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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2596 

To modify the boundaries for a certain empowerment zone designation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 7, 2006 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To modify the boundaries for a certain empowerment zone 

designation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF BOUNDARY OF AROOSTOOK 

4 COUNTY EMPOWERMENT ZONE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Aroostook County empower6 ment zone shall include, in addition to the area designated 

7 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, the remaining 

8 area of the county not included in such designation, not9 withstanding the size requirement of section 

10 1392(a)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 2596 IS

1 the population requirements of section 1392(a)(1)(B) of 

2 such Code. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) shall take ef4 fect as of the effective date of the designation of the 

5 Aroostook County empowerment zone by the Secretary of 

6 Agriculture. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
April I@, 2013 

US. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S. E. 

Washington, D.C 20590 

To whom it may concern 

Subject: Tunisair is supporting IATA's filing of resolution 787 

We are delighted to inform you that Tunisair, the National airline of Tunisia, 

supports the Resolullon 787 of IATA aiming to allow airline industry to work 

together to build new distribution capabilities (NDC). 

We are following closely this issue with IATA and we are confident that, once 

achieved, the new model will give Tunisair the opportunity to present via the 

target XML common interface, its offern in a manner in which we want them 

presented to customers via indirect channels (Travel Agencies, GDSs, . . .). It wijl 

also result in faster time to market with our new products and services and serve 

also to lower our distrjbutjon costs via the GDSs which are still inmsing more 

and more. 

In conclusion, New Distribution Capabilities are going to give us the capability to 

identify our customers, differentiate our tailored products and create jncreased 

consumer choices. '. 

Yours sincerely, 

Khaled Che 

Deputy General ido or 

Tun is air 

Adraport Tunis-Carthage-2035 

Wed.chellv@tunisair~~tn
#### § 60.118 Pre-labeled.

*Pre-labeled* means a covered commodity that has the commodity's country of origin and method of production and the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor on the covered commodity itself, on the package in which it is sold to the consumer, or on the master shipping container. The place of business information must include at a minimum the city and state or other acceptable locale designation.
52.219-29 Notice of Set-Aside for, or SoleSource Award to, Economically

Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small

Business Concerns.

As prescribed in 19.1508 , insert the following clause:

Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole-Source Award to, Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small

Business Concerns (Oct 2022)

(a) Definitions.

Economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB) concern as used in this

clause, means a small business concern that is at least 51 percent directly and unconditionally

owned by, and the management and daily business operations of which are controlled by, one or

more women who are citizens of the United States and who are economically disadvantaged in

accordance with 13 CFR part 127, and is certified pursuant to 13 CFR 127.300 as an EDWOSB. It

automatically qualifies as a women-owned small business (WOSB) concern eligible under the WOSB

Program.

WOSB Program Repository means a secure, Web-based application that collects, stores, and

disseminates documents to the contracting community and SBA, which verify the eligibility of a

business concern for a contract to be awarded under the WOSB Program.

(b) Applicability. This clause applies only to—

(1) Contracts that have been set aside for, or awarded on a sole-source basis to, EDWOSB concerns;

(2) Part or parts of a multiple-award contract that have been set aside for EDWOSB concerns; 

(3) Orders set aside for EDWOSB concerns under multiple-award contracts as described in 8.405-5

and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F); and

(4) Orders issued directly to EDWOSB concerns under multiple-award contracts as described in

19.504(c)(1)(ii).

(c) General.

(1) For EDWOSB set-aside procurements, offers are solicited only from certified EDWOSB concerns

or EDWOSB concerns with a pending application for certification in the Dynamic Small Business

Search (DSBS).

(2) For EDWOSB sole-source awards, offers are solicited only from certified EDWOSB concerns.

(3) Offers received from other concerns will not be considered.

(4) Any award resulting from this solicitation will be made to a certified EDWOSB concern.
(d) Joint venture. A joint venture may be considered an EDWOSB concern if—

(1) At least one party to the joint venture complies with the criteria defined in paragraph (a) and

paragraph (c)(3) of this clause, and 13 CFR 127.506(c); and

(2) Each party to the joint venture qualifies as small under the size standard for the solicitation, or

the protégé is small under the size standard for the solicitation in a joint venture comprised of a

mentor and protégé with an approved mentor-protégé agreement under the SBA mentor-protégé

program.

(e) In a joint venture that complies with paragraph (d) of this clause, the EDWOSB party or parties to

the joint venture shall perform at least 40 percent of the work performed by the joint venture. Work

performed by the EDWOSB party or parties to the joint venture must be more than administrative

functions.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.219 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 2

1

 Thus, there is some confusion by Plaintiff whether Defendant was served on

March 31st or May 31st. Cf. docs. 27, 31.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JOHN PETER RANDALL,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:03cv220-MMP/WCS

CHARLIE CRIST,

Florida Attorney General,

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for judgment by default against Defendant. 

Doc. 31. The pro se Plaintiff asserts that Defendant was served on March 31, 2005,

and because it has been over sixty (60) days without a response to the complaint, a

default judgment is appropriate. Id. 

Review of this file indicates that attached to a motion for assistance of counsel

filed by Plaintiff on June 6, 2005, doc. 27, was a certified mail receipt indicating

summons was sent to Defendant Charlie Crist on May 31, 2005.1

 On July 5, 2005,

Plaintiff filed a notice of service of summons. Doc. 28. Attached to the notice was a

delivery mail receipt. Id. Unfortunately, the handwriting of the recipient and the date of

Case 5:03-cv-00220-MP-WCS Document 32 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 5:03cv220-MMP/WCS

delivery is not legible on the Court's electronic docket. A search for the original copy of

that document has been unsuccessful as well. Thus, it is not clear for the Court exactly

when Defendant received the mailing, and it is less clear what documents were included

in the mailing. 

No notice of appearance has been filed on behalf of Defendant Crist. No

response to the complaint has been received either. However, because it is unclear

that a default judgment is appropriate, this Order directs a response from Defendant

Charlie Crist and Defendant must show good cause why default judgment should not be

entered in this case. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Ruling is DEFERRED on Plaintiff's motion for judgment by default, doc. 31.

2. The Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of Plaintiff's motion, doc. 31, along

with this Order to the Defendant, Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist, at the address

provided by Plaintiff on the summons attached to the motion, doc. 31.

3. Defendant Crist shall have until September 6, 2005, in which to file a

response to this order which demonstrates why Plaintiff's motion for default judgment

should not be granted.

4. The Clerk of Court shall return this file to the undersigned upon the

Defendant's filing of a response to this order, or no later than September 6, 2005.

DONE AND ORDERED on August 11, 2005.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-00220-MP-WCS Document 32 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40325

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Freddie Galan, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:20-CR-1266-1

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Freddie Galan challenges his guilty-plea conviction for conspiring 

with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. He 

primarily contends that the factual basis was not sufficient under Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(3) to support his conviction. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 12, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40325 Document: 00516163758 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
No. 21-40325

2

Because Galan raises his challenge for the first time on appeal, we 

review for plain error, “examining the entire record for facts supporting the 

guilty plea and drawing reasonable inferences from those facts to determine 

whether the conduct to which the defendant admits satisfies the elements of 

the offense charged.” United States v. Escajeda, 8 F.4th 423, 426 (5th Cir. 

2021). We may consider, inter alia, the facts contained in the plea colloquy, 

the presentence report (PSR), and the sentencing hearing. United States v. 

Barton, 879 F.3d 595, 599 (5th Cir. 2018).

Contrary to Galan’s contentions, his plea colloquy and the PSR 

establish that the conspiracy at issue predated the cooperation of coconspirator Jesus Mares with the Government. See United States v. Asibor, 

109 F.3d 1023, 1032 (5th Cir. 1997) (observing that an individual who 

eventually cooperates with Government “may have been a part of the 

continuing conspiracy prior to becoming an informer”). The PSR likewise

describes communications, contained on Galan’s cell phone, between Galan 

and an unidentified individual with a Mexico-based phone number discussing 

an apparent narcotics operation. See Escajeda, 8 F.4th at 427 (observing that 

defendant can be convicted of conspiring with individual whose name is

unknown). Finally, the large quantity of drugs at issue—approximately 70 

kilograms of methamphetamine—provides strong circumstantial evidence 

from which the existence of the conspiracy may be inferred. See id. Galan 

fails to show plain error. See id. at 426; Barton, 879 F.3d at 599.

Because Galan’s challenges to the voluntariness of his plea and the 

effectiveness of his trial counsel are both premised upon his meritless factualbasis contentions, those remaining claims likewise fail. See United States v. 

Kimler, 167 F.3d 889, 893 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that counsel cannot render 

ineffective assistance by failing to raise meritless claim).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 21-40325 Document: 00516163758 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
# C_2014387EN.01000101.xml

| 1.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 387/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 387/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 28 October 2014

appointing and replacing members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

(2014/C 387/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of 10 February 1975 establishing the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, and in particular Article 4 thereof (1),

1

Having regard to the nomination submitted by the Estonian government,

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decision of 16 July 2012 (2), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2012 to 17 September 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decision of 16 July 2012 (2), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2012 to 17 September 2015.

2

| (2) | A member’s seat is available for Estonia on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Government representatives as a result of the resignation of Mr Kalle TOOM. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat is available for Estonia on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Government representatives as a result of the resignation of Mr Kalle TOOM.

| (3) | The members of the Governing Board of the aforementioned Centre should be appointed for the remainder of the current term of office, which expires on 17 September 2015, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The members of the Governing Board of the aforementioned Centre should be appointed for the remainder of the current term of office, which expires on 17 September 2015,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The following person is hereby appointed as a member of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the remainder of the term of office, which runs until 17 September 2015:

GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES:

| ESTONIA | Ms Rita SIILIVASK |
| --- | --- |

ESTONIA

Ms Rita SIILIVASK

Done at Luxembourg, 28 October 2014.

For the Council

The President

G. L. GALLETTI

---

(1)  OJ L 39, 13.2.1975, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 228, 31.7.2012, p. 3.

2

---
#### Bruna DeMarquez, Appellant, v Angelo Gallo et al., Respondents.

[814 NYS2d 528]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated August 18, 2004, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, the dismissal is vacated, and the action is restored to the trial calendar.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar after it had been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404. The plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the failure to timely restore, a lack of intent to abandon the matter, and a lack of prejudice to the opposing party *(see Kranz v Braverman, 15*AD3d 451 [2005]). Thus, her motion should have been granted. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Luciano, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION 

 CASE NO. 

AIR METHODS CORPORATION and ROCKY 

MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS LLC, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

DAVID ALTMAIER, in his official capacity as Commissioner 

of the Office of Insurance Regulation, 

 

Defendant. 

________________________________________________/ 

PLAINTIFFS’ CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

Plaintiffs Air Methods Corporation (“Air Methods”) and Rocky Mountain 

Holdings, LLC (“Rocky Mountain”), through their undersigned counsel, certify the 

following disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1: 

1. Air Methods has no corporate parent and no publicly traded company 

owns 10% or more of Air Methods’ shares. 

2. Rocky Mountain is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Air Methods. 

Dated: September 24, 2020 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

/s/ Tiffany A. Roddenberry 

Tiffany A. Roddenberry 

Case 4:20-cv-00462-AW-MAF Document 2 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

Florida Bar No. 92524 

Email: tiffany.roddenberry@hklaw.com 

315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 

Tallahassee, FL 32301 

Tel: (850) 425-5658 

/s/ Judith R. Nemsick 

Judith R. Nemsick 

(pro hac vice forthcoming) 

Email: judy.nemsick@hklaw.com 

31 West 52nd Street 

New York, NY 10019 

Tel: (212) 513-3200 

/s/ Philip E. Rothschild 

Philip E. Rothschild 

Florida Bar No. 88536 

Email: phil.rothschild@hklaw.com 

515 East Las Olas Boulevard, 12th Floor 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302-4070 

Tel: (954) 525-1000 

#78525201_v1 

Case 4:20-cv-00462-AW-MAF Document 2 Filed 09/24/20 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 35.1**

** **

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, H. John Berens, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), do hereby certify toLong Beach Securities Corp. (the “Depositor”), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of  October 1, 2006 (as amended, the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Depositor, the Servicer,  DeutscheBank National Trust Company, as Trustee, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware, as Delaware Trustee, the following with respect to Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-9 for the 2006 fiscal year  (the “Relevant Year”):

 

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the ServicingAgreement has been made under my supervision.

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theServicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

 

Dated as of February 22, 2007.

                                                                          /s/H. John Berens
| __________________________________________

Name:  H. John Berens

Title:    Senior Vice President |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Kohlberg Capital
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report), I, Dayl W. Pearson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) 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.



|                     |  |     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 29, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/    DAYL W.
PEARSON               
|                     |  |     |  | Dayl W. Pearson                      
|                     |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
May 29, 2015

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Docket #DOC-2015-0001

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20230

ATTN: The Honorable Penny S. Pritzker

U.S. Department of State

Docket #DOS-2015-0016

2201 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20520

ATTN: The Honorable John Kerry

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket # DOT-OST-2015-0082

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

ATTN: The Honorable Anthony Foxx

Dear Honorable Secretaries:

The Council on Trade & Industry for Filipino-Americans (COTIFA) was founded with the 

knowledge that Filipino-Americans can create and build wealth that will benefit the US and the 

Philippines. The organization recognizes the importance of international business and cross-border 

cooperation in improving the financial situation on both sides of the Pacific. 

Our concern is that the debate regarding Open Skies—and the possibility of restrictions on Gulf air 

carriers—has so far ignored the effects such limitations will have on business travel that fuels 

economic growth. The US carriers seem to be arguing that they should “own” passengers traveling 

from the US to destinations like Manila, even when limited in their capabilities to provide service. 

Assenting to this position by basically giving US carriers “rights” to US–originating and –terminating 

air travel will enable more monopolistic behavior, which will in turn harm travelers.

US airlines offer limited options for U.S. connections from Ninoy Aquino International Airport: 

Delta via Tokyo and United via Guam. COTIFA members making the trip will often rely on foreign 

carriers. Some of this travel will fall under US carrier partnerships and alliances, but the service is 

still Open Skies-dependent. In fact, American Airlines partners with Etihad Airways—the same Gulf 

carrier it is now attacking—for service to Manila. There is a reason this partnership continues 

despite the rhetoric: Etihad’s one-stop flights from LAX to MNL rival the best options from the US 

carriers (Delta via Japan). 

Such direct competition is vital. Open Skies agreements side with free trade, rather than government 

control, as the best way to lower fares and ensure highest quality service. The policy works. The 

alternative—unnecessary government intervention to tip the scales in favor or US carriers—is 

fraught with peril.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2275 

To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency for carrying out the national flood insurance program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 10 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 9), 2006 

Mr. SHELBY introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, 

read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out 

the national flood insurance program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Flood Insur5 ance Program Enhanced Borrowing Authority Act of 

6 2006’’. 

7 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN BORROWING AUTHORITY. 

8 The first sentence of subsection (a) of section 1309 

9 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

10 4016(a)), as amended by the National Flood Insurance 
2 

•S 2275 CPS

1 Program Further Enhanced Borrowing Authority Act of 

2 2005 (Public Law 109–106; 119 Stat. 2288), is amended 

3 by striking ‘‘$18,500,000,000’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘$21,200,000,000’’. 

5 SEC. 3. EMERGENCY SPENDING. 

6 Amendments made pursuant to this Act are des7 ignated as emergency spending, as provided under section 

8 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress). 

Æ