alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: August 27, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASIUNGTON, DC 

.,.;.,.: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. F AA-20 14-0867 

BIRMINGHAM 

FLIGHT CENTER, INC. 

Respondent 

Case No. 2012S0090053 

ORDER SETTING MOTION CONFERENCE 

On April 7, 2015, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed. 

On August 25, 2015, the FAA filed a Motion to Amend Schedule to Extend Discovery 

and Set Deadlines for Dispositive Motions. 

Later that same day, August 25,2015, the Respondent, Birmingham Flight Center, Inc., 

filed the Respondent's Response to Administrator's Motion to Amend the Court's Rule 16 

Scheduling Order. 

On August 27,2015, the FAA filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Amend Schedule to 

Extend Discovery and Set Deadlines for Dispositive Motions. 

Later that same day, August 27,2015, the Office of Hearings attorney staff informally 

contacted the parties by e-mail to determine their availability for a short-set Motion Conference. 

Both parties responded that same day, and an agreed date was set. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(1), (6) and (8), and after reviewing all relevant 

caselaw, regulation, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 
1 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. August 31, 2015 (1:30 p.m.- 2:30 p.m. ET): Motion Conference. The parties shall 

convene on Monday, August 31, 2015 (1:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. ET) for a Motion 

Conference to present oral argument on the FAA's Motion. 

2. The parties shall access the Motion Conference by dialing 202-493-2343. 

Attachment: Service List 
Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Paul R. Borth 

Respondent's Counsel 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025-4387 

TEL: 847-724-5520 

FAX: 815-356-7042 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. 

Respondent 

4243 East Lake Blvd. 

Birmingham, AL 35217 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Freddie Gales.

Motion granted to extent of amending the remittitur to recite the following: “Upon the appeal herein there were presented, and necessarily passed upon, questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Appellant contended that his rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution were violated. The Appellate Division held that there was no violation of appellant’s rights.” Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Nunez and McNally, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

 11 a.m., Friday January 21, 2011.

# PLACE:

 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS:

 Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield, 

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-32782 Filed 12-23-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Exhibit 99.2




                        President's Written Certification
                             Of Financial Statements
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350



     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity
as president of 4net Software, Inc. (the "Company") that

     (a)  the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
          June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     (b)  the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end
          of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such
          period.




                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,187
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  164,941
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    407,608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               592,021
<PP&E>                                         532,074
<DEPRECIATION>                                 334,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 807,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,002,364
<BONDS>                                        240,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,261
<OTHER-SE>                                   (239,680)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   807,945
<SALES>                                      1,490,301
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,490,301
<CGS>                                          773,018
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  773,018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (126,655)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (126,655)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
CLEARVIEW INVESTMENTS, LTD.
                       2000 East Lamar Blvd., Suite 150
                            Arlington, Texas 76006

November 4, 1997

Factory Outlet Centre Limited Liability Company
c/o The Balcor Company
Bannockburn Lake Office Plaza
2355 Waukegan Road
Site A-200
Bannockburn, Illinois  60015

     RE:  Agreement of Sale dated as of August 25, 1997 between Insignia 
          Commercial Investments Group, Inc. ("Assignor") and Factory Outlet 
          Centre Limited Liability Company ("Seller") for the purchase and sale
          of property known as the Factory Outlet Center in Kenosha, Wisconsin 
          ("Property") as amended by September 8, 1997 Letter Agreement, as 
          amended by October 7, 1997 Letter Agreement, and as assigned on 
          October 24, 1997 to Clearview Investments, Ltd. ("Assignee") herein 
          referred to as Purchaser

Dear Madam or Sir:

     Under the above referenced Agreement of Sale, the Purchase Price (as
defined herein) is $15,000,000.00, the Inspection Period, as defined therein,
expires on November 8, 1997 and the Closing Date, as defined therein, was to be
December 8, 1997.

     This letter shall confirm that Seller, has among other things, agreed to
provide Purchaser with additional time to conduct investigations and studies of
the Property.  It shall be at Purchaser's sole discretion, whether to elect to
purchase the Property, or to terminate the Agreement of Sale, as provided in
Article 7 thereof.

     The Inspection Period shall be revised to end at 5:00 p.m. Chicago time on
November 17, 1997 and the Closing Date shall be revised to be December 15,
1997.

     Except as provided herein, the Agreement of Sale shall remain unmodified
and in full force and effect.

     The date that Purchaser shall release the Earnest Money to Seller pursuant
to the Consent to Assignment of the agreement dated October 24, 1997 shall be
revised from November 10, 1997 to November 17, 1997.
<PAGE>
     If the amendments to the Agreement of Sale provided in this letter are
acceptable, please indicate your agreement on behalf of Seller, where indicated
below.

                    Sincerely,

                    CLEARVIEW INVESTMENTS, LTD.
                    By:  Redbud Capital, Inc.
                         Its general partner

                    By:  /s/ Carla B. Fulton, Vice President
                            ------------------------------------------
                    Title:  Carla B. Fulton, Vice President

Agreed and Accepted this 5th day of November, 1997

Factory Outlet Centre Limited Liability Company
By:  Outlet Centre Investors, a member

     By:  Balcor Partners-XXI, its general partner

          By:  /s/ Beth Goldstein
                 ------------------------------
          Name:  Beth Goldstein
          Its:  Authorized Representative

cc:  Michael R. Horowitz
<PAGE>
#### In the Matter of Orlando Rodriguez, Respondent, v Elia Irizarry, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 273]

In a child custody proceed-from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Ebrahimoff, R.), dated January 2, 2002, which, after a hearing, awarded custody of the parties’ children to the father.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that custody determinations are to be made upon consideration of all relevant circumstances so as to promote the best interests of the child *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167 [1982]; *Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89 [1982]; *Matter of Riccio v Riccio,*21 AD3d 1107 [2005]; *Miller v Pipia,*297 AD2d 362 [2002]). Primary among the circumstances to be considered in determining the best interests of the child are the ability to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development, the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance provided *(see Matter of Louise E.S. v W. Stephen S.,*64 NY2d 946 [1985]; *Matter of Caraballo v Colon,*9 AD3d 459 [2004]; *see also Eschbach v Eschbach, supra*at 172). A custody award is a matter within the discretion of the hearing court *(see Matter of Panetta v Ruddy,*18 AD3d 662 [2005]; *Vinciguerra v Vinciguerra,*294 AD2d 565 [2002]), whose determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Mclver-Heyward v Heyward,*25 AD3d 556 [2006]; *Matter of Olson v Olson,*8 AD3d 285 [2004]).

The record supports the hearing court’s determination that the best interests of the children would be promoted by the award of custody to the father. The Family Court conducted a full custody hearing at which it saw and heard the testimony of the witnesses. The evidence demonstrated that neither parent was unfit, but that custody with the father was in the children’s best interests. That determination has a substantial basis in the record.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0555

_________________

JAYSON O’NEILL,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

GREG GIANFORTE, in his official capacity as 

GOVERNOR OF MONTANA,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to our Order of June 27, 2024, this cause is classified for oral argument 

before the Court on Friday, September 13, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. Due to unforeseen 

circumstances, the venue for the oral argument has changed. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this cause is set for oral argument on Friday, 

September 13, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. at the Wilma Theatre in Missoula, Montana, with an 

introduction to the argument beginning at 9:00 a.m. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to M. R. App. P. 17(3), oral argument 

times in this cause number shall be forty (40) minutes for Appellant and thirty (30) minutes 

for Appellee.

Counsel should be mindful of the provisions of M. R. App. P. 17(6).

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record, to 

Elaine Gagliardi, Dean, Alexander Blewett III School of Law, University of Montana, to 

John Mudd, Executive Director, State Bar of Montana, and to Honorable Kathy Seeley, 

District Judge.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 3 2024

09/03/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0555
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1106

W. ROMANDO JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLEMSON UNIVERSITY; DIANE G. SMATHERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-97-2468-24-AK) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. W. Romando James, Appellant Pro Se. James William Logan, Jr., Michael Todd Smith, LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH, L.L.P., Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on December 28, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on December 29, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray , 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: W. Romando James appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See James v. Clemson University , No. CA-97-2468-24-AK (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 1999). *We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Biomass Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov Content Last Updated: 05/05/2008 Search Help More Search Options Printable Version 

# Processing and Conversion The Office of the Biomass Program focuses its research and development efforts in converting biomass into fuels, products, and power via two biochemical and thermochemical routes.

Biochemical Conversion - Biomass is broken down to sugars using either enzymatic or chemical processes and then converted to ethanol via fermentation. Thermochemical Conversion - Biomass is broken down to intermediates using heat and upgraded to fuels using a combination of heat and pressure in the presence of catalysts. These R&D efforts focus on technologies and processes that can reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of producing biofuels, products, and power. Efficiencies can be achieved through methods for increasing the yields derived from conversion of various feedstocks, among other improvements. The majority of the Biomass Program's R&D is focused on these technologies. Current R&D projects are described in detail in this website's Information Resources section. Biochemical Related Links Thermochemical Related Links

Printable Version Site Map EERE Information Center Programs and Offices



### Quick Links z z z z

z z Biomass FAQs

Program Overview Program Research Financial Opportunities Publications Contact Us 

# Page 1 of 1 Biomass Program: Proc essing and Conversion

7/16/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\jbrown19\De sktop\New Folder (2)\Biomass Program Pro

...
226 So.2d 921

#### Ena Marie CHAUVIN v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY et al.

No. 50007.

Oct. 14, 1969.

In re: United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company and Howard Reed d/b/a Dairy Queen No, 1 applying for certiorari, *791or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 223 So. 2d 441.

The application is denied. According to the facts of this case as found to be by the Court of Appeal, there appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal and plaintiffs own testimony, plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. The holding of the Court of Appeal under these •facts makes the owner of public premises .an insurer of those who use the premises and is contrary to our law.
#### § 905.1 What are the purposes of the Energy Planning and Management Program?

The purposes of the Energy Planning and Management Program (EPAMP) are to meet the objectives of Section 114 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) and to extend long-term firm power resource commitments while supporting customer integrated resource planning (IRP); demand-side management (DSM), including energy efficiency, conservation, and load management; and the use of renewable energy. Subpart B, Integrated Resource Planning, allows customers of the Western Area Power Administration (Western) to meet the objectives of section 114 of EPAct through integrated resource planning or by other means, such as attaining a minimum level of investment in energy efficiency and/or renewable energy, collecting a charge to support defined public benefits, or complying with a mandated energy efficiency and/or renewable energy reporting requirement.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 887 

Supporting the designation of May as ‘‘National Lyme Disease Awareness 

Month’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2018 

Mr. FASO (for himself and Mr. COURTNEY) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the designation of May as ‘‘National Lyme 

Disease Awareness Month’’. 

Whereas there are an estimated 300,000 new cases of Lyme 

disease annually, putting undue burden and suffering on 

countless individuals and families; 

Whereas Lyme disease is a rapidly growing epidemic that is 

found in half of all United States counties and about 80 

countries; 

Whereas Lyme disease has no known cure and is difficult to 

diagnose; 

Whereas Lyme disease poses a significant threat to our communities, especially when coupled with other tick-borne 

illnesses; 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 887 IH 

Whereas symptoms are often mistaken for common illnesses 

but can affect the nervous system, the heart, and joints, 

leading to arthritic symptoms, paralysis, encephalitis, seizures, and death if left untreated; 

Whereas a comprehensive approach utilizing increased education and more research on Lyme disease and its vectors 

can lead to significant advancements; 

Whereas individuals and families should seek out and be 

aware of best practices for the prevention of tick bites 

and Lyme disease; 

Whereas individuals living in or visiting wooded and other 

vulnerable areas should check themselves and their loved 

ones for ticks each day; 

Whereas spring marks the beginning of increased tick-bite activity; and 

Whereas May would be an appropriate month to designate as 

‘‘National Lyme Disease Awareness Month’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the designation of ‘‘National Lyme Disease Awareness 

3 Month’’ to increase public knowledge of the disease, raise 

4 awareness about the prevention of tick bites, and advance 

5 the vision of finding a cure through critical research. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
§ 176.60 Statutory requirement. Section 1605 of the Recovery Act prohibits use of recovery funds for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States. The law requires that this prohibition be applied in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements, and it provides for waiver under three circumstances: ( a ) Iron, steel, or relevant manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality;
( b ) Inclusion of iron, steel, or manufactured goods produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent; or
( c ) Applying the domestic preference would be inconsistent with the public interest.
§ 200.461 Publication and printing costs. ( a ) Publication costs for electronic and print media, including distribution, promotion, and general handling are allowable. If these costs are not identifiable with a particular cost objective, they should be allocated as indirect costs to all benefiting activities of the non-Federal entity.
( b ) Page charges for professional journal publications are allowable where: ( 1 ) The publications report work supported by the Federal Government; and
( 2 ) The charges are levied impartially on all items published by the journal, whether or not under a Federal award.
( 3 ) The non-Federal entity may charge the Federal award during closeout for the costs of publication or sharing of research results if the costs are not incurred during the period of performance of the Federal award. If charged to the award, these costs must be charged to the final budget period of the award, unless otherwise specified by the Federal awarding agency.
[78 FR 78608, Dec. 26, 2013, as amended at 85 FR 49569, Aug. 13, 2020]