alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Date: November 22, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

NOTICE SHORTENING ANSWER PERIOD

DOCKET DOT-OST-2011-0152

On November 20, 2011, Universal Jet Aviation, Inc. (“Universal Jet”), filed a request for an 

extension of its existing exemption 1 from Part 298 of the Department’s regulations (14 CFR Part 

298) to operate one executive-configured Boeing 737, or Boeing Business Jet (“BBJ”),

2 along 

with a Motion to shorten the answer period in this case to November 28, 2011. Under the 

Department’s regulations (14 CFR § 302.307), answers to the exemption application would 

normally be due by December 6, 2011.

In support of its request, Universal Jet states that a shortened answer period will enable Universal 

to continue to provide the charter transportation it has been authorized to operate. In support of 

its extension request, Universal also states it is seeking temporary relief to continue operating its 

contracted charter air service until such time as the Department has taken action on its pending 

certificate applications for interstate and foreign passenger charter authority. 

We have reviewed Universal Jet’s request and find it appropriate to grant the Motion to shorten 

the answer period in this case to November 28, 2011. Additionally, the Department received a 

letter from Universal stating that it had polled and received non-objections from interested 

parties regarding the shortened answer period. 

We will serve this notice by email or facsimile on all interested parties. 

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this notice under the Department’s 

Regulations, 14 CFR 385.30, may file their petitions within 10 days of the service date of this 

order.

 1 See Order 2011-8-19 granting Universal an exemption from 14 CFR Part 298. This exemption expires on 

November 30, 2011.

2 Normally, aircraft with only 16 seats would not require certificate authority since such aircraft generally qualify 

as “small” aircraft that can be operated under the Part 298 air taxi exemption. However, the BBJ, which is a 

modified B-737, and other similar sized aircraft are “large” aircraft that do not qualify for the air taxi exemption. 

Therefore, Universal Jet has applied for certificate authority in Dockets DOT-OST-2011-0150 and DOT-OST-2011-

0151.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
2

This notice is effective immediately and the filing of a petition for reconsideration shall not alter 

its effectiveness. 

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http://www.regulations.com
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.5310 Carbon dioxide absorber. ( a ) *Identification.* A carbon dioxide absorber is a device that is intended for medical purposes and that is used in a breathing circuit as a container for carbon dioxide absorbent. It may include a canister and water drain.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 868.9.
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 1120, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38794, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.1200 Indwelling blood oxygen partial pressure (PO2) analyzer. ( a ) *Identification.* An indwelling blood oxygen partial pressure (PO2) analyzer is a device that consists of a catheter-tip PO2 transducer (e.g., PO2 electrode) and that is used to measure, in vivo, the partial pressure of oxygen in blood to aid in determining the patient's circulatory, ventilatory, and metabolic status.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is FDA's “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Indwelling Blood Gas Analyzers; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA.”
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982; 47 FR 40410, Sept. 14, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 17735, May 11, 1987; 66 FR 57368, Nov. 15, 2001]
#### Edgerton *v.*Whiten *et al.*

No. 8610.

December 21, 1931.

Rehearing denied March 2, 1932.

Russell, C. J.

Under the facts appearing in the record and under the law applicable thereto, the judge did not err in granting a temporary injunction and appointing a temporary receiver.

*Judgment affirmed-*

*All the Justices concur, except Gilbert, J., who dissents.*

*191
      *J. P. Highsmith*and *Jap. H. Highsmith,*for plaintiff in error.

*M. E. Wood*and *H. J. Lawrence,*contra.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > The Unemployment Crisis and Policies for Economic Recovery

              																	United States. Congress. Joint Economic Committee, 1956-					 and 	Ninety-Seventh Congress, 1981-1983. 						*The Unemployment Crisis and Policies for Economic Recovery : Hearings Before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session, October 15, 20, and November 24, 1982*,												Washington: 								U.S. Government Printing Office, 										October 15, 20, and November 24, 1982,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/902,			accessed on September 5, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
L1011 Full Flight Simulator

Relocation and Installation

LIFT-1504-006 ATTACHMENT 1

April 14, 2015
L1011 Full Flight Simulator Relocation

LIFT-1504-006 ATTACHMENT 2

Simulator Flight Compartment Simulator components, Accessories 

and Computers 
Simulator Arrival, Unload, Open and Inspect

3

LIFT-1504-006 ATTACHMENT

Flight Compartment Required Two

Large Forklifts to Remove from the Truck

Opening and Inspecting in Preparation 

for Installation
Facility Renovations 

4

LIFT-1504-006 ATTACHMENT

Three, 6 Ft Deep Isolation Pads, filled with Cement and Rebar, were required 

to mount the attachment pads and legs. Two Roof Air conditioners were installed 

and ducting for the computer room and the simulator flight deck.

A special boring machine was used to drill holes for the base plate anchor bolts

The computer room required a raised floor to pump 

cool air up and into the cabinets
Flight Compartment Installation

LIFT-1504-006 ATTACHMENT 5

The simulator is raised into position block by block until its high

enough to install the main actuator legs
Installing the Motion Actuator Legs

6

LIFT-1504-006 ATTACHMENT
Completion and Operation of the Computer 

Room

7

LIFT-1504-006 ATTACHMENT
Completion of the Simulator and Pump Room 

Installation

8

LIFT-1504-006 ATTACHMENT
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.3640 Indirect pacemaker generator function analyzer. ( a ) *Identification.* An indirect pacemaker generator function analyzer is an electrically powered device that is used to determine pacemaker function or pacemaker battery function by periodically monitoring an implanted pacemaker's pulse rate and pulse width. The device is noninvasive, and it detects pacemaker pulse rate and width via external electrodes in contact with the patient's skin.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3260 Cavity varnish. ( a ) *Identification.* Cavity varnish is a device that consists of a compound intended to coat a prepared cavity of a tooth before insertion of restorative materials. The device is intended to prevent penetration of restorative materials, such as amalgam, into the dentinal tissue.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device, when it is an external cleaning solution, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 872.9.
[52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at 84 FR 71812, Dec. 30, 2019]
# C_2018328EN.01003301.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission

(Case T-438/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Concept of an undertaking - Economic succession - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence of the infringement - Public distancing - Duration of participation - Equal treatment - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Silec Cable SAS (Montereau-Fault-Yonne, France) and General Cable Corp. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: I. Sinan, Barrister, and I. De Beni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by D. Bailey, Barrister)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Silec Cable SAS and General Cable Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Silec Cable SAS and General Cable Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---
# C_2014245EN.01003001.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/30

---

Action brought on 6 June 2014 — Sociedad Española Inmuebles y Locales v Commission

(Case T-397/14)

2014/C 245/41

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sociedad Española Inmuebles y Locales, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.C. García Muñoz, J.I. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-392/14.

---
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, February 26, 2010, 2 p.m. to February 26, 2010, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 24, 2010, 75 FR 8371.                

The meeting will be held March 15, 2010. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: February 25, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-4594 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 99.1

                 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     ARMANINO FOODS OF DISTINCTION, INC.
                     PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of Armanino Foods of Distinction, Inc. for the period ending March
31, 2003:

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Armanino
Foods of Distinction, Inc.





/s/  William J. Armanino
William J. Armanino
Chief Executive Officer
April 30, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Armanino Foods of Distinction,
Inc. and will be retained by Armanino Foods of Distinction, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
Exhibit 35.6



LOGO

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

OF

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

The undersigned, Job Warshaw, being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the Special Servicer), as special servicer under the
applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in
his capacity as an authorized officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:



| | 1. | A review of the activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencing on January 1, 2015 and ending on December 31, 2015 (or any other shorter period set forth on Schedule I hereto) (the
Reporting Period), and of the Special Servicers performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and
Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



LNR PARTNERS, LLC,a Florida limited liability companyBy:

/s/ Job WarshawJob WarshawPresident


Dated: February 23, 2016





1601 Washington Avenue  Suite
700  Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600  Fax: (305) 695-5601



---

Schedule I

COMM 2015-CR24

COMM 2015-CCRE24 Mortgage Trust Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

Ref: Eden Roc- portion was contributed into CGCMT 2015-P1

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

390 Greenwich
Street, 5th Floor

New York, NY 10013

Paul Vanderslice

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

388 Greenwich
Street, 17th Floor

New York, NY 10013

Ryan M. OConnor

Citibank, N.A.

Agency and Trust

388 Greenwich Street, 14th Floor

New York, NY 10013

John Hannon
SERVED JUNE 25, 2010 

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 

FAA DOCKET No CP10SW0007 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS FAA-2010-0533 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER 

The Complaint of Complainant Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter 

"Complainant") was filed on May 20, 2010. The matter was assigned to the undersigned 

by Order served June 4, 2010. We issued a Procedural Order on June 10, 2010. 

On June 2, 2010, Respondent Federal Express Corporation (hereinafter 

"Respondent") moved that the time to answer the Complaint be extended to July 23, 

2010. In support Respondent cites pressing competing obligations. Respondent also 

states that Complainant does not oppose the motion. 

For good cause shown. Respondent's motion is hereby GRANTED. 

Respondent's Answer will be due on July 23, 2010. 

Attachment - Service List 

Richard C. Goodwin 4^""^ 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 
FAA Docket No. CP10SW0007 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Courtney E. Felts, Respondent's Counsel 

Staff Attorney, Federal Express, Inc. 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, 3'" Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125-8800 

TEL: 901-434-8632 

FAX: 901-434-8283 

Ellyn Ponton, Complainant's Counsel 

Agency Attorney, Office of Regitmal Counsel 

Southwest Region, ASW-7G5 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Boulevard 

Fort Worth, TX 76137-4298 

TEL: 817-222-5089 

FAX: 817-222-5945/5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

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.
39002.

#### ROBERSON v. THE STATE.

Jordan, Judge.

Cecil Roberson was tried and convicted in the City Court of Floyd County for the offense of stabbing. His amended motion for new trial was denied and he excepted to that judgment. *Held:*

“Unless there be great superiority in physical strength of an assailant who strikes another a blow with his fist, or ill health in the assailed at the time, or other circumstance producing rel*383atively great inequality between them in combat, the assailed cannot justifiably resent the blow by stabbing the assailant.” *Morgan v. State,*119 Ga. 566 (3) (46 SE 836). That portion of the charge of the court, which embodied the above principle of law, is not erroneous for any reason assigned in special ground 4. *Floyd v. State,*36 Ga. 91 (91 AD 760); *McEvoy v. State,*123 Ga. 506 (1) (51 SE 500).

Decided September 15, 1961.

*Hamilton & Anderson, George Anderson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Chastine Parker, Solicitor-General,*contra.

Accordingly, there being no merit in this special ground, and the general grounds and remaining special grounds having been abandoned, the trial judge did not err in denying the amended motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.2620 Gas pressure calibrator. ( a ) *Identification.* A gas pressure calibrator is a device intended for medical purposes that is used to calibrate pressure-measuring instruments by generating a known gas pressure.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 868.9.
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 1119, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38794, July 25, 2001]