alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### U.S. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION Office of Hearings Washington, D. C. 

# RECEIVED

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

### The Liberty Foundation, Inc. FAA DOCKET NO. CP *notyet assigned* (EIR 2011-GL-03-0070)

(Civil PenaltyAction) Hon. J. E. Sullivan, Administrative LawJudge

RESPONSETO FAA'S REQUESTS TO ADMIT

GENUINENESS OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS 

## SEP- 42012 

# HEARING DOCKET

Respondent, The Uberty Foundation, Inc. ("TLF"), by and through its undersigned attorney, herewith responds to the FAA's Requests To Admit Genuineness of Documents (all photographs), and states: All of the photographs (22 in number) appear to be photographs of the aluminum fuel tank installed in N390TH in February, 2011, and referenced in the log book entry dated February 24, 2011:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Response To FAP\s Requests To Admit Genuineness of Documents has been served on this 28th day of August, 2012, as set forth below:

STUARTA. GOLDSTEIN, P. A 9350 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY, 10TH FLOOR, MIAMI, FL 33156 T: (305) 670-1222 F: (305) 670-7065 EMAIL: ST\ IARTGOLDSTEINPA®ATT.NETOriginal and One Copyto: FederalAviation Administration 800 IndependenceAvenue, S. 

### W. Washington, D. C. 20591 

### SERVICE LIST

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 By regular U. S. Mail
One Copyto: The Honorable

### J. E. Sullivan, Administrative LawJudge Office of Hearings, M-20 U. S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, S. E. (E11-310) Washington, D. C. 20590 By Facsimile (202) 366-2132 and regular U. S. Mail and Adrianne Wojcik, Esq. Office ofthe Regional Counsel Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 FederalAviation Administration 2300 East DevonAvenue Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 By Facsimile (847) 294-7498 and regular U. S. Mail StuartA. Goldstein, P. A. 9350 South Dixie Highway, 1Oth Floor Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 670-1222 Fax: (305) 670-7065 Email: stuartgoldsteinpa@att.net

# By:WA.Jk~ StuartA. Goldstein Attorneyfor Respondent 2
# L_2021046EN.01000301.xml

| 10.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 46/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 46/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/153

of 3 February 2021

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Λούντζα Πιτσιλιάς’ (Lountza Pitsilias) (PGI)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Cyprus’s application to register the name ‘Λούντζα Πιτσιλιάς’ (Lountza Pitsilias) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Cyprus’s application to register the name ‘Λούντζα Πιτσιλιάς’ (Lountza Pitsilias) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Λούντζα Πιτσιλιάς’ (Lountza Pitsilias) should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Λούντζα Πιτσιλιάς’ (Lountza Pitsilias) should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Λούντζα Πιτσιλιάς’ (Lountza Pitsilias) (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.2. – Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 February 2021.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 322, 30.9.2020, p. 49.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
#### § 3555.400 OMB control number.

The report and recordkeeping requirements contained in this subpart are currently with the Office of Management and Budget under review and awaiting approval.
3.104-8 Criminal and civil penalties, and further administrative remedies.       Criminal and civil penalties, and administrative remedies, may apply to conduct that violates 41 U.S.C. chapter 21 (see 3.104-3). See 33.102(f) for special rules regarding bid protests. See 3.104-7 for administrative remedies relating to contracts.                                       (a)                    						            An official who knowingly fails to comply with the requirements of 3.104-3 is subject to the penalties and administrative action set forth in 41 U.S.C. 2105.                                          (b)                    						            An offeror who engages in employment discussion with an official subject to the restrictions of 3.104-3, knowing that the official has not complied with 3.104-3(c)(1), is subject to the criminal, civil, or administrative penalties set forth in 41 U.S.C. 2105.                                          (c)                    						            An official who refuses to terminate employment discussions (see 3.104-5) may be subject to agency administrative actions under 5 CFR 2635.604(d) if the official’s disqualification from participation in a particular procurement interferes substantially with the individual’s ability to perform assigned duties.    **Parent topic:** 3.104 Procurement integrity.
Case 4:99-cv-00474-WS Document 54 Filed 02/05/01 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2529 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2529

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to amend the definition of the 
term ``spouse'' to recognize new State definitions of such term for the 
 purpose of the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 27, 2013

  Ms. Titus (for herself and Mr. Smith of Washington) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to amend the definition of the 
term ``spouse'' to recognize new State definitions of such term for the 
 purpose of the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

    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 ``Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SPOUSE FOR PURPOSES OF VETERAN BENEFITS TO 
              REFLECT NEW STATE DEFINITIONS OF SPOUSE.

    Section 101 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``of the opposite sex''; 
        and
            (2) by striking paragraph (31) and inserting the following 
        new paragraph:
            ``(31) Notwithstanding section 7 of title 1, an individual 
        shall be considered a `spouse' if the marriage of the 
        individual is valid in the State in which the marriage was 
        entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside 
        any State, if the marriage is valid in the place in which the 
        marriage was entered into and the marriage could have been 
        entered into in a State. In this paragraph, the term `State' 
        has the meaning given that term in paragraph (20), except that 
        the term also includes the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
        Islands.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 400.650 Purpose.

The Reform Act requires FCIC to implement a crop insurance program that offers several levels of insurance coverage for producers. These levels of protection include catastrophic risk protection, and additional coverage insurance. This subpart provides notice of the availability of these crop insurance options and establishes provisions and requirements for implementation of the insurance provisions of the Reform Act.

[61 FR 42975, Aug. 20, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 37721, June 25, 2003]
#### Sharon Block, as Administratrix of the Estate of Ida Block, Deceased, Respondent, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, *691Appellant.

In a wrongful death action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 20, 1979, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs motion to compel defendant to accept service of the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, plaintiffs motion to compel defendant to accept service of the complaint is denied and action is dismissed. In view of the plaintiffs delay of approximately 33 months in complying with defendant’s demand for service of a complaint, the inadequacy of the plaintiffs excuse for such inordinate delay, and her failure to establish a meritorious cause of action by evidentiary facts attested to by an individual with personal knowledge (see *Barasch v Micucci,*49 NY2d 594), it was an abuse of discretion to grant plaintiffs motion to compel defendant to accept service of the complaint. The conclusory averments contained in the affidavit of the attorney for the plaintiff cannot serve as an appropriate affidavit of merits since such affidavit must be made by an individual having personal knowledge of the facts *(Barasch v Micucci, supra).*Special Term also erred in concluding that since the defendant had been afforded notice of the pending action by the prior service of a notice of claim, it had sustained no prejudice (see *Verre v Rosas,*47 NY2d 795). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
#### Ortung Piano and Organ Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, v Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Respondent.

In an action on a fire insurance policy, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated December 17, 1979, as granted defendant’s motion for a protective order vacating certain of plaintiffs’ interrogatories and portions of a discovery notice. Order modified by deleting the sentence thereof which begins with the word "Accordingly”, and substituting therefor the following provisions: "Defendant’s motion is denied to the extent that the following interrogatories should be answered: (1) 30 through 37 (a) through (f), only insofar as they demand information concerning investigations and reports prepared in connection therewith prior to defendant’s rejection of the claim, and, as to any expert reports inquired of therein which were prepared prior to rejection of the claim, defendant need only reveal the facts observed by the expert and contained in such reports; (2) 37 (g) through (r); (3) 38; and (4) 42, only insofar as it demands the name and address of the person who allegedly intentionally started the fire. Defendant’s motion is further denied as to those items in plaintiffs’ discovery notice which require the names and addresses of any eyewitnesses, the production of photographs of the premises, inside and out, and those arson investigative reports prepared and received prior to defendant’s rejection of plaintiffs’ claim; as to experts’ reports, defendant need only reveal the facts observed by the experts and contained in such reports.” As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs. Defendant’s time to answer the interrogatories and to comply with the discovery notice is extended until 20 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. Under the facts presented in this case, defendant has not demonstrated that it had "substantial bona fide reasons to investigate the legitimacy of the loss” on the day after the fire (see *Mold Maintenance Serv. v General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp.,*56 AD2d 134, 135). Therefore, information concerning investigations conducted and reports prepared in connection therewith prior to defendant’s rejection of plaintiffs’ claim, should be disclosed. As to any expert reports, defendant need only reveal the factual observations of such experts as contained in said reports. Further, plaintiffs are entitled to know on what basis defendant rejected their claim, and the name and address of any individual who allegedly participated in causing the fire. Finally, plaintiffs are entitled to any photographs which may have been taken, the material used for any chemical analyses if still available, and if not available, the results of any chemical analyses if done which, due to changed circumstances can no *846longer be duplicated. (Cf. *Foremost Ins. Co. v 3 Grace Ave.,*58 AD2d 590.) Cohalan, J. P., Margett, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATIONS

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Luiz Augusto Brasil, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of NITAR TECH
CORP.

      2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have;

      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
quarterly report (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

      5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: December 5, 2006                          /s/ Luiz Augusto Brasil
                                                -----------------------
                                                Luiz Augusto Brasil
                                                Chief Executive Officer
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 quarterly report of Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ David LaDukeName:
David LaDukeTitle:
President, Chief Executive Officer, andTreasurer





May 10, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 183 Filed 06/18/21 Page 1 of 4
Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 183 Filed 06/18/21 Page 2 of 4
Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 183 Filed 06/18/21 Page 3 of 4
Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 183 Filed 06/18/21 Page 4 of 4
OFFICF pF 

^,iR AND RACiiATIQN 

Casey Gadbury, Director 

Offiee of the National TRU Program 

Carlsbad Field Office 

Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221 

Dear Mr. Gadbury: 

We received your letter dated January 28, 2008, requesting the Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA's) concurrence on the revised draft recertification letter you plan to issue to the 

Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). Your request is 

in aecordance with the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) procedures that are intended to ensure that 

the Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site certifications 

correlate appropriately with EPA approvals for waste charaeterization activities at DOE 

transuranic (TRU) waste generator sites. 

On November 2, 2005 (for contact handled (CH) waste) and January 12, 2007 (for remote 

handled (RH) waste), EPA issued final baseline inspection reports and letters approving the INL 

CCP waste characterization programs (EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49, Item II-A4-59 (CH) and 

Item II-A4-72 (RH)). EPA has also received and reviewed tiering reports covering the waste 

charaeterization program implemented by CCP at INL and have found all changes made to be 

acceptable. Your draft recertification aceurately reflects our recent approval to include 56 RH 

waste containers from K Cell to waste stream ID-ANLE-S5000. 

EPA concurs that the waste characterization equipment, procedures and waste streams 

encompassed in DOE's draft recertification letter comport with all of EPA's existing approvals 

for CH and RI I waste at 1NL-CCP. 

(ntemei Address (URL) - ht#p:iJwww.epa.go ~z 

R®cyeledt6iecynlable a?I#aRed ;xlth Vega€ahle oi1 Base6la,ks on Recycled °aper fMinlrsu.As 3o;E Posiconsurtu;r; 
'I'hank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft recertification letter 

for INL-CCP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Bd Feltcorn at (202) 343- 

9422. 

Sincerely, 

Oj~~x2~ 

Tom Peake, Acting Director 

Center for Federal Regulations 

cc: Electronic Distribution 

Ava Holland, CBFO 

Vernon Daub, CBFO 

Courtland Fesmire, CBFO 

J. R. Stroble, CBFO 

Norma Castaneda, CBFO 

Martin Navarrete, CBFO 

Dennis Miehls, CBFO 

Allison Pangle, CTAC 

Wayne Ledford, CTAC 

Steve Zappe, NMED
Start: 4:05 p.m.

Stop: 4:54 p.m.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No: 4:20cv225-AW-MAF Date: 05/07/2020

Title: 3M COMPANY v. 1 IGNITE CAPITAL LLC et al

 

DOCKET ENTRY:

 Telephonic Motion Hearing

ECF 7 - Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

 

PRESENT: Honorable ALLEN C WINSOR, District Judge 

 TiAnn Stark Lisa Snyder (USDC-Tallahassee) 

 Deputy Clerk Court Reporter 

Michael Weaver

Joseph Wasserkrug

Michael Austin

 William Childs __Auta Lopes___________________ 

 Attorney for Plaintiff Defendant

 

PROCEEDINGS:

4:05 p.m. Court called to order

Statement made by Plaintiff’s counsel

Statement made by Defendant

Rebuttal by Plaintiff’s counsel

TRO to be denied without prejudice; Preliminary Injunction schedule to be set

Telephonic status conference set for 5/18/20 at 10:00 a.m. if scheduled not agreed

upon

Written order to follow

4:54 p.m. Court adjourned
La Salle County, Texas; the 

Honorable Joel Rodriguez Jr., 

in his official capacity as 

County 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 2, 2015

No. 04-14-00651-CV

Philip Wayne HINDES and Melinda Hindes Eustace,

Appellants

v.

LA SALLE COUNTY, TEXAS; the Honorable Joel Rodriguez Jr., in his official capacity as 

County Judge, La Salle County, Texas; and the Honorable Raul Ayala, in his official capacity as 

County Commissioner, Precinct 4, La Salle County, Texas,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-09-00179-CVL

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Jason K. Pulliam, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of December, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

2004-1568.

#### State v. Foster.

Licking App. No. 03CA95, 2004-Ohio-4209. Reported at 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
Case 3:19-mj-00267-HTC Document 2 Filed 10/15/19 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:19-mj-00267-HTC Document 2 Filed 10/15/19 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:19-mj-00267-HTC Document 2 Filed 10/15/19 Page 3 of 7
Case 3:19-mj-00267-HTC Document 2 Filed 10/15/19 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:19-mj-00267-HTC Document 2 Filed 10/15/19 Page 5 of 7
Case 3:19-mj-00267-HTC Document 2 Filed 10/15/19 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:19-mj-00267-HTC Document 2 Filed 10/15/19 Page 7 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:94cr03012-02/LAC

LEONARD BRADSHAW

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on May 25, 2010 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) AND U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINE SECTION 1B1.10 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 4/14/10 Doc.# 874

RESPONSES:

 NONE on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 27 day of

th

May, 2010, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b)

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge