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

1635 Prince Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 - 2818 Telephone: (703) 683 - 4646 Fax: (703) 683 - 4745

Dedicated to the advancement of the international helicopter community www.rotor.com April 25, 2013 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M - 30 West Building Ground Floor Room W 12 - 140 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590 **Filed via Regulations.gov**  Re: Petition for Extension o f Exemption: Exemption No. 6175 H , Docket No. FAA
- 2001 - 9195 Dear M r. Administrator: On September 29, 1995, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) granted Exemption No. 6175 to Helicopter Association International (HAI) and the Association of Air Medical Services (AAMS) (the “Petitioners”). This exemption, from 14 CFR § 135.213(a), was granted “to the limited ex tent necessary t o permit helicopter EMS departures, under IFR, in weather that is at or above VFR minimums, from airports or heliports at which a weather report is not available from the U.S. National Weather Service, a source ap proved by the NWS, or a source approved b y the Administrator,” subject to certain conditions and limitations stated therein. On June 17, 1997, August 29, 2000, August 23, 2001, June 6, 2003, June 22, 2005, September 12, 2007 , July

30, 2009 , and July

13 , 2011, Exemption No. 6175 w as extended; Exemption No. 6175 H will expire by

its own terms on September 30, 201 3 . The conditions and circumstances pursuant to which Exemption No. 6175 was originally granted remain unchanged. Experience with Exemption No . 6175 demonstrates that the public interest is served and a level of safety equivalent to the regulation is maintained when properl y trained air medical service pilots are permitted to perform air medical services (EMS) departures, under IFR, in weather that is at or above VFR minimums, from airports or heliports at which a weather report is not available from the U.S. National Weather Service, a source approved b y the NWS, or a source approved b y the Administrator.Dedicated to the advancement of the international helicopter community www.rotor.com Pursuant to 14 CFR § 11.25, good cause exists to waive publication of this petition for extension of exemption in the Federal Register , because the extension, if granted, would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be a detriment to the Petitioners and the p ublic. Therefore, HAI and AAMS petition the Administrat or to extend Exemption No. 6175 H for an additional two year term, or for such longer term as the Administrator may deem appropriate. The Petitioners further ask the Administrator to find that good cause exists to waive publication. Questions or comments concerning this petition for extension of exemption may be directed to the undersigned or to David York, Vice President of Regulations and International Affairs, HAI, at the address above. Sincerel y,

Matthew Zuccaro President cc: Mr. Richard Sherlock, Chief Executive Officer , AAMS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2333

PAUL S. BRUCE,

Petitioner,

versus

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;

P&O PORTS BALTIMORE, INCORPORATED, formerly

known as ITO Corporation of Baltimore,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(01-756)

Submitted: July 31, 2003 Decided: September 2, 2003

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael C. Eisenstein, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael

W. Prokopik, David J. Schmitz, FRANKLIN & PROKOPIK, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul S. Bruce seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s

decision and order denying his motion to reconsider its order

affirming the administrative law judge’s finding that he had a two

percent partial permanent disability of the right foot pursuant to

§ 8(c)(4) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33

U.S.C. § 901-950 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that

the Board’s decision is rational, based upon substantial evidence,

and in accordance with law. Thus, the Board’s decision is without

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

Board. See Bruce v. Director, OWCP, No. 01-756 (B.R.B. Sept. 23,

2002 & May 22, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA**  **22 -**  **0156**

__________________________________________________________________ CITY OF GREAT FALLS, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. HANNAH ROSE KUNTZ, Defendant and Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________ **ORDER**

__________________________________________________________________ Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, without objection, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 21 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

May 24 2023

05/24/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0156
#### In the Matter of Barbara T. Massey et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Barbara Cohn, Appellant-Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 12,1979, is modified, on the law, to the extent that the civil penalties originally imposed by respondent-appellant-respondent Barbara Cohn, Assistant Commissioner of the Rent Control Division (hereinafter Rent Commissioner) in the amount of $8,600 and reduced by Special Term to $4,500, are hereby fixed at $7,100, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed, with costs to respondent-appellant-respondent Rent Commissioner. In general where a landlord of an apartment subject to rent control, with intent to cause tenants to vacate, engages in a course of conduct including, but not limited to, an interruption of essential services, or which is intended to interfere with or disturb the comfort, etc., of tenants, the city agency may impose civil penalties of $500 for a first offense, and $1,000 for each subsequent offense or for a violation consisting of conduct directed at the tenants of more than one housing accommodation. (Administrative Code of City of New York, §Y51-10.0, subd d; § Y51-11.0, subd b, par [2], cl [a].) The Rent Commissioner imposed penalties totaling $8,600. Special Term reduced these to $4,500 finding that the fine was excessive “in view of the fact that only a single tenant was involved in the proceedings.” The record indicates that until February, 1976 there were at least two rent controlled tenants of two separate apartments in occupancy, but that after February, 1976 only one tenant was involved. The fourth item of penalty imposed by the Rent Commissioner was $1,000 a year for each of the years from 1974 to 1977. As there was only one rent controlled tenant in occupancy for 1977 and for 10 months in 1976, we reduce the penalties for those years to $500 each, thus reducing the fourth item of penalties from $4,000 to $3,000. Item No. 6 involved a physical incident against one tenant; accordingly, we reduce that penalty imposed by the Rent Commissioner from $1,000 to $500. The other penalty items imposed by the Rent Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence and are within the Rent Commissioner’s authority. We thus reduce the total penalties imposed by the Rent Commissioner from $8,600 to $7,100. We are unable to find a legal justification for the further reduction ordered by Special Term. Concur — Sandler, Ross, Silverman and Carro, JJ.; Kupferman, J. P., dissents in part and would affirm.
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.420 Prohibition on exercise of ownership or Control rights in RBIC before approval. Without the Agency's prior written approval, no change of ownership or Control may take effect and no officer, director, employee or other Person acting on your behalf shall: ( a ) Register on your books any transfer of ownership interest to the proposed new owner(s);
( b ) Permit the proposed new owner(s) to exercise voting rights with respect to such ownership interest (including directly or indirectly procuring or voting any proxy, consent or authorization as to such voting rights at any meeting of shareholders, partners or members);
( c ) Permit the proposed new owner(s) to participate in any manner in the conduct of your affairs (including exercising control over your books, records, funds or other assets; participating directly or indirectly in any disposition thereof; or serving as an officer, director, partner, manager, employee or agent); or
( d ) Allow ownership or Control to pass to another Person.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6914

JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00397-NCT)

Submitted: December 12, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Julian Edward Rochester seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

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

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rochester has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. The motions to proceed in

forma pauperis and to compel rulings are denied. 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
#### § 51.1859 Size.

(a) The size of tomatoes packed in any standard type shipping container shall be specified and marked according to one of the size designations set forth in Table I. Individual containers shall not be marked with more than one size designation. Consumer packages and their master container are exempt; however, if they are marked, the same requirements would apply.

(1) When containers are marked in accordance with Table I, the markings on at least 85 percent of the containers in a lot must be legible.

(2) In determining compliance with the size designations, the measurement for minimum diameter shall be the largest diameter of the tomato measured at right angles to a line from the stem end to the blossom end. The measurement for maximum diameter shall be the smallest dimension of the tomato determined by passing the tomato through a round opening in any position.

(b) In lieu of marking containers in accordance with [paragraph (a)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-51.1859#p-51.1859(a)) of this section or specifying size in accordance with the dimensions defined in Table I, for Cerasiforme type tomatoes commonly referred to as cherry tomatoes and Pyriforme type tomatoes commonly referred to as pear shaped tomatoes, and other similar types, size may be specified in terms of minimum diameter or minimum and maximum diameter expressed in whole inches, and not less than thirty-second inch fractions thereof, or millimeters in accordance with the facts.

(1) Tomatoes of these types are exempt from marking requirements. However, when marked to a minimum or minimum and maximum diameter, the markings on at least 85 percent of the containers in a lot must be legible.

(c) For tolerances see [§ 51.1861](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-51.1861).

Table I

| Size designation | Inches | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Minimum diameter1 | Maximum diameter2 |
| Small | 24/32 | 29/32 |
| Medium | 28/32 | 217/32 |
| Large | 216/32 | 225/32 |
| Extra large | 224/32 | |
| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 Will not pass through a round opening of the designated diameter when tomato is placed with the greatest transverse diameter across the opening. | | |
| 2 Will pass through a round opening of the designated diameter in any position. | | |

[[56 FR 21915](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/56-FR-21915), May 13, 1991; [56 FR 32474](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/56-FR-32474), July 16, 1991]
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Appellee

______________________

2024

- 1329

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022

- 00805

.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App.

P. 42 (b)

. Case: 24-1329 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 05/31/2024P ARUS H OLDINGS

, I NC

. V

. G OOGLE LLC 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

May 31, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 31, 2024 Case: 24-1329 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 05/31/2024
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7412

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SAID NOUHAD ADRA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-93-187-A, CA-95-546-AM)

Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 19, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Said Nouhad Adra, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Margaret Mortenson,

David Joel Stander, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Adra, Nos. CR-93-187-A; CA-95-546-AM (E.D. Va. July 24, 1995). 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. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS


ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) of ANTs software inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), for the period ended December 31,
2007:





1.      Fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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





This certification is being provided
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of this Report, nor is
it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.




Date:    March
14, 2008
 /s/ Joseph
      KozakJoseph
      Kozak, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                  and
      President




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company, and will be retained by the
Company, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EQK REALTY INVESTORS I FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,106
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       135,875
<OTHER-SE>                                    (138,337)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,502
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,705
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      654
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,056
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (929)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (929)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (929)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.10)
        

</TABLE>
9.101 Definitions.

Administrative proceeding means a non-judicial process that is adjudicatory in nature in order to

make a determination of fault or liability (e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission Administrative

Proceedings, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Proceedings, and Armed Services Board of Contract

Appeals Proceedings). This includes administrative proceedings at the Federal and state level but

only in connections with performance of a Federal contract or grant. It does not include agency

actions such as contract audits, site visits, corrective plans, or inspection of deliverables.

Surveying activity, as used in this subpart, means the cognizant contract administration office or, if

there is no such office, another organization designated by the agency to conduct preaward surveys.

Parent topic: Subpart 9.1 - Responsible Prospective Contractors
11.303 Special requirements for paper.       (a)                    						            The following applies when agencies acquire paper in the United States (as defined in 23.001):                                                         (1)                          								                Section 2(d)(ii) of Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, establishes a 30 percent postconsumer fiber content standards for agency paper use. Section 2(d)(ii) requires that an agency’s paper products must meet or exceed the minimum content standard.                                                            (2)                          								                Section 2(e)(iv) of Executive Order 13514 requires acquisition of uncoated printing and writing paper containing at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber.                                                                             (b)                   *Exceptions*. If paper under paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section containing at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber is not reasonably available, does not meet reasonable performance requirements, or is only available at an unreasonable price, then the agency must purchase-                                                         (1)                          								                Printing and writing paper containing no less than 20 percent postconsumer fiber; or                                                            (2)                          								                Paper, other than printing and writing paper, with the maximum practicable percentage of postconsumer fiber that is reasonably available at a reasonable price and that meets reasonable performance requirements.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 11.3 - Acceptable Material
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2519 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Spiromesifen. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5, 2006 

Mr. TALENT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Spiromesifen. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SPIROMESIFEN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.10.71 3,3-Dimethylbutanoic acid, 

2-oxo-3-(2,4,6- 

trimethylphenyl)–1- 

oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-yl 

ester (CAS 283594–90–1) 

(provided for in subheading 

2932.29.10) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2519 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS