alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
F: 617-621-663 1 

August 5, 20 16 

BY EMAIL AND US MAIL (9-A WA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov) 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: Mark Smith, eta/. v. City of Sa uta il'lonica, California, Docket No. 16-16-02 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

I have enclosed for filing a signed original and three copies of RESPONDENT's ASSENTED-To 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME. One of the copies of this document is unbound, as specified in the 

NoticeofDocketingand 14C.F.R. § 16.1 3. 1 ely, 

EDancloid~ sures 

cc: Richard K. Simon (by email and US mail) 

ANDERSON & !<REIGER LLP I ONE CANAL PARK, SUITE 200, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02141 I 617.621.6500 
' v. ; Docket No. 16-16-02 

CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

RESPONDENT'S ASSENTED-TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 

The Respondent, the City of Santa Monica (the "City"), moves to extend the time to file 

a Rebuttal by approximately four weeks, from August 11, 2016 to Tuesday, September 13, 2016. 

In support of its motion, the City states as follows: 

I. On April II, 2016, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss Part N of the Complaint. 

On April22, the Complainants filed an Answer to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. The FAA 

has not yet issued a decision on the Motion to Dismiss. 

2. Per the FAA's June I 0, 2016 Order, the City filed its Answer to the Complaint on 

July I, 2016. 

3. The Complainants filed their Reply to the Answer on August I, 2016. Under 14 

C.P.R.§ 16.23(£), the Respondent's Rebuttal is cunently due on Thursday, August II. 

4. The City needs the additional time it now seeks to prepare its Rebuttal, and the 

Complainants will not be prejudiced by the proposed extension of time. 

5. Complainants' counsel has consented to this proposed extension of time. 
Assented to by: 

MARK SMITH ET AL. 

Q\vWvJ ~· St~; lsrrv-J 

Richard K. Simon 

1700 Decker School Lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

310-503-7286 

rsimon3 @verizon.net 

August 5, 2016 

Scott P. Lewis 

/ 

David S. Mackey 

Jessica A. Wall 

ANDERSON & KREIGER LLP 

1 Canal Park, Suite 200 

Cambridge, MA 02141 

617.621.6560 

slewis@andersonk.reiger. com 

Marsha Moutrie 

City Attorney 

CITY OF SANTA MONICA 

1685 Main Street, Room 31 0 

Santa Monica, CA 9040 1 

Marsha.moutrie@smgov .net 

2 
FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

9-A WA-AGC-P~t-16@faa.gov 

Dated this 5th day of August, 2016. 

!vDavid S. Mackey "'( L 

for the Respondent 

3 

Richard K. Simon 

1700 Decker School Lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

310-503-7286 

rsimon3 @verizon.net
§ 1.682(b)-1 Application of trust rules to alimony payments. ( a ) For the purpose of the application of subparts A through D (section 641 and following), part I, subchapter J, chapter 1 of the Code, the wife described in section 682 or section 71 who is entitled to receive payments attributable to property in trust is considered a beneficiary of the trust, whether or not the payments are made for the benefit of the husband in discharge of his obligations. A wife treated as a beneficiary of a trust under this section is also treated as the beneficiary of such trust for purposes of the tax imposed by section 56 (relating to the minimum tax for tax preferences). For rules relating to the treatment of items of tax preference with respect to a beneficiary of a trust, see § 1.58-3.
( b ) A periodic payment includible in the wife's gross income under section 71 attributable to property in trust is included in full in her gross income in her taxable year in which any part is required to be included under section 652 or 662. Assume, for example, in a case in which both the wife and the trust file income tax returns on the calendar year basis, that an annuity of $5,000 is to be paid to the wife by the trustee every December 31 (out of trust income if possible and, if not, out of corpus) pursuant to the terms of a divorce decree. Of the $5,000 distributable on December 31, 1954, $4,000 is payable out of income and $1,000 out of corpus. The actual distribution is made in 1955. Although the periodic payment is received by the wife in 1955, since under section 662 the $4,000 income distributable on December 31, 1954, is to be included in the wife's income for 1954, the $1,000 payment out of corpus is also to be included in her income for 1954.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11814, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7564, 43 FR 40495, Sept. 12, 1978]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 18 (Thursday, January 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1859]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

January 22, 2009.
    The Department of the Treasury will submit the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or 
after the date of publication of this notice. Copies of the 
submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 
Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should 
be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department 
Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
    Dates: Written comments should be received on or before March 2, 
2009 to be assured of consideration.

Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP)

    OMB Number: 1520-0001.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Form: BEP 5283.
    Title: Owner's Affidavit of Partial Destruction of Mutilated 
Currency.
    Description: The Office of Currency Standards, Bureau of Engraving 
& Printing requests owners of partially destroyed U.S. currency to 
complete a notarized affidavit (BEP 5283) for each claim submitted when 
substantial portions of notes are missing.
    Respondents: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 90 hours.

    OMB Number: 1520-0002.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Claim for Amounts Due in the Case of Deceased Owner of 
Mutilated Currency.
    Form: BEP 5287.
    Description: BEP 5287 is used when Treasury is required to 
determine owner-ship in cases of a deceased owner of damaged or 
mutilated currency.
    Respondents: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,821 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Cary Conn (202) 874-2396, Bureau of Engraving 
and Printing, 14th & C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20228.
    OMB Reviewer: OIRA Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 
Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#701f1902112f0305121d190303191f1e301f1d125e151f005e171f06"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4cbcdd6c5fbd7d1c6c9cdd7d7cdcbcae4cbc9c68ac1cbd48ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>.

Robert Dahl,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-1859 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4840-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 77 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 77

 To authorize testimony and to authorize representation by the Senate 
                             Legal Counsel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                March 4 (legislative day, March 3), 1993

    Ms. Moseley-Braun (for Mr. Mitchell) (for himself and Mr. Dole) 
 submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize testimony and to authorize representation by the Senate 
                             Legal Counsel.

Whereas, the defendants in Kofoed v. Swanson-Nunn Electric Company, et al., No. 
        9209-06644, pending in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for 
        Multnomah County, seek the deposition testimony of Suzanne Beede, a 
        Senate employee on the staff of Senator Hatfield;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, by 
        taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will taken 
        such action as well promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978 (2 U.S.C. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2)), the Senate may direct its 
        counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to requests 
        for testimony made to them in their official capacities: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That Suzanne Beede is authorized to testify in Kofoed v. 
Swanson-Nunn Electric Company, et al., No. 9209-06644 (Or. Cir. Ct.), 
except concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Suzanne 
Beede in connection with the testimony authorized by section 1 of this 
resolution.

                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6992

DAVID ROSS WHITLOW , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv - 01418

- AJT

- MSN )

Submitted : January 25, 2018 Decided: February 12, 2018

Before TRAXLER, KING, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jonathan P. Sheldon , SHELDON, FLOOD & HAYWOOD, PLC , Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Eugene Paul Murphy , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

U npublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Ross Whitlow seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district c ourt denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Whitlow has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
IV

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 134

Condemning the court-martial of Specialist Michael New of the United States

Army in response to his refusal to wear on his military uniform the

insignia of the United Nations and calling on the President to vindicate

this courageous young man, override his conviction, and restore him

to a place of honor in the Army.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1996

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland (for himself, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr. FUNDERBURK,

Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CRANE, Mr. HERGER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr.

COBLE, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mr.

HOSTETTLER, Mrs. SEASTRAND, Mr. WAMP, Mr. STEARNS, and Mr.

STOCKMAN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on National Security

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Condemning the court-martial of Specialist Michael New of

the United States Army in response to his refusal to

wear on his military uniform the insignia of the United

Nations and calling on the President to vindicate this

courageous young man, override his conviction, and restore him to a place of honor in the Army.

Whereas section 6 of the United Nations Participation Act of

1945 (22 U.S.C. 287d) prohibits the use of the Armed

Forces of the United States in United Nations deployments unless Congress approves of the participation
2

•HCON 134 IH

agreement in advance by appropriate Act or joint resolution;

Whereas the Constitution of the United States (Article I,

Section 9) and section 7342 of title 5, United States

Code, prohibit members of the Armed Forces from receiving badges or insignia from a foreign government, including any international or multinational organization whose

members include any unit of foreign government, without

the consent of Congress;

Whereas Congress has never approved a United Nations deployment under section 6 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287d);

Whereas Congress has never approved the use of any insignia

of the United Nations on uniforms of members of the

Armed Forces; and

Whereas, despite the preceding introductory clauses, Army

Specialist Michael New, an American hero, has been convicted by court-martial for refusing to accept foreign

United Nations commanders and wear on his military

uniform the insignia of the United Nations: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), that Congress condemns the groundless

3 court-martial of Specialist Michael New of the United

4 States Army in response to his refusal to accept foreign

5 United Nations commanders and wear on his military uni6 form the insignia of the United Nations and calls on the

7 President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces,

8 to vindicate the principles under which Specialist New
3

•HCON 134 IH

1 made his refusal and to take such action as may be avail2 able to the President to override the conviction of Special3 ist New and restore his status with a place of honor in

4 the Army.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 4, 2017

s0327 

# Order

Clerk April 4, 2017

153881

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153881

COA: 330568

Wayne CC: 86

- 008310

- FC

DONALD WATKINS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 31, 2016 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 10599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4112]

[[Page 10599]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7804]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Elegance and Refinement: The Still-Life Paintings of 
Willem van Aelst''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Elegance and Refinement: The Still-Life 
Paintings of Willem van Aelst,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display 
of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Houston, 
Texas, from on or about March 11, 2012, until on or about May 28, 2012, 
the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, from on or about June 24, 
2012, until on or about October 14, 2012, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-4112 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
CERTIFICATION


     To  my  knowledge,  this  Report  on  Form  10-Q  of  Tri-County  Financial
Corporation  (the  "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 fully complies
with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934, and the information  contained in this Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



Date:August 12, 2004                       By: /s/ Michael L. Middleton
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Michael L. Middleton
                                               President and Chief Executive
                                                Officer



Date:August 12, 2004                       By: /s/ William J. Pasenelli
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               William J. Pasenelli
                                               Executive Vice President and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
Order filed February 14, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00050-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF D.E.W. A/K/A D.W., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-54618

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a parental termination case. 

The notice of appeal was filed January 23, 2018. Appellant has established 

indigence or is presumed to be indigent. The reporter’s record was due within 10 

days after the notice of appeal was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). 

The record has not been filed.

Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be 

brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is 

filed. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a). The trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. 
P. 35.3(c). The trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commence 

the preparation of the reporter’s record and must arrange for a substitute reporter, 

if necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(1). 

Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely in this accelerated 

appeal, we issue the following order:

We order Delores Johnson and Alexandra McMillen, court reporters, to 

file the record in this appeal on or before February 23, 2018. If Delores Johnson 

and Alexandra McMillen do not timely file the record as ordered, the court will 

issue an order requiring them to appear at a hearing to show cause why the record 

has not been timely filed and why they should not be held in contempt of court for 

failing to file the record as ordered. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine 

and/or confinement in jail.

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Annual Report of DSwiss,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



(1) The Report fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|Date: March 30, 2020 | By: | /s/ Leong Ming Chia                         
|-------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------
|                     |     | LEONG MING CHIA                             
|                     |     | Chief Executive Officer, President, Director
|                     |     | (Principal Executive Officer)               



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 2 2 , 2023

NO. 03

- 23

- 00184

- CV

M. E. and D. R. , Appellant s

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNT Y
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the order signed by t he tr i a l court on March 23, 2023

. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s order

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s order

. Bec ause appellant s are

indigent a nd u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.