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

JAN 2 3 2017 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of BEM Systems, Inc. 

Docket No. F AA-20 I 6-4264 

Case No. 20 15NM730029 

Administrative Law Judge Douglas M. Rawald 

COMPLAINANT'S WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

The Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration, in the above-captioned case by its 

designated representatives withdraws its Complaint in this case. This request is made pursuant 

to Section 13.215 ofthe Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 CFR, Part 13, 

Subpart G. 

Date: January 18, 2017 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Naomi Tsuda 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

For Enforcement 

By: Jea~~~ Senior Attorney 

Enforcement Division, Northeast Team 

I Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Email: jeanine.gotimer@faa.gov 

Telephone: (718) 553-3272 (direct) 

(718) 995-5699 (fax) 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this day copies of the foregoing Complainant's Withdrawal of Complaint 

were sent Federal Express as follows: 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

!200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (EI l-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

BEM Systems, Inc. 

Respondent 

Attn: Mark Murset, CFO 

1 00 Passaic A venue 

Chatham, NJ 07928 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2014 

Washington, DC 20591 

J que line M. Facey, Management & Progam Analyst 

Date: January 18,2017
§ 1735.95 Unadvanced loan funds. ( a ) The unadvanced loan funds of a borrower that will not be a survivor of an acquisition or merger shall be advanced only to the survivor and only under the following circumstances. ( 1 ) If the funds are to be used for purposes approved in prior loans, the funds shall be advanced after the effective date of the proposed action only when all loan contract prerequisites have been met and documents have been submitted in form and substance satisfactory to the Administrator.
( 2 ) If the funds are to be used for new purposes, then in addition to the requirements in (a)(1) of this section, RUS must also approve the change in purpose.
( b ) No loan or other money in the construction fund shall be used to finance facilities outside areas to be served by projects approved by RUS.
[54 FR 14626, Apr. 12, 1989, unless otherwise noted. Redesignated at 55 FR 39395, Sept. 27, 1990.]
```

[Federal Register: July 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 130)]
[Notices]               
[Page 39205]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08jy10-38]                         

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

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

 
Meetings

AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board) plans to hold its regular committee and Board meetings 
in Washington, DC, Wednesday and Thursday, July 28-29, 2010, at the 
times and location noted below.

DATES: The schedule of events is as follows:

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

9:45-10:30 a.m. Ad Hoc Committee on Classroom Acoustics.
10:30-12:15 p.m. Ad Hoc Committee on Frontier Issues.
1:30-3:00 p.m. Board Meeting.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

9-5 p.m. Information meeting on Medical Diagnostic Equipment.

ADDRESSES: All meetings will be held at the Access Board Conference 
Room, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the 
meetings, please contact David Capozzi, Executive Director, (202) 272-
0010 (voice) and (202) 272-0082 (TTY).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the Board meeting scheduled on the 
afternoon of Wednesday, July 28, 2010, the Access Board will consider 
the following agenda items:
     Approval of the draft May 12, 2010 meeting minutes.
     Ad Hoc Committee Reports.
     Executive Director's Report.
     ADA and ABA Guidelines; Federal Agency Updates.
    All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An 
assistive listening system, computer assisted real-time transcription 
(CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board 
meetings and information meeting. Persons attending Board meetings are 
requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances 
for the comfort of other participants (see http://www.access-board.gov/about/policies/fragrance.htm for more information).

David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-16674 Filed 7-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.517 [Reserved]
#### Vance and Dicks *vs.*Ward.

Assumpsit.'

A writing, exhibited to tho ■payee of a bill, by which the drawee authorizes it to be draY,n’ on the faith of which it is purva^nfto^nac" ceptance, and e^toaccept^md pay the bill.

Wherethedraw thus^bound to pay it, if the acceptence^on the face of the the draw” TMthat the drawer does not take it np at maturity, lie, the payee, will, — such promise is without consideration, not binding, and no defence to an action on the acceptance.

[Mr. Monroe for Appellants : Messrs. Moreliead and Brown for Appellee.]

From the Circuit Court por Christian County.

*April*17.

Judge Nicholas

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Tins was an action, brought by the appellants, to recover the amount of a bill of exchange drawn by Waggeiier, in their favor, on the appellee, Ward, and by him accepted.

The declaration contains several special counts and the usual money count. An issue was tried on the latter, and the jury, under the instruction of the court, found for Ward. To the pleas filed by him to the other counts, the appellants replied; their replications were demurred to, and. the demurrers sustained.

The special counts, in addition to the acceptance made by Ward on the face of the bill, charge that Waggener drew the bill by virtue of a written authority from Ward, which was exhibited to one of the firm of Vance and Dicks, before he bought the bill, and that it was bought on.the faith of that authority. The pleas, without denying this allegation, state •' *VI JO o*
      *96that Ward made his acceptance on the face of the bill, f°r the accommodation of Vance and Dicks, and under an assurance that if Waggener did not take it up at maturityi l®iey would.

It is well settled, that such authority as is charged in the declaration to have been given for drawing the bill, if shewn to the person who buys it upon the credit of such authority, is equivalent to, and may be treated as, an actual acceptance on the part of him who gave the authority. *Coolidge*vs. *Payson,*2 *Wheaton,*66. *Goodrich*vs. *Gordon,*15 *Johnson,*6. There xvas, therefore, no need for the acceptance made by Ward on the face"of the bill, as he was equally bound without it; and the promise made by Vance and Dicks, to induce him to make that acceptance, was without consideration, and, consequently, not obligatory upon them. The pleas were, therefore, had, and it is useless to enquire *into the*sufficiency of the excuse alleged in their replications for making that promise ; that is, that it was made by one of them in ignorance of the authority upon which it was drawn, and of the circumstances under which it had been bought by the other partner.

The demurrers should have been overruled, and the pleas adjudged insufficient.

The court also erred, on the trial of the issue, in rejecting the deposition of Kingsley. We have not been able to discover any plausible ground for its rejection, and none has been suggested in argument.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and cause remanded, with directions to set aside' the verdict, and for further proccdings consistent with this opinion.
§ 1c.107 IRB membership. ( a ) Each IRB shall have at least five members, with varying backgrounds to promote complete and adequate review of research activities commonly conducted by the institution. The IRB shall be sufficiently qualified through the experience and expertise of its members (professional competence), and the diversity of its members, including race, gender, and cultural backgrounds and sensitivity to such issues as community attitudes, to promote respect for its advice and counsel in safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects. The IRB shall be able to ascertain the acceptability of proposed research in terms of institutional commitments (including policies and resources) and regulations, applicable law, and standards of professional conduct and practice. The IRB shall therefore include persons knowledgeable in these areas. If an IRB regularly reviews research that involves a category of subjects that is vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, consideration shall be given to the inclusion of one or more individuals who are knowledgeable about and experienced in working with these categories of subjects.
( b ) Each IRB shall include at least one member whose primary concerns are in scientific areas and at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas.
( c ) Each IRB shall include at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution and who is not part of the immediate family of a person who is affiliated with the institution.
( d ) No IRB may have a member participate in the IRB's initial or continuing review of any project in which the member has a conflicting interest, except to provide information requested by the IRB.
( e ) An IRB may, in its discretion, invite individuals with competence in special areas to assist in the review of issues that require expertise beyond or in addition to that available on the IRB. These individuals may not vote with the IRB.
PUBLIC LAW 108–300—AUG. 9, 2004 118 STAT. 1101

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4427:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,

Vol. 150 (2004):

July 6, considered and passed House.

July 22, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–300

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 73 South

Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New York, as the ‘‘Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New York, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Perry B.

Duryea, Jr. Post Office’’.

Approved August 9, 2004.

Aug. 9, 2004

[H.R. 4427]
#### § 1787.11 Cost differential.

By application pursuant to § 1787.10, the Administrator may waive the Buy American requirement if the cost of the domestic product is unreasonable. Given that RUS loans terms normally range from 20 to 35 years, and that additional costs will be magnified with interest over these terms, the Administrator has determined that if the lowest bid or offered price is a nondomestic bid that is at least 6percent lower than the next lowest bid or offered price, the RUS Borrower may request a cost differential waiver. With respect to contracts that are not required to be bid, prices of market-available, domestic products must be used for comparison in a request for waiver.
Fact Sheet 

The President’s Fiscal 2002 Immigration Budget 

4/9/01 

Institutional Infrastructure 

The FY 2002 INS budget includes $74.6 million to provide additional 

infrastructure to accommodate INS’ rapid growth in personnel and enforcement 

capability over the past seven years. FY 2002 infrastructure projects are focused on 

construction of Border Patrol stations and detention facilities. 

FY 2002 Initiatives 

($ in thousands) 

Border Patrol Construction Projects Amount 

Texas 

Construction Projects 

Laredo Checkpoint System (5 sites) 

Alpine Border Patrol Station 

Total, Texas 

$ 7,028 

2,692 

$9,720 

California 

Construction Projects 

Temecula Border Patrol Station 

El Centro Border Patrol Station Headquarters 

Chula Vista Border Patrol Station 

Brownfield Border Patrol Station Lead Mitigation 

San Diego Strategic Border Barrier Project 

Total, California 

$ 

6,050 

9,033 

3,925 

3,000 

$28,008 

Arizona 

Construction Project 

Yuma Border Patrol Sector Headquarters 

Total, Arizona 

2,000 

$2,000 

Southwest Border Infrastructure Program $3,000 

TOTAL, Border Construction $42,728 

6,000 

Prepared by the Office of Public Affairs • Immigration & Naturalization Service • (202) 514-2648
FY 2002 INS Budget – Institutional Infrastructure 

Page 2 

Detention Construction Projects Amount 

Texas 

Construction Projects 

Port Isabel SPC: 200-bed dormitory 

El Paso SPC (200-bed secure dormitory and 

rehabilitate isolation dormitory 

Total, Texas 

$ 7,000 

7,000 

$14,000 

Florida 

Construction Projects 

Krome SPC Phase 1B, Administrative Building 

Total, Florida 

$ 14,890 

$14,890 

California 

Construction Projects 

El Centro SPC Security Improvements 

Total, California 

$3,000 

$3,000 

TOTAL, Detention Construction $31,890 

TOTAL, ALL INITIATIVES $74,618
```

[Federal Register: August 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 153)]
[Notices]               
[Page 48333]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10au10-43]                         

[[Page 48333]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

 
Economic Impact Policy

    This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of 
the United States has received an application for a $53 million long-
term guarantee to support the export of approximately $48 million worth 
of steel processing equipment and services to the UK. The U.S. exports 
will enable the British company to process and sell a maximum of 20,000 
metric tons of cold rolled steel, 180,000 metric tons of galvanized 
steel, and toll process up to 270,000 metric tons of pickled and oiled 
steel per year during the 7-year repayment term of the guarantee. The 
British steel processor is not an integrated steel producer. Available 
information indicates that this British production of cold rolled steel 
will be sold in the UK, and the galvanized steel will be sold 
internationally. It is anticipated that the toll processed pickled and 
oiled steel will be consumed in the UK and Europe. Interested parties 
may submit comments on this transaction by e-mail to 
economic.impact@exim.gov or by mail to 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 
947, Washington, DC 20571, within 14 days of the date this notice 
appears in the Federal Register.

Jonathan J. Cordone,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-19663 Filed 8-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
2006-0829.

#### Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-792-EL-ATA. This cause is pending before this court as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission. Upon consideration of the motion of Dayton Power & Light Company for leave to intervene as an appellee,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is granted.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 136232 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 136232 COA: 283530 Muskegon CC: 06-052765-FH VICTORIA LOVE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 19, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0721 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 29, 2008

Clerk
79–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–758

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4118, THE

RUSSIAN-AMERICAN TRUST AND COOPERATION ACT OF

2000

JULY 18, 2000.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. GOSS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 555]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 555, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 4118, the

Russian-American Trust and Cooperation Act of 2000, under a

modified closed rule. The rule provides one hour of debate divided

equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on International Relations.

The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the

Committee on International Relations now printed in the bill shall

be considered as adopted. The rule makes in order an amendment

in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record,

if offered by Representative Gejdenson or his designee, which shall

be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for one

hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Æ
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTwo wheeled lunar dumptruckThe design of a two wheel bulk material transport vehicle is described in detail. The design consists of a modified cylindrical bowl, two independently controlled direct drive motors, and two deformable wheels. The bowl has a carrying capacity of 2.8 m (100 ft) and is constructed of aluminum. The low speed, high HP motors are directly connected to the wheels, thus yielding only two moving parts. The wheels, specifically designed for lunar applications, utilize the chevron tread pattern for optimum traction. The vehicle is maneuvered by varying the relative angular velocities of the wheels. The bulk material being transported is unloaded by utilizing the motors to oscillate the bowl back and forth to a height at which dumping is achieved. The analytical models were tested using a scaled prototype of the lunar transport vehicle. The experimental data correlated well with theoretical predictions. Thus, the design established provides a feasible alternative for the handling of bulk material on the moon.Document ID19900014418Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsBrus, Michael R.*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Haleblain, Ray*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Hernandez, Tomas L.*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Jensen, Paul E.*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Kraynick, Ronald L.*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Langley, Stan J.*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Shuman, Alan G.*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1988Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-182840NAS 1.26:182840ME-4182Accession Number90N23734Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NGT-21-002-800Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900014418.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6350

THOMAS COVINGTON, JR., 

Petitioner – Appellant, 

v. 

GEORGE KENWORTHY, 

Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (5:10-hc-02044-FL) 

Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Thomas Covington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Thomas Covington, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Covington has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. 
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED