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

### FAA - 2011 - 0650 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 -NM - 257 - AAD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRA

N SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

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

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, li st 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**
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2600 

AN ACT 

To amend the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act 

to clarify how the Act applies to condominiums. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2600 EH

1 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM 

2 UNITS. 

3 (a) EXEMPTION.—Section 1403 of the Interstate 

4 Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 1702) is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (b)— 

7 (A) in paragraph (7)(C), by striking ‘‘or’’ 

8 at the end; 

9 (B) in paragraph (8)(G), by striking the 

10 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

11 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(9) the sale or lease of a condominium unit 

13 that is not exempt under subsection (a).’’; and 

14 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(d) For purposes of subsection (b), the term ‘condo16 minium unit’ means a unit of residential or commercial 

17 property to be designated for separate ownership pursuant 

18 to a condominium plan or declaration provided that upon 

19 conveyance— 

20 ‘‘(1) the owner of such unit will have sole own21 ership of the unit and an undivided interest in the 

22 common elements appurtenant to the unit; and 

23 ‘‘(2) the unit will be an improved lot.’’. 
3 

•HR 2600 EH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 

3 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 26, 

2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2600 

AN ACT 

To amend the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclodominiums. sure Act to clarify how the Act applies to con-
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DYLAN EGLESTON, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-106-AW-GRJ

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD 

OF TRUSTEES, as the public body 

corporate of University of Florida, and 

FLORIDA BOARD OF GOVERNORS 

FOUNDATION, INC.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE

After the original parties had their planning conference and submitted their 

Rule 26(f) report (ECF No. 15), the court entered its scheduling and mediation order 

(ECF No. 20). The same day, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which included 

a new defendant, the Florida Board of Governors Foundation, Inc. (ECF No. 19). 

The new party was served and has now appeared (ECF Nos. 32, 33).

*

The parties must promptly confer and discuss the matters set out in Rules 

16(b)(3)(A), 16(b)(3)(B), 16(c)(2), 26(f)(2), and 26(f)(3). No later than September 

16, 2020, they must file a notice indicating (i) that they have done so and (ii) whether, 

 

* The notices of appearance say the entity is actually the Florida Board of 

Governors and was improperly named as the Florida Board of Governors 

Foundation, Inc. ECF Nos. 32, 33.

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 35 Filed 08/26/20 Page 1 of 2
2

in light of the addition of a new defendant, any changes to the existing schedule are 

appropriate.

SO ORDERED on August 26, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ Document 35 Filed 08/26/20 Page 2 of 2
#### Inland Credit Corporation, Respondent, v. George Bluds et al., Appellants.

Order granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint and for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of deleting the decretal provisions other than those granting leave to amend the complaint in the form annexed to said order, dispensing with service of the amended complaint, and preserving the calendar status of the action, and the judgment entered pursuant to said order vacated, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event. Said order as so modified is otherwise affirmed, with leave to defendants to answer the amended complaint within 10 days after service of a copy of the order entered hereon with notice of entry, and without prejudice to a renewal of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment after joinder of issue. Granting leave to amend the complaint was clearly proper. In our opinion, however, Special Term went inadvisedly further with regard to defendants’ answer. The court ordered that the answer be deemed amended in respects which at plaintiff’s suggestion the court itself specified; and also ordered that the answer as so amended stand as defendants’ answer to the amended complaint. Orderly procedure contemplates that a defendant be afforded an opportunity to answer an amended complaint (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3025.32), and we are not persuaded that the instant deviation was justified. After issue has been joined renewal of the motion for summary judgment, if plaintiff is so advised, will then be timely (CPLR 3212, subd. [a]). Settle order on notice. Concur—■ Botein, P. J., Stevens, Tilzer, McNally and McGivern, JJ.
#### § 29.133 Identification number.

The Director may require the use of official identification numbers in connection with tobacco certificated or sampled under the Act. When identification numbers are required, they shall be specified by the Director, and shall be attached to, or stamped, printed, or stenciled on, the lots of tobacco certificated or sampled, in a manner specified by the Director.
AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR TO ROCK-TENN COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL EXEC RETIREMENT PLAN



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR TO THE 
 ROCK-TENN COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT 

PLAN (AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2003) 
 Pursuant to the power reserved in § 8 of the Rock-Tenn Company Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (“Plan”), the Committee hereby amends the Plan effective as of March 31, 2009 as follows:

 1. By amending § 2.1, Actuarial Equivalent, to read as follows: 
 2.1. Actuarial Equivalent. The term “Actuarial Equivalent” shall mean 
 (a) for purposes of § 3.3(a), the same as actuarial equivalent as defined in the Pension Plan; or 
 (b) for purposes of § 3.3(b), (1) the applicable mortality table set forth in Revenue Ruling 2001-62 and (2) an interest rate
assumption which equals the average effective rate on 10-year Treasury securities for the month of (i) August which immediately precedes a Participant’s Employment Termination Date, if such date occurs during the period beginning on
October 1 and ending March 31 or (ii) February which immediately precedes a Participant’s Employment Termination Date, if such date occurs during the period beginning on April 1 and ending on September 30; or

 (c) for purposes of § 3.3(c), (1) the applicable mortality table set forth in Revenue Ruling 2001-62 and
(2) (i) an interest rate assumption equal to 2.645% based on a Participant’s SERP Benefit accrued on March 31, 2009 (as determined by the Committee) or (ii) an interest rate assumption set forth in §2.1(b)(2) based on a
Participant’s SERP Benefit which is accrued on or after April 1, 2009 (as determined by the Committee). 
 2. Except as amended by
this Amendment Number Four, the Plan as in effect on March 31, 2009 shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, based on a resolution adopted by the Committee, Rock-Tenn Company has caused this Amendment Number Four to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of this 30th day of March, 2009. 
  

			
	ROCK-TENN COMPANY
		
	By:	 	    /s/ Steven C. Voorhees
		
	Title:	 	         EVP & CFO
#### Lombardi & Son, Inc., Respondent, v Louis Diehl et al., Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger, Defendants, and Town of Wappinger, Appellant.

In an action on a contract, the defendant Town of Wappinger appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated August 6, 1979, which after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff judgment in the principal sum of $29,725. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The sole dispute between the parties concerns payment for 5,945 cubic yards of material actually installed by plaintiff but for which payment was refused. The contract and extensions thereof, pursuant to which plaintiff already had installed many thousands of cubic yards of the material, and for which plaintiff was paid, provided for an agreed upon unit price per cubic yard. The only specific reference to quantity was contained in the bid proposal which had specified "approximate quantities”. These quantities had been exceeded several times under the original contract, but no dispute had arisen with respect to payment. Even after appellant’s engineer later challenged the amount of material being utilized by plaintiff, he continued to approve payment upon plaintiff’s request. That he did so for nearly a year solely because of alleged representations by plaintiff that town board approval of payment for the challenged amounts as "extras” would be sought was not established satisfactorily by the record. What the record does establish is that appellant’s engineer held full control and authority over plaintiff’s performance of the contract, including the type and amount of material used. The contract drawings upon which appellant relied to establish the overbreadth of plaintiff’s performance do not in fact support that conclusion; we note further that the record fails to substantiate an allegation that the engineer instructed plaintiff to limit the size of its excavations and the amount of material needed to refill the excavations. Accordingly, we find no basis upon which to overturn the monetary judgment awarded plaintiff for its performance under the contract extensions. Cohalan, J. P., Margett, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Estimated Net Reserves(1)
    
    
    Estimated Future Net RevenueOil and
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Discounted atCondensate
    
    
    Gas
    
    
    NGL
    
    
    Undiscounted
    
    
    10% Per Year(5)Proved Reserve Category
    
    (MBbl)(2)
    
    
    (MMcf)(3)
    
    
    (MBbl)(2)
    
    
    (M$)(4)
    
    
    (M$)(4)DevelopedProducing
    
    
    0.1
    
    
    
    16
    
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    47
    
    
    $
    43Non-Producing
    
    
    0.7
    
    
    
    112
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    318
    
    
    
    293Undeveloped
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total Proved(6)
    
    
    0.8
    
    
    
    128
    
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    365
    
    
    $
    336
 
 (1)
    
    The definitions for all reserves incorporated in this study have been set forth
immediately following this letter.(2)
    
    MBbl = thousands of barrels.(3)
    
    MMcf = millions of cubic feet.(4)
    
    M$ = thousands of dollars.(5)
    
    The discounted future net revenue is not represented to be the fair market value of these
reserves.(6)
    
    The reserves and revenues in the summary table were estimated using the Aries economics
program. Due to the rounding procedures used in this program, there may be slight differences in the calculated
and summed values.




---



##### 








---



##### 



/s/ William J. DriscollWilliam J. DriscollGeologist




---



##### 



Professional Qualifications of Primary Technical Person
**Exhibit31.1****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Stamatis V. Molaris, certify that:1) I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Quintana Maritime Limited. 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions); a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     By:          /s/ Stamatis V. Molaris     Stamatis V. Molaris  Chief Executive Officer   Date: August 26, 2005
#### Audrey Trussel, Appellant, v. Gerald Trussel, Respondent.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 28, 1966, modified, on the law and the facts, by striking out of its second decretal paragraph the direction for dismissal of the third cause of action and by adding a decretal paragraph directing that defendant account to plaintiff for all securities purchased in the joint names of the parties and for the profits and dividends thereon. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. The action is remitted to the court below for further proceedings consistent herewith. The record shows that defendant was active in purchasing securities, paid for to the extent of $21,000 by plaintiff, which were jointly owned. His purchases and profits and dividends therefrom should be accounted for by him. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
149 So.2d 767

#### STATE of Louisiana, through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, v. May S. THORNTON et al.

No. 46571.

Feb. 18, 1963.

Writs denied. The showing made is not sufficient to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROBERT SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:19cv514-MCR-CAS

OKEECHOBEE SCHOOL

FOR BOYS, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration on the Magistrate Judge’s Amended

Report and Recommendation dated February 27, 2020. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff has been

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of Plaintiff’stimely filed objections. 

ECF No. 11.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections

thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should

be adopted.
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g).

3. Plaintiff’srequest to proceed in forma pauperis, ECFNo. 6,is DENIED.

4. Plaintiff’s request for extension of time to file an amended complaint,

ECF No. 8, is DENIED.

5. The clerk is directed to close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of March 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 4:19cv514-MCR-CAS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2603 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2603

  To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow 
access to certain business records only if an investigation relates to 
        a specific individual or specific group of individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2013

   Mr. Ross introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Select Committee on 
   Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow 
access to certain business records only if an investigation relates to 
        a specific individual or specific group of individuals.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Relevancy Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS UNDER THE 
              FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978 TO 
              INVESTIGATIONS OF SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS OF 
              INDIVIDUALS.

    Section 501(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 
(50 U.S.C. 1861(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``for an investigation'' 
        and inserting ``related to a specific person that is the 
        subject of an investigation''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; and'' and 
                inserting a semicolon;
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and 
                inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following new 
                subparagraph:
            ``(C) be conducted of a specific person or specific group 
        of persons.''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 4, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40154

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

SAMUEL D. BENCOSME, also known as Samuel De Jesus

Bencosme De La Cruz,

 DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CR-157-1

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:*

Samuel D. Bencosme entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of cocaine with intent

to distribute the same. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress all physical,

documentary, and other evidence that was seized after he consented to have his car searched

following a traffic stop. Bencosme fails to show that the district court’s finding that Bencosme
 

 

-2-

voluntarily consented to the search of his automobile was clearly erroneous. See United States v.

Mendoza-Gonzalez, 318 F.3d 663, 666 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Zucco, 71 F.3d 188, 191

(5th Cir. 1995).

The district court’s denial of Bencosme’s motion to suppress evidence is AFFIRMED.