alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Part 5647 - TRANSPORTATION       Subpart 5647.4 - AIR TRANSPORTATION BY U.S. FLAG CARRIERS                                                         5647.402 Policy                                                                           5647.402-9000 Flight Service Contract Distribution and Reporting.    Subpart 5647.4 - AIR TRANSPORTATION BY U.S. FLAG CARRIERS     5647.402 Policy     5647.402-9000 Flight Service Contract Distribution and Reporting.    (a) Whenever flight services are procured from an USAF Air Mobility Command (AMC) approved carrier (FAA 135 carriers), a copy of the contract must be forwarded to: HQ AMC/A3BS, 402 Scott Drive, Unit 3A1, Scott AFB, IL 62225-5302. The point of contacts are the AMC Transportation Assistants, at DSN 779-4801. If EDA distribution is utilized, provide an e-mail notice of the contract posting to the EDA site.       (b) Report the following information on contracts with USAF AMC approved carriers to AMC Transportation Assistants on a quarterly basis:       (1) Total cost of contract awards;       (2) Total number of passengers;       (3) Provide a list of open contracts for the period, including contract number, contractor’s name, total award dollars, and the number of passengers carried.              HQ, United States Special Operations Command       Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (SOF AT&L-K)       SOFARS 5647       February 2007
#### § 987.80 Duration of immunities.

The benefits, privileges, and immunities conferred upon any person by virtue of this subpart shall cease upon its termination except with respect to acts done under and during its existence.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RALPH WILSON LINGO, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-703-MHT

)

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of the motion for evidentiary hearing filed by the petitioner on

November 6, 2007 (Court Doc. No. 38), and as such action is not warranted at this stage

of the proceedings, it is

ORDERED that this motion be and is hereby DENIED.

Done this 8th day of November, 2007.

 /s/ Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY 

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 39 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 1 of 1
935.071 Contract clause.

The contracting officer must insert the clause at 952.235-71, Research Misconduct, in contracts,

including management and operating contracts, that involve research.

Parent topic: PART 935 - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0945 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-110-AD

Helicopter Model: Sikorsky Model S-70, S-70A, S-70C, S-70C (M), and S-70C (M1) 

Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 9 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The proposed actions are intended to establish new fatigue life limits for certain GE 

engine gas generator turbine (GGT) rotor parts to prevent fatigue failure of a GGT rotor part, 

engine failure, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $360,000 to replace the GGT rotor parts

Labor per Helicopter

(X x $85/work-hour for the 

inspection)

- A minimal amount of time to calculate the 

new retirement life.

- A minimal amount for work hours and labor 

costs because these parts are replaced as part of 

the periodic maintenance on the helicopter.

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $360,000 

Total US Fleet Cost $3,240,000 

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: Michael Davison
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SOUTHWEST CONVENIENCE

STORES, LLC,

 Appellant,

v.

NORMA MORA,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00099-CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 6

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2013-DCV3446)

J U D G M E N T

This Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes that there was error in 

the judgment. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court below and render judgment 

dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction. We further order that the Appellant recover from 

Appellee all costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for 

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2018.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Larsen, J. (Senior Judge)

Larsen, J. (Senor Judge) sitting by assignment
EXHIBIT 34.2





[Letterhead of KPMG LLP]

KPMG LLP
303 East Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-5212



Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Board of Directors
Citibank, N.A.:

We have examined Citibank, N.A.s (or Company) compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for the Franklin Auto Trust Platform, comprised of publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities, issued on or after January 1, 2006, (the Platform) as of September 30, 2007, and for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007, excluding servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i) through 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii) through 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(4)(i) through 1122(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform.  Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with those servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Companys compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria.

Our examination disclosed the following material noncompliance with criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) applicable to the Company as of September 30, 2007 and for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007.  Certain distributions to investors were made one day after the timeframes stated in the transaction agreements.

In our opinion, except for the instance of material noncompliance described above, the Company complied, in all material respects, with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of September 30, 2007 and for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
November 30, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                              
<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>                        
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  audited  financial  statements for the quarter ended December 31,
1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>                       
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
                                    
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                  5,642
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             103
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        5,759
<PP&E>                                  5,099
<DEPRECIATION>                          1,684
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          9,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      73
<BONDS>                                 1,658
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                            (1,471)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            9,325
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          199
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          110
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         48
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (94)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (94)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                             (94)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (2.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (2.44)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Photogen Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brooks Boveroux, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant 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) 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

 

 
| /s/ Brooks  Boveroux     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Brooks  Boveroux         |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
| May 19, 2003             |

 

----
Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation

Supplement

Issued Fiscal Year 2019 by the:

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

NAVY MARINE CORPS ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

TITLE#-NAVY MARINE CORPS ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

Chapter#

Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation System

Volume #

Parent topic: Volume X - Parts xxxx to xxxx
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

83auX4Ba 4et60304

3er aQ3001418trlot 308 railed.Artiolo elfi of the Rsvisad Cllril Strtutas as emmdad **by ChapSor**  **476,** Saotlon 1, 

### iiots. 44tb **L.gislatura, ’**  seoon~ callea **Eesoion** (1935),

relutoeto elooth3s to 4et0ralne thu propositio5 of the levy of taxes or the issuanas of **bonbs** bl school UI.striats. Tbls statute

~rorldes

in part a8 followsr

"If saldaab&enenae tax propomltlo5 la deraated at

nn ebotlon he14 for aoh purpose, na other l

l o a tl o n

8haU he held thersfoor

nltblka&e ysar frool thr date of wld slsotlon.*

St is ous opinion thns ths portion

Of Artlolo

294&x, w&lab is quotedebavo.ref6rsto.tlmpra~lsions of Artiolr 8Eb8, and that w&m sn rleatlon hes,been

hotd ua4er the twas of Artlcb &74&f,Rwlsad Clvll Ststutas, 00 4etatim1 &mth&r s portion of th8 tarrltory of a sabool

aistrlotshallbs 4etaahe4 an4 sttsabed

to anotbr sohoal blsttiot, an4 suoh eleatfon has fslleb,

one yssr should

elapsebeforeaother slaotlon an the saos pr0posltlon

aaa be bold. Xovever, tier the 4eolmloa of the Camladoa~ OS iu4puala .b Knrtfn fe Ormbrlew Sndopemleot Sohool Distriot 

### 869 S. 

### 8. 461, 6 noon4 eleotioa OJI tin MR# &mo~sitfon u&h us8 hold mre thsa a year sftsr t&m flret l lsotiorr

4&&~5f! the ptoposiftoa, woulh not a rsBdsrs4void **by the**  hot tlmt **t&a** orderrot the oleotlaa .ma aa40 vitS&o lass then e year after the rtrst oleatlo~ fn hi8 epinkon, whichus8 adopts4 by tho Sqwaiss Caurt,Iudge Gamut ssysr
*It i8 tba aotualholdlrqof the elsatian, ss4 not the Yre ordertng

0r it, whiah is OaLaul8te4 to inaonTqiimlae Or dk8tUrb

the VOtUr. ftmh the hol4hg or a sswn4 alsation wlthlrt a less tirw thsn ona ywa Of tha flat sleotion

wblohthr legisl.&ure 04 doubt lntan4e4

to WuYerrt~~

YI, m *nforo of the o~iaionthat ua4er the faata st8t6a in your quostloa, the sooon4lleetlear&ml4 not k 8~14 rim&s OM year after tha first rleotlon, .but that this

Or4sr for tb WOOBd 6m?t%OZi IiUIy b e BU L a e

d t b h l m a r a fter t) w ,fi r s t 8leotton

wltbout roudsrlng

the sadon40lsstlOrr YOl49

very truly pws
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2799 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Methoxy-2-methyldiphenylamine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15, 2006 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. STABENOW) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Methoxy-2- 

methyldiphenylamine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 4-METHOXY-2-METHYLDIPHENYLAMINE. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.05.55 4-Methoxy-2- 

methyldiphenylamine (CAS 

No. 41317–15–1) (provided 

for in subheading 

2922.29.60) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 2799 IS 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### § 983.70 Expenses.

The committee is authorized to incur such expenses as the Secretary finds are reasonable and likely to be incurred by it during each production year for the maintenance and functioning of the committee and for such other purposes as the Secretary may, pursuant to the provisions of this part, determine to be appropriate.

[69 FR 17850, Apr. 4, 2004. Redesignated at 74 FR 56541, Nov. 2, 2009]
Subpart 5211.1 - SELECTING AND

DEVELOPING REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENTS

Parent topic: Part 5211 - DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS

5211.103 Market acceptance.

(a) The contracting officer is authorized to require offerors to demonstrate that an item meets the

market acceptance criteria.
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 4 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 4 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 2 of 2
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Educational ChangeElementary Secondary EducationInstructional InnovationLooping (Teachers)Teaching Methods

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
No. 85019 

# FILED AUG 04 2022

A. BROWN PREMECOURT BY OEPU CLEW< INTHE SUPREME COURT OFTHE STATE OF NEVADA
MARIO CORBINO, Appellant,

vs. MARYANDERSON, Respondent.

ORDERDISMISSINGAPPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA oil 19.17A This is a pro se appeal from a purported order entered by "Las

VegasNevada Clark CountyClerk ofThe CourtMELISSASARAGOSA"on June 8, 2022. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Crystal Eller, Judge. It appears appellant is attempting to appeal from an order of summary eviction entered by the justice court.' The district courts have final appellate jurisdiction over cases arising in the justice courts. Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; Waugh v. Casazza, 85 Nev. 520, 521, 458 P.2d 359, 360 (1969). Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from a justice

lIt is not clear from the notice ofappeal whether appellant intended to appeal to this court or to initiate a second appeal to the district court. After appellant filed the instant notice of appeal in the district court, the district court entered an order strikingthat notice. "A notice ofappeal [tothis court] iseffective on the date ofreceipt by the district court clerk." Whitman v. Whitman, 108Nev.949, 951, 840 P.2d 1232, 1233 (1992). Oncejurisdiction vests in this court, the district court lacks authority to strike a notice ofappeal to this court, See Buffington v. State, 110 Nev. 124, 126, 868 P.2d 643, 644 (1994) ("Jurisdiction in an appeal is vested solely in the supreme court until the remittitur issues to the district court."). Therefore, to the extent the notice of appeal is an appeal to this court, the district court lacked authority to strike the notice and this court takes no action with respect tothe order. 

## L- a - (4'4ZOcourt order. This court also lacks jurisdiction to the extent appellant

appeals from the June 24, 2022, district court order affirming the order of summaryeviction. See id. Accordingly, thiscourt

ORDERSthis appeal DISMISSED.

, J.

Hardesty 

## A4Ltbat.12 , J. J. Herndon

cc: Hon. Crystal Eller, District Judge Mario Corbino MaryAnderson EighthDistrict Court Clerk Stiglich

2
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3169 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-(Trifluoromethoxy)phenyl isocyanate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

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

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 4- 

(Trifluoromethoxy)phenyl isocyanate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 4-(TRIFLUOROMETHOXY)PHENYL ISOCYANATE. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.29.11 4-(Trifluoromethoxy)phenyl isocyanate 

(CAS No. 35037–73–1) (provided for in 

subheading 2929.10.55) .......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 3169 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
#### § 900.311 Submittals or requests.

Interested persons may secure information or make submittals or requests to the Administrator with respect to the provisions contained in this subpart.
#### § 51.888 Maturity requirements.

(a) In the case of grapes grown in Arizona or California, “mature” means grapes in any lot shall meet the maturity requirements for the variety as set forth in the applicable State Agricultural Laws and Regulations referenced in this section. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from, in the case of Arizona maturity regulations, Arizona Department of Agriculture, Citrus, Fruit and Vegetable Standardization, 1688 W. Adams, Phoenix, AZ 85007 or in the case of California maturity regulations, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Fruit and Vegetable Quality Control, Standardization Section, 1220 N Street, P.O. Box 942871, Sacramento, California 94271-0001 or copies of both regulations may be inspected at USDA, AMS, F&VD, FPB, Standardization Section, Room 2065-S, 14th and Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20250 or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.*

(1) Arizona maturity regulations are contained in Chapter 4—Plant Services Division, Article 7, Fruit And Vegetable Standardization, Section R3-4-733 Table Grape Standards, Effective January 6, 1994.

(2) California maturity regulations are contained in The California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Subchapter 4. Fresh Fruits, Nuts and Vegetables, Article 25, Table Grapes and Raisins, November 16, 1996.

(b) Grapes subject to U.S. import regulations shall meet the maturity requirements specified in such regulations.

(c) Grapes produced in States other than Arizona or California, or grapes imported from countries outside the United States during periods in which U.S. import regulations do not apply, shall meet the minimum percentage of soluble solids set forth in Table III as determined by use of a standard hand refractometer.

| Variety | Percent of soluble solids |
| --- | --- |
| Muscat | 17.5 |
| All varieties not listed in this table | 16.5 |
| Cardinal, Emperor, Perlette, Ribier, Olivette Blanche, Rish Baba, Red Malaga, and similar varieties | 15.5 |

Table III

(1) The minimum percentage of soluble solids for any lot shall be determined from the juice of at least 10 percent, by weight, of whole bunches of the least mature grapes in that container which appears to have the least mature grapes. No lot shall be considered as failing to meet these requirements unless samples from two containers which appear to have the least mature grapes test below the required percentage of soluble solids.

[48 FR 19350, Apr. 29, 1983, as amended at 52 FR 22437, June 12, 1987. Redesignated at 56 FR 15802, Apr. 18, 1991; 61 FR 11127, Mar. 19, 1996; 64 FR 14577, Mar. 26, 1999]
#### § 958.40 Expenses.

The committee is authorized to incur such expenses as the Secretary may find are reasonable and likely to be incurred by it during each fiscal period for its maintenance and functioning, and for such purposes as the Secretary, pursuant to this subpart, determines to be appropriate. Handlers shall share expenses upon the basis of a fiscal period. Each handler's share of such expenses shall be proportionate to the ratio between the total quantity of such handler's onion shipments inspected pursuant to this part that are handled by him as the first handler thereof during a fiscal period, and the total quantity of such onions handled by all handlers as first handlers thereof during the same period.
#### LOWTHER, Respondent, v. LOWTHER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Clarence L. Lowther against Christopher M. Lowther, impleaded, etc. W. W. Shaw, for appellant. L. E. Warren, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
#### § 996.22 USDA-approved laboratory.

*USDA-approved laboratory* means laboratories approved by the Science and Technology Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, that chemically analyze peanuts for aflatoxin content.