alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30262]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty Seventh Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced 
Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight 
Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
twenty seventh meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced 
Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).

DATES: The meeting will be held January 27-29 2015 from 8:30 a.m.-5:00 
p.m. on January 27-28 and 8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. on January 29.

ADDRESSES: FAA Long Beach Aircraft Evaluation Group 3960 Paramount 
Blvd. Lakewood, California 90712 1st Floor Conference Rooms A, B, & C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Etherington, 
tjetheri@rockwellcollins.com, (319) 295-5233 or mobile at (319) 431-
7154, Patrick Krohn, pkrohn@uasc.com, telephone (425) 602-1375 or 
mobile at (425) 829-1996 and The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330-
0652/(202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org. Additional contact information: RTCA contact is Jennifer 
Iverson, jiverson@rtca.org, (202) 330-0662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 213. The agenda will 
include the following:

Tuesday, January 27

Plenary discussion (sign-in at 08:00 a.m.)
     Introductions and administrative items
     Review and approve minutes from last full plenary meeting
     Review of terms of reference (if needed)
     Status of DO-341A
     DO-3XX FRAC Comment Review and Disposition

Wednesday, January 28

Plenary discussion
     DO-3XX FRAC Comment Review and Disposition
     WG2 Draft Document

Thursday, January 29

Plenary discussion
     WG2 Draft Document
     Administrative items (new meeting location/dates, action 
items etc.)

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2014.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and Administration, 
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-30262 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### § 1.6012-5 Composite return in lieu of specified form.

The Commissioner may authorize the use, at the option of a person required to make a return, of a composite return in lieu of any form specified in this part for use by such a person, subject to such conditions, limitations, and special rules governing the preparation, execution, filing, and correction thereof as the Commissioner may deem appropriate. Such composite return shall consist of a form prescribed by the Commissioner and an attachment or attachments of magnetic tape or other approved media. Notwithstanding any provisions in this part to the contrary, a single form and attachment may comprise the returns of more than one such person. To the extent that the use of a composite return has been authorized by the Commissioner, references in this part to a specific form for use by such a person shall be deemed to refer also to a composite return under this section.

[T.D. 7200, 37 FR 16544, Aug. 16, 1972]
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Jay N. Torok, certify that: (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Great Western
Land and Recreation, Inc.; (2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; (4) The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which the quarterly
report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and(c)
    
    Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; (5) The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls (a pre-existing term relating to internal controls
regarding financial reporting) which could adversely affect the
companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
data and have identified for the companys auditors any material
weaknesses in internal controls; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal
controls; and (6) The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Date: May 14, 2004/s/ Jay N. TorokJay N. TorokChairman of the Board(Principal Executive Officer)Great Western Land and Recreation, Inc.
 23
427 A.2d 1214

#### Commonwealth v. Poindexter, Appellant.

*613Submitted March 23, 1979.

John W. Packel, Chief, Appeals, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;

Eric B. Henson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P. J., and WATKINS and HOFFMAN, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
§ 1.501(h)-1 Application of the *expenditure test* to expenditures to influence legislation; introduction. ( a ) *Scope.* ( 1 ) There are certain requirements an organization must meet in order to be a *charity* described in section 501(c)(3). Among other things, section 501(c)(3) states that “no substantial part of the activities of [a charity may consist of] carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)).” This requirement is called the *substantial part test.*
( 2 ) Under section 501(h), many public charities may elect the *expenditure test* as a substitute for the substantial part test. The expenditure test is described in section 501(h) and this § 1.501(h). A public charity is any charity that is not a private foundation under section 509(a). (Unlike a public charity, a private foundation may not make any lobbying expenditures: If a private foundation does make a lobbying expenditure, it is subject to an excise tax under section 4945). Section 1.501(h)-2 lists which public charities are eligible to make the expenditure test election. Section 1.501(h)-2 also provides information about how a public charity makes and revokes the election to be covered by the expenditure test.
( 3 ) A public charity that makes the election may make lobbying expenditures within specified dollar limits. If an electing public charity's lobbying expenditures are within the dollar limits determined under section 4911(c), the electing public charity will not owe tax under section 4911 nor will it lose its tax exempt status as a charity by virtue of section 501(h). If, however, that electing public charity's lobbying expenditures exceed its section 4911 lobbying limit, the organization is subject to an excise tax on the excess lobbying expenditures. Further, under section 501(h), if an electing public charity's lobbying expenditures normally are more than 150 percent of its section 4911 lobbying limit, the organization will cease to be a charity described in section 501(c)(3).
( 4 ) A public charity that elects the expenditure test may nevertheless lose its tax exempt status if it is an action organization under § 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii) or (iv). A public charity that does not elect the expenditure test remains subject to the substantial part test. The substantial part test is applied without regard to the provisions of section 501(h) and 4911 and the related regulations.
( b ) *Effective date.* The provisions of § 1.501(h)-1 through § 1.501(h)-3, are effective for taxable years beginning after August 31, 1990. An election made before August 31, 1990, under the provisions of § 7.0(c)(4) or the instructions to Form 5768, will be effective under these regulations without again filing Form 5768.
[T.D. 8308, 55 FR 35588, Aug. 31, 1990]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 90 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 90

 To express the sense of the Senate concerning the exercise of rights 
         secured under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                April 1 (legislative day, March 3), 1993

    Mr. Durenberger (for himself and Mrs. Kassebaum) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To express the sense of the Senate concerning the exercise of rights 
         secured under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Whereas Americans' disparate views on the issue of abortion result from deeply 
        held moral, religious and civil rights beliefs;
Whereas irresponsible and unjustified violence displaces the legitimate 
        expression of these convictions and further polarizes those who hold 
        different views on abortion;
Whereas such violence fosters neither greater understanding nor agreement on 
        this divisive issue but only contributes to the fracturing of our 
        society; and
Whereas agreement and understanding on difficult social issues can be reached 
        only through responsible dialogue and nonviolent expression: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That, it is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) the rights to peaceful assembly and free expression as 
        established by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the 
        United States are precious rights, but neither the Constitution 
        nor the laws of this land sanction violence as a means of 
        expressing individual moral, religious or political beliefs; 
        and
            (2) the Senate condemns violence by individuals, even in 
        the pursuit of moral, religious, or political goals, and 
        deplores any acts that contribute to the fracturing of our 
        society.

                                 <all>
```
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 248

To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to appear as amicus curiae in the

name of the Senate in United States v. Durenberger.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 13 (legislative day, AUGUST 11), 1994

Mr. MITCHELL (for himself and Mr. DOLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to appear as amicus

curiae in the name of the Senate in United States v.

Durenberger.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Durenberger, No.

94–3105, pending on appeal in the United States Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the powers and responsibilities of Congress and the relationship

among the branches of government have been placed in

issue; and

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(c), 706(a), and 713(a) of

the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(c),

288e(a), and 288l(a) (1988), the Senate may direct its

Counsel to appear as amicus curiae in the name of the

Senate in any legal action which places in issue the pow-
2

SRES 248 ATS

ers and responsibilities of Congress under the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed

2 to appear as amicus curiae in the name of the Senate in

3 United States v. Durenberger, for the limited purpose of

4 requesting the Court to give plenary consideration to the

5 contentions of the United States and Senator Durenberger

6 in regard to the separation of powers questions presented

7 by the appeal.

Æ
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ISAAC A. POTTER, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROBERTA S. BREN AND OBLON SPIVAK,

Defendants-Appellees, 

AND

MICHELLE K. LEE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, AND LINDA 

M. KING,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2014-1379

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:13-cv-01417-CMHIDD, Senior Judge Claude M. Hilton.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Case: 14-1379 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2014
2 POTTER v. BREN

Appellees respond to this court’s March 31, 2014 show 

cause order. Isaac A. Potter, Jr. moves for entry of judgment, to disqualify appellees’ counsel, and for various 

other relief. Appellees respond. 

Mr. Potter filed his action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and it 

appears that his district court complaint challenges, at 

least in part, registration of the trademark KNIGHTS OF 

THE ZODIAC to registrant Toei Animation Co. Mr. 

Potter has previously filed an interlocutory appeal in the 

same case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

Circuit. Mr. Potter’s current appeal appears to stem from 

the district court’s order granting certain defendants’ 

motions to dismiss and directing Mr. Potter to file an 

amended complaint.

This court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295. Upon review, we conclude that the district court’s 

jurisdiction did not arise in whole or in part under the 

laws specified in § 1295 as defining this court’s appellate 

jurisdiction. This court therefore lacks jurisdiction over 

this appeal. We deem it the better course to transfer the 

matter to the Fourth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1631.

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

This appeal and all pending motions are transferred 

to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court

s30

Case: 14-1379 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2014
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 47 (Thursday, March 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 11560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5074]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice 
and Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States Committee on Rules of 
Practice and Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure will hold a 
two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not 
participation.

DATES: June 14-15, 2010.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Mecham 
Conference Center, One Columbus Circle, NE., Washington, DC 20544.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: March 4, 2010.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-5074 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 on Form 10-Q of Emrise
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: November 15, 2004                      By: /S/ CARMINE T. OLIVA
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                  Carmine T. Oliva
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  (principal executive officer)


Dated: November 15, 2004                      By: /S/ RANDOLPH D. FOOTE
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                  Randolph D. Foote
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  (principal financial officer)

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, 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.
39303, 39311.

#### GOSS v. DAVENPORT *et al;*and *vice versa.*

Decided February 20, 1962.

*387
      *Wayne W. Gammon,*for plaintiff in error.

*Cecil D. Franklin,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

The uncontradicted evidence adduced on the trial of the case disclosed the existence of a building contract between the defendant and the contractor; that materials were purchased by the contractor for use in the improvements on the defendant’s home made under said contract; that the materials were used in making said improvements; that the materials came within the contract price; and that a lien had been duly recorded and a judgment secured against the contractor in accordance with the provisions of *Code*§ 67-2002. Accordingly, a verdict *388for the plaintiff was demanded (the trial judge therefore being authorized to enter a judgment notwithstanding the- verdict), unless there was some evidence to support the allegations of the plea and answer that the materials purchased by the contractor and used in the performance of the contract had been paid for by the contractor.

The only evidence on this issue was that of the owner who testified that he had paid the contractor $2,000’ on January 9, 1958, and that of the contractor, who- testified that he had paid the plaintiff materialman $2,500' on January 10, 1958. The evidence did not affirmatively show, however, that the payment made by the contractor to the plaintiff materialman was derived from the funds received by the contractor from the owner; and in any event the contractor testified that he directed that the materialman apply the payment made by him on January 10, 1958, to other accounts which he owed the materialman on that date and that none of this money was applied as credit for the materials furnished for use in the defendant’s job-. The plaintiff testified that this sum of money was applied to other accounts. See *Code*§ 20-1006. There was no evidence that the owner attempted in any way to- have the amount advanced to the contractor properly appropriated by the contractor to the indebtedness incurred under the contract.

Accordingly since, under the decisions of the Supreme Court in *Green v. Farrar Lumber Co.,*119 Ga. 30 (46 SE 62), and *Prince v. Neal-Millard Co.,*124 Ga. 884 (2), 894 (53 SE 761, 4 AC 615), the burden is on the owner where he has made advances to the contractor of showing their proper application by the contractor in order to defeat a lien claimed by the materialman, the jury Was not authorized to find for the owner on this issue and the trial court did not err in entering its judgment for the plaintiff in accordance with its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed on main bill of exceptions; cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*