alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Franklin National Bank, Respondent, v. Albert R. Ives et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Resettled judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 23, 1965, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. In our opinion, there are triable fact issues, barring summary judgment, as to (a) whether there was a secret preference given to plaintiff’s assignor and (b) whether the preference, secret or not, was obtained by duress. If there was such *secret*preference, it would be void and inoperative *(Solinger*v. *Earle,*82 N. Y. 393; *White*v. *Kuntz,*107 N. Y. 518; *Hanover Nat. Bank*v. *Blake,*142 N. Y. 404). If the preference was not secret, but was obtained by duress, it would be voidable *(Port Chester Elec. Constr. Corp.*v. *Hastings Terraces,*284 App. Div. 966; see, also, J. *M. Deutsch, Inc.*v. *Robert Paper Co.,*13 A D 2d 768); and the further question would then arise as to whether defendants had ratified it by their subsequent conduct. Brennan, Acting P. J.) Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
#### § 75.8 Basis of service.

The regulations provide for inspection services pursuant to the Act. Seeds shall be inspected in accordance with the methods of either the Association of Official Seed Analysts (AOSA) or the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA); provided, that limitations in these rules respecting maximum lot size will not be observed and, provided further, that certification as to origin may be based on examination of records and certification of other seed certifying agencies.
AFS-12-513-E 

October 12, 2012 

 Exemption No. 8838C 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26747 

Mr. David L. Jones 

Corporate Aviation Education Director 

Aviation Institute of Maintenance 

4455 South Boulevard 

Virginia Beach, VA 23452-1159 

Dear Mr. Jones: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8838, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated August 22, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Technical Education Services, Inc., d.b.a. Aviation Institute of Maintenance 

(AIM) (operating under Air Agency Certificate AR9T018R) for an extension of Exemption 

No. 8838, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) allows AIM to administer the aviation mechanic general written test to 

students immediately following their successful completion of the general curriculum but 

before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to AIM. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8838, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, 
 2

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8838, as amended, to 

February 28, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8838, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8838. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
46.308 Cost-reimbursement research and

development contracts.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.246-8, Inspection of Research and DevelopmentCost-Reimbursement, in solicitations and contracts for research and development when (a) the

primary objective of the contract is the delivery of end items other than designs, drawings, or

reports, and (b)a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated; unless use of the clause is

impractical and the clause prescribed in 46.309 is considered to be more appropriate. If it is

contemplated that the contract will be on a no-fee basis, the contracting officer shall use the clause

with its AlternateI.

Parent topic: Subpart 46.3 - Contract Clauses
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Obagi MedicalProducts, Inc.**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of Obagi Medical Products, Inc.****for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Steven R. Carlson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

| Date: March 15, 2007 |   | /s/ STEVEN R. CARLSON         |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                 |   | Steven R. Carlson             |
|                 |   | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                 |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                 |   |                          |

 

----
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-cr-169-WKW

 )

JAMES CALVIN TALLEY )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the government's motion for release of prisoner filed on April 26,

2007, and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED.

It is hereby ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service release custody of James

Calvin Talley, to Todd Mims, DEA, and/or Doug Walters, DEA, on April 27, 2007, through July 27,

2007, so that said agents can take such prisoner into custody without the necessity of the presence

of a Deputy United States Marshal.

It is further ORDERED that Todd Mims, DEA, and/or Doug Walters, DEA, return said

prisoner into the custody of the United States Marshals Service when they have finished with him.

DONE this the ______ day of April, 2007.

______________________________

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 217-2 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**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 theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 155 East Tropicana, LLC, a Nevadalimited-liability company and 155 East Tropicana Finance Corp., a Nevadacorporation (collectively, the “Company”) for the three months ended March 31,2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Neil G. Kiefer, as President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| /s/  Neil G. Kiefer                                        |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Neil  G. Kiefer,  Chief Executive OfficerMay 15, 2009 |   |

 

 

The foregoing certificationsare being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and are not being filedas part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
 
 **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 Centenary International Corporation
        (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        I,
        Hector A. Patron Costas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
        belief:
 
 (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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/
        Hector A. Patron Costas
 ________________________________
 Hector
        A.
        Patron Costas
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 May
        15,
        2007
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has
        been
        provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
        to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing
        certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant
        to
        section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
        section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and are not being
        filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure
        document.
§ 768.1 Providing equitable relief. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 65062 , Aug. 8, 2024.
( a ) If the Farm Service Agency (Agency or FSA) determines that a borrower is not in compliance with Agency loan requirements in this chapter, the Agency may consider equitable relief as specified in this section: ( 1 ) *Requirements.* After determination that a borrower is in noncompliance with loan program requirements in this chapter, the Agency may provide equitable relief to a borrower if it is determined that the borrower: ( i ) Acted in good faith; and
( ii ) Relied on a material action, advice, or non-action from an Agency official to the detriment of the borrower's operation or the action approved by the Agency official resulted in the borrower becoming noncompliant with the loan program requirements in this chapter.
( 2 ) *Determination.* The material action, advice, or response from an Agency official under paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be documented, unless the Agency official with authority to grant equitable relief determines that documentation is not reasonably available. Notwithstanding any delegations in this chapter, only the Secretary, FSA Administrator, Deputy Administrator for Farm Loan Programs, or any other official within U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) specifically designated by the Secretary, may make the determination for the Agency to grant equitable relief and must document the basis for that determination.
( 3 ) *Relief.* If the borrower meets the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Agency may provide to a borrower either or both of the following forms of equitable relief: ( i ) The borrower may choose to keep loans at current rates or other terms received in association with the loan which was determined to be noncompliant; or
( ii ) The borrower may receive other equitable relief for the loan as the Agency determines to be appropriate.
( 4 ) *Conditions.* As a condition of receiving relief, the Agency may require the borrower to take actions to remedy the noncompliance, provided the borrower agrees those actions do not adversely affect the long-term viability of the borrower's operation.
( b ) A determination or action of the Agency under this section is final and not subject to administrative appeal or judicial review.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3:20cr40/MCR

ROY HAYES

 /

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, to which there has been no timely objections, and subject to this Court’s

consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3), the plea of

guilty of the Defendant, ROY HAYES, to Count One of the Superseding Indictment

is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as

directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of February 2021.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00040-MCR Document 245 Filed 02/26/21 Page 1 of 1
§ 52.802 Grades of frozen red tart pitted cherries. ( a ) “U.S. Grade A” (or “U.S. Fancy”) is the quality of frozen red tart pitted cherries of which not more than five (5) cherries per sample unit may be less than 9 ⁄ 16 inch (14 mm) in diameter, and that: ( 1 ) Possess a good red color;
( 2 ) Are practically free from pits;
( 3 ) Are practically free from defects;
( 4 ) Have a good character;
( 5 ) Possess a normal flavor; and
( 6 ) Score not less than 90 points when scored in accordance with the scoring system outlined in this subpart.
( b ) “U.S. Grade B” (or “U.S. Choice”) is the quality of frozen red tart pitted cherries of which not more than ten (10) cherries per sample unit may be less than 9 ⁄ 16 inch (14 mm) in diameter, and that: ( 1 ) Possess a reasonably good red color;
( 2 ) Are reasonably free from pits;
( 3 ) Are reasonably free from defects;
( 4 ) Have a reasonably good character:
( 5 ) Possess a normal flavor; and
( 6 ) Score not less than 80 points when scored in accordance with the scoring system outlined in this subpart.
( c ) “U.S. Grade C” (or “U.S. Standard”) is the quality of frozen red tart pitted cherries that: ( 1 ) Possess a fairly good red color;
( 2 ) Are fairly free from pits;
( 3 ) Are fairly free from defects;
( 4 ) Have a fairly good character;
( 5 ) Possess a normal flavor; and
( 6 ) Score not less than 70 points when scored in accordance with the scoring system outlined in this subpart.
( d ) “Substandard” is the quality of frozen red tart pitted cherries that fail to meet the requirements of U.S. Grade C.
§ 58.646 Official identification. ( a ) Only ice cream and related products manufactured and packaged in accordance with the requirements of this part and with the applicable requirements in subpart A of this part which have been officially inspected in process and found to be in compliance with these requirements may be identified with the official USDA Quality Approved Inspection Shield.
( b ) Dairy products used in the manufacture of frozen desserts for which there are U.S. grades established (nonfat dry milk, whole milk, buttermilk and whey) shall be U.S. Extra Grade or better, and in the case of unsalted butter, shall be no lower than U.S. Grade A. Dairy products for which there are not USDA grade shall meet the applicable requirements of this part which permit such product to bear the USDA Quality Approved Inspection Shield.
US. Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

AUG 11 2014 

Mr. Brian Anderson 

L-3 Communications 

4240 International Parkway/Suite 100 

Carrolton, TX 75007 

Dear Mr. Anderson: 

800 Independence Ave .. S W. 

Washington. D.C 20591 

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

§ § 91.9(b)(2), 91.9(c), 91.203(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

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

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your July 14, 2014 exemption request on behalf ofL-3 Communications into the 

public docket (No. F AA-20 14-0480), but we are unable to process your request any further. 

The information you sent does not 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, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. 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. 
If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we 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, 

Michelle Ferritto 

Acting Manager, Airmen and 

Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure 

2
#### § 63.3 Department or USDA.

*Department* or *USDA* means the United States Department of Agriculture.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 76487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30746]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-74,390]


Haldex Brake Corporation, Commercial Vehicle Systems, Including 
On-Site Leased Workers of Johnston Integration Technologies, a 
Subsidiary of Johnston Companies, Iola, KS; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on August 19, 2010, applicable to workers of Haldex Brake Corporation, 
Commercial Vehicle Systems, Iola, Kansas. The Department's notice of 
determination was published in the Federal Register on September 3, 
2010 (75 FR 54186).
    At the request of the State workforce agency, the Department 
reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers 
were engaged in the production of automotive brake system components.
    The company reports that workers leased from Johnston Integration 
Technologies, a subsidiary of Johnston Companies were employed on-site 
at the Iola, Kansas location of Haldex Brake Corporation. The 
Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under 
the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Johnston Integration 
Technologies, a subsidiary of Johnston Companies working on-site at the 
Iola, Kansas location of Haldex Brake Corporation.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-74,390 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Haldex Brake Corporation, Commercial Vehicle 
Systems, including on-site leased workers of Johnston Integration 
Technologies, a subsidiary of Johnston Companies, Iola, Kansas, who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
July 15, 2009 through August 19, 2012, and all workers in the group 
threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the 
date of certification through two years from the date of 
certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 24th day of November, 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-30746 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
52.247-14 Contractor Responsibility for

Receipt of Shipment.

As prescribed in 47.207-5(d), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts for

transportation or for transportation-related services:

Contractor Responsibility for Receipt of Shipment (Apr 1984)

The Contractor shall diligently count and examine all goods tendered for shipment, receipt for them,

and make appropriate written exception for any goods not in apparent good order.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.247 [Reserved]
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2464 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 

Referred to the Committee on Resources 

AN ACT 

To revise a provision relating to a repayment obligation 

of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation under the Fort 

McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement 

Act of 1990, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Fort McDowell Indian 

5 Community Water Rights Settlement Revision Act of 

6 2006’’. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

S 2464 RFH 

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

2 In this Act: 

3 (1) FORT MCDOWELL WATER RIGHTS SETTLE4 MENT ACT.—The term ‘‘Fort McDowell Water 

5 Rights Settlement Act’’ means the Fort McDowell 

6 Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 

7 1990 (Public Law 101–628; 104 Stat. 4480). 

8 (2) NATION.—The term ‘‘Nation’’ means the 

9 Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, formerly known as 

10 the ‘‘Fort McDowell Indian Community’’. 

11 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

12 the Secretary of the Interior. 

13 SEC. 3. CANCELLATION OF REPAYMENT OBLIGATION. 

14 (a) CANCELLATION OF OBLIGATION.—The obligation 

15 of the Nation to repay the loan made under section 408(e) 

16 of the Fort McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act (104 

17 Stat. 4489) is cancelled. 

18 (b) EFFECT OF ACT.— 

19 (1) RIGHTS OF NATION UNDER FORT

20 MCDOWELL WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT.— 

21 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

22 subparagraph (B), nothing in this Act alters or 

23 affects any right of the Nation under the Fort 

24 McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
3 

S 2464 RFH 

1 (B) EXCEPTION.—The cancellation of the 

2 repayment obligation under subsection (a) shall 

3 be considered— 

4 (i) to fulfill all conditions required to 

5 achieve the full and final implementation 

6 of the Fort McDowell Water Rights Settle7 ment Act; and 

8 (ii) to relieve the Secretary of any re9 sponsibility or obligation to obtain mitiga10 tion property or develop additional farm 

11 acreage under section 410 the Fort 

12 McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act 

13 (104 Stat. 4490). 

14 (2) ELIGIBILITY FOR SERVICES AND BENE15 FITS.—Nothing in this Act alters or affects the eligi16 bility of the Nation or any member of the Nation for 

17 any service or benefit provided by the Federal Gov18 ernment to federally recognized Indian tribes or 

19 members of such Indian tribes. 

Passed the Senate September 13, 2006. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS