to the closing of the ease on October 27, 1964, but prior to the expiration of seven years from the date of the accident on March 12, 1958, constituted an application to reopen within the seven-year period. The first two medical reports following the October 27, 1964 closing indicated the same condition of *“*pain in leg ” and the same treatment by *“*elastic stocking for support ” as were set forth in the reports immediately preceding the closing. A report of December 30, 1964, however, disclosed additional treatment, by prescription of preludin endurett, and this was repeated in a report of January 29, 1965; a report of March 3, 1965 indicated a new condition, or so the board found, of *“*swelling of left leg ”, and also reported “ periodic office calls ” and *“*supportive therapy ”. The condition continued and culminated in claimant’s hospitalization on April 23, 1965 for phlebitis of the left leg. The formal order of restoral was made May 27, 1965. The decision appealed from must be sustained as the board could properly find the reports “ sufficient to put the board on notice that there had been a change in claimant’s condition and that the carrier’s liability had not been concluded. Accordingly, the board was justified in treating such report as an application to reopen the claim and restore it to the Referee’s calendar.” *(Matter of Norton*v. *New York State Dept. of Public Works,*1 N Y 2d 844, 845; *Matter of Chase*v. *Buffalo Aeronautical Corp.,*12 A D 2d 849.) Decision affirmed, with costs to respondent Special Fund. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gibson, P. J.
Exhibit 32-1

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 The Navigators Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stanley A. Galanski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/
Stanley A. Galanski

Stanley
A. Galanski
President and Chief Executive Officer
February 28, 2005



---
#### §§ 1753.19-1753.20 [Reserved]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 159 

To modify the project for the improvement of the Shallotte River, North 

Carolina, to change the authorized depth to 8 feet. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2013 

Mr. MCINTYRE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To modify the project for the improvement of the Shallotte 

River, North Carolina, to change the authorized depth 

to 8 feet. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHALLOTTE RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA. 

4 The project for the improvement of the Shallotte 

5 River, North Carolina, authorized by the Act of March 4, 

6 1913 (37 Stat. 807), is modified to change the authorized 

7 maintenance depth to 8 feet. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
**EXHIBIT
      16.2**




[LETTERHEAD
      OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP]




Report
      of
      Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To
      the
      Board of Directors and Shareholders of Manaris Corporation:





We
      have
      audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Manaris
      Corporation **** and
      its
      subsidiaries **** as
      of
      June 30, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations and
      comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity and cash flows **** for
      the
      year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
      Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
      financial statements based on our audit.





We
      conducted our audit in accordance with the Standards of the Public Company
      Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we
      plan
      and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
      statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining,
      on a
      test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
      statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used
      and
      significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
      financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a
      reasonable basis for our opinion.





In
      our
      opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly,
      in all material respects, the financial position of Manaris Corporation and
      its
      subsidiaries at June 30, 2006, and the results of its operations and its cash
      flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally
      accepted in the United States of
      America .





The
      accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company
      will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the financial
      statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has
      relied on non-operational sources of financing to fund operations, had negative
      working capital and had not respected certain loan covenants as of June 30,
      2006
      and was required to restrict use of funds under a loan arrangement with a
      supplier, which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a
      going
      concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters are also described in
      Note 1. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
      result from the outcome of this uncertainty.





/s/
      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





**Chartered
      Accountants**


**Montreal,
      Quebec, Canada**


**September
      29, 2006**