alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ALPHONSO TARODD TANNER,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4915

Opinion filed January 20, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Alphonso Tarodd Tanner, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004). 

PADOVANO, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ.,, CONCUR.
#### § 51.649 Slightly spongy.

*Slightly spongy* means that the fruit is puffy or slightly wilted but not flabby.
#### § 51.2549 Metric conversion table.

Use the following table for metric conversion:

| Inches | Millimeters |
| --- | --- |
| 5/64 | 1.98 |
| 18/100 | .46 |
| 1/4 | 6.35 |
| 30/64 | 11.88 |
| Ounces | Grams |
| 1 | 28.35 |
| 2 | 56.70 |

[68 FR 50685, Aug. 22, 2003]
Exhibit 23.2 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS  We have issued our report dated March 12, 2014, with respect to the combined financial statements of Asset Manager Affiliates, included in the Annual Report of KCAP Financial, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of KCAP Financial, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-175838, effective July 28, 2011; and File No. 333-151995, effective June 27, 2008). /s/ Grant Thornton LLP New York, New York March 31, 2015
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0772 Directorate ID: 2007-SW-053-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model EC130 B4 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 122 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The proposed actions of this AD are intended to modify the cabin vibration damper 

assembly to prevent contact with the flight controls in the event of a cabin vibration blade failure, 

jamming of a flight control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $1,500

Labor per Helicopter

(4 x $85/work-hour for the 

installation)

$340

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $1,840

Total US Fleet Cost $224,480

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Gary Roach
#### § 51.2718 Foreign material.

*Foreign material* means pieces or loose particles of any substance other than peanut kernels or skins.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2725 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase 

in the Federal minimum wage and to ensure that increases in the 

Federal minimum wage keep pace with any pay adjustments for Members 

of Congress. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 4, 2006 

Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. 

HARKIN, and Mr. OBAMA) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide 

for an increase in the Federal minimum wage and to 

ensure that increases in the Federal minimum wage keep 

pace with any pay adjustments for Members of Congress. 

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 ‘‘Standing with Min5 imum Wage Earners Act of 2006’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 2725 IS

1 SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 

3 Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended 

4 to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(1)(A) except as otherwise provided in this 

6 section, not less than— 

7 ‘‘(i) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th 

8 day after the date of enactment of the Standing 

9 with Minimum Wage Earners Act of 2006; 

10 ‘‘(ii) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months 

11 after that 60th day, adjusted for that year as 

12 provided for in subparagraph (B); and 

13 ‘‘(iii) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months 

14 after that 60th day, adjusted each year as pro15 vided for in subparagraph (B); and 

16 ‘‘(B) the wage provided for under clauses (ii) 

17 and (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall be automatically 

18 increased for the year involved by a percentage equal 

19 to the percentage by which the annual rate of pay 

20 for Members of Congress increased for such year as 

21 provided for pursuant to the Legislative Reorganiza22 tion Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31).’’. 

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

24 subsection (a) shall take effect 60 days after the date of 

25 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

2004-0214.

#### Groob v. KeyBank.

Hamilton App. No. C-020191, 155 Ohio App.3d 510, 2003-Ohio-6915. Reported at 108 Ohio St.3d 348, 2006-Ohio-1189, 843 N.E.2d 170. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Farmer, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Sheila G. Farmer, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.
**Exhibit 34.4**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Board of Directors and ShareholderWashington Mutual Bank

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Servicer’s Report on Assessment of Compliance, that Washington Mutual Bank fsb(“WMB fsb”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Washington Mutual Bank and subsidiaries, complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Regulation AB for thesecuritizations of pools of mortgage loans that were completed on or after January 1, 2006, and prior to January 1, 2007 for which WMB fsb performed servicing functions set forth in Item 1122 (d) and that included one or more classes of publicly offeredsecurities registered with the SEC pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006, excluding criteria 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(3)(iv) and 1122 (d)(4)(iii)‐(4)(xv), which management hasdetermined are not applicable to the activities performed by WMB fsb with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for WMB fsb’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion aboutWMB fsb’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about WMB fsb’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether WMB fsbperformed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed byWMB fsb during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each specific asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliancearising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by WMB fsb during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis forour opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on WMB fsb’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management’s assertion that WMB fsb complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006 for the Platform is fairlystated, in all material respects.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Seattle, WashingtonFebruary 22, 2007
#### § 760.114 Minors.

A minor child is eligible to apply for program benefits under ELAP, LFP, LIP, SURE, or TAP if all the eligibility requirements are met and the provision for minor children in part 1400 of this title are met.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**OF      BNL FINANCIAL CORPORATION**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

|   | 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF      BNL FINANCIAL CORPORATION**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

|   | 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# L_2015199EN.01004602.xml

| 29.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 199/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 199/46

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Decision 2014/151/CFSP of 21 March 2014 implementing Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 86 of 21 March 2014
  )

On page 31, Annex, third entry, first column:

for:

‘Matviyenko, Valentina Ivanova’,

read:

‘Matviyenko, Valentina Ivanovna’.

---
# L_2015334DE.01006601.xml

| 22.12.2015 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 334/66 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2014/45/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 3. April 2014 über die regelmäßige technische Überwachung von Kraftfahrzeugen und Kraftfahrzeuganhägern und zur Aufhebung der Richtlinie 2009/40/EG

( Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 127 vom 29. April 2014 )

Seite 123, Tabelle:

Die Zeilen ab Zeile 23 der Gesamttabelle — dritte Zeile von unten auf der Seite 123 — bis zum Ende der Tabelle werden durch folgende Zeilen ersetzt:

| „4.
Spezialfahrzeuge (abgeleitet von einem Fahrzeug der Kategorie N), T5 | „4. | Spezialfahrzeuge (abgeleitet von einem Fahrzeug der Kategorie N), T5 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -- | - | - | | | |
| „4. | Spezialfahrzeuge (abgeleitet von einem Fahrzeug der Kategorie N), T5 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| bis zu 3 500 kg | N1 | O | x | x | | x | | | | | x | x | | x | x | x | x | | | |
| bis zu 3 500 kg | N1 | D | x | x | | x | | | | | x | | x | x | x | x | | | | |
| > 3 500 kg | N2,N3,T5 | O | x | x | x | | x | x | x | x | x | x | | x | x | x | x | | | |
| > 3 500 kg | N2,N3,T5 | D | x | x | x | | x | x | x | x | x | | x | x | x | x | | | | |
| 5.
Anhänger | 5. | Anhänger | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 5. | Anhänger | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| bis zu 750 kg | O1 | | x | | | | | | | | | | | | x | | | | | |
| > 750 bis 3 500 kg | O2 | | x | x | | x | | | | | | | | | x | | | | | |
| > 3 500 kg | O3,O4 | | x | x | x | | | x | x | x | | | | | x“ | | | | | |

---
```

[Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 229)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 73972]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30no10-14]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2009-0312; SW FRL-9231-3]

 
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of 
Hazardous Waste; Removal of Direct Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Removal of Direct Final Exclusion.

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

SUMMARY: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are removing the 
direct final exclusion for Eastman Chemical Company--Texas Operations, 
published on September 24, 2010.

DATES: Effective November 30, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Peace, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, RCRA 
Branch, Mail Code: 6PD-C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by 
calling (214) 665-7430 or by e-mail at peace.michelle@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are 
removing the direct final exclusion for Eastman Chemical Company--Texas 
Operations, published on September 24, 2010, 75 FR 58315. We stated in 
that direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by October 
25, 2010, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would 
publish a timely removal in the Federal Register. We subsequently 
received adverse comment on that direct final rule. We will address the 
comments submitted in a subsequent final action which will be based on 
the parallel proposed rule also published on September 24, 2010, 75 FR 
58346. As stated in the direct final rule and the parallel proposed 
rule, we will not institute a second comment period on this action.

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental Protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

    Dated: November 16, 2010.
Bill Luthans,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division.

0
40 CFR part 261 is amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

0
2. In Tables 1, 2 and 3 of Appendix IX of part 261 remove the following 
facility's waste streams: for Facility: Eastman Chemical Company--Texas 
Operations, Address: Longview, TX; Waste Description: RKI bottom ash, 
RKI fly ash and RKI scrubber water blowdown.

[FR Doc. 2010-30109 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### In the Matter of Betty “G”*, Respondent-Appellant, v. Joseph *“*H” *, Appellant-Respondent.

*

 Fictitious names.

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal by the respondent from an order of filiation and support of the Family Court, Rensselaer County, entered March 12, 1969, and cross-appeal by the petitioner. As noted by the trial court in its decision, the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the finding of paternity. On both appeals, the record supports the award of support in the amount of $25 per week. We note that Family Court has continuing jurisdiction over the amount of support. Furthér, the amount awarded for counsel fees to petitioner was neither excessive nor inadequate. Order affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, P. J., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.
#### In the Matter of Dorothy H. Schwartz, Appellant, v. Isidore Bogen et al., Constituting the Board of Examiners of the Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondents.

Appeal by petitioner from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 17, 1968, which *inter alia*denied her motion to punish respondents for contempt of court and for other relief. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by adding a provision, as an exception to the denial of the motion, that respondents are directed to supply to appellant all notes made by any person relative to the examination prior to the preparation of the checklist. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. The basis of the application presently under review is the alleged failure of respondents to comply with a direction by the Court of Appeals that they furnish petitioner with *“*all materials used *648in determining the correctness or quality of the answers ” to the essay portion of an examination for a license for a certain teaching position (see *Matter of Schwartz*v. *Bogen,*21 N Y 2d 1020, 1021). Our prior decision, reversing the Special Term, granting the original petition and directing that petitioner be furnished with the *“*standard answers and rating directions ” applicable to the examination was based upon a holding that she was entitled to be furnished with the objective standards against which her paper had been compared, so that she would not have to speculate as to what the examiners had deemed the correct answers to be and could properly take an administrative appeal from her rating (see *Matter of Schwartz*v. *Bogen,*28 A D 2d 692). It does not appear that the Court of Appeals, by its modification of our decision, intended to enlarge upon the nature of the relief to which petitioner was entitled. In our opinion, the “ checklist ” furnished to petitioner, together with all notes made by any person relative to the examination prior to the preparation of the checklist, sufficiently meets the requirement of an objective standard. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
28.204 Alternatives in lieu of corporate or

individual sureties.

(a) Any person required to furnish a bond to the Government may furnish any of the types of security

listed in 28.204-1 through 28.204-3 instead of a corporate or individual surety for the bond. When

any of those types of security are deposited, a statement shall be incorporated in the bond form

pledging the security in lieu of execution of the bond form by corporate or individual sureties. The

contractor shall execute the bond forms as the principal. Agencies shall establish safeguards to

protect against loss of the security and shall return the security or its equivalent to the contractor

when the bond obligation has ceased.

(b) Upon written request by any contractor securing a performance or payment bond by any of the

types of security listed in 28.204-1 through 28.204-3, the contracting officer may release a portion of

the security only when the conditions allowing the partial release of security in 28.203-3(c) are met.

The contractor shall, as a condition of the partial release, furnish an affidavit agreeing that the

release of such security does not relieve the contractor of its obligations under the bond(s).

(c) The contractor may satisfy a requirement for bond security by furnishing a combination of the

types of security listed in 28.204-1 through 28.204-3 or a combination of bonds supported by these

types of security and additional surety bonds under 28.202 or 28.203. During the period for which a

bond supported by security is required, the contractor may substitute one type of security listed in

28.204-1 through 28.204-3 for another, or may substitute, in whole or combination, additional surety

bonds under 28.202 or 28.203.

28.204-1 United States bonds or notes.

28.204-2 Certified or cashier’s checks, bank drafts, money orders, or currency.

28.204-3 Irrevocable letter of credit.

28.204-4 Contract clause.

Parent topic: Subpart 28.2 - Sureties and Other Security for Bonds
July 6, 2015

Mr. Bill Palmatary

Owner

Aerial West, LLC

834 15th P lace Suite B

Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

Dear Mr. Palmatary :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

part 21; § § 45.23, 45.29, 61.113, 91.7

, 91.9

, 91.109

, 91.119

, 91.121

, 91.151 , 91.203, 91.20,

91.215

, 91.401

− 91.417 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CF R). It explains why

we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your April 18, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of Aerial West, LLC into the

public docket (No. FAA− 2015

− 1308 ), but we are unable to process your request any further.

The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed).

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, y ou must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If w e do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 1 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 2 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 3 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 4 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 5 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 6 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 7 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 8 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 9 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 10 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 11 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 12 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 13 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 14 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 15 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 16 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 17 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 18 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 19 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 20 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 21 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 22 of 23

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC   Document 37-3   Filed 06/15/05   Page 23 of 23