alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Date: September 12, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

NOTICE ACCEPTING FILING OF OBJECTIONS AS
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2012

- 0204
Docket DOT

- OST

- 2012

- 0205

On August 26, 2013

, United Air lines , Inc. (“United” )

, filed an objection to Order 2013

- 4

- 12 tentatively finding National Air Cargo Group

, Inc. d/b/a National Airlines (“National”)

, fit to engage in foreign scheduled passenger air transportation, along with a m otion for l eave to f ile an otherwise unauthorized

document

. On September 5, 2013, Delta Airlines , Inc. , Airlines for America , and the Air Line Pilots

Association , International filed answers in support of United’s objections. National has responded to these filings on September 4 and 9, respectively.

We note that t he period for the filing of objections to Order 2013

- 4

- 12 has long passed

, and that the Department’s Final Order 2013

- 7

- 12 had been issued on July 12, 2013 and was in section 41307 Presidential review prior to the filin g of these objections to our show cause order

. 14 CFR § 302.14 ( Rule 14 ) permits the filing of petitions for reconsideration 20 days from the service date of 2013

- 7

- 12, with answers due 10 days thereafter. As a matter of administrative convenience, we wi ll treat the se objections as petitions for r econsideration of the Department’s F inal O rder 2013

- 7

- 12 and National’s responses as answers thereto. If any other parties wish to file petitions for reconsideration or answers
, Rule 14 will apply as usual.

We w ill serve this notice by email on all interested parties.

Dated at Washington, D.C., September 12, 2013.

By:

SUSAN L. KURLAND Assistant Secretary

for Aviation and International Affairs

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.regulations.govAttachment A

SERVICE LIST FOR

NATIONAL AIR CARGO GROUP INC. d/b/a NATIONAL AIRLINES

matwood@cozen.com

ewadsworth@cozen.c om

hershel.kamen@united.com
steve.morrissey@united.com
thomas.bolling@united.com
lhalloway@crowell.com

gmurphy@crowell.com

francis.heil@aa.com
jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

sametta.c.barnett@delta.com

esauer@ssd.com
luther.j.h ipps@faa.gov peter.lynch@faa.gov leonard.beers@faa.gov dberg@airlines.org john.allen@faa.gov john.duncan@faa.gov Thomas.winston@faa.gov paul.h.grandhahl@faa.gov

w illiam.royal@faa.gov kevin.montgomery®polaraircargo.com

anita.mosner®hklaw.com howard.kass@usairways.com

mb enge@zsrlaw.com

dan.weiss@united.com

karine.faden@united.com doug.kelley@united.com

robert

. wirick@aa.com russell.pommer@atlasai r .com chris.walker@delta.com sam.white@evergreenairlines.com charters@evergreenairlines.com agoerlich®ggh

- airlaw.com jennifer.nowak®hkla w .com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com psanderlin@kalittaair.com
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk February 22, 2013

jam 

# Order

February 22, 2013

146701 ( 38 )

In re CHESTER PATTERSON

____________________________________ CHESTER PATTERSON

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 1 46701

COA: 307456

KENT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

,

Defendant

- Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be

liable for filing fees.

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall p ay to the

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $7 0 .00, shall submit a copy of this order

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of

$3 05 .00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Quarterly Report of Covalent Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jorge A. Leon, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    JORGE A.
LEON                                             
|Jorge A. Leon Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer



August 13, 2003
#### § 1.856-0 Revenue Act of 1978 amendments not included.

The regulations under part II of subchapter M of the Code do not reflect the amendments made by the Revenue Act of 1978, other than the changes made by section 362 of the Act, relating to deficiency dividends.

(Sec. 856(d)(4) (90 Stat. 1750; 26 U.S.C. 856(d)(4)); sec. 856(e)(5) (88 Stat. 2113; 26 U.S.C. 856(e)(5)); sec. 856(f)(2) (90 Stat. 1751; 26 U.S.C. 856(f)(2)); sec. 856 (g)(2) (90 Stat. 1753; 26 U.S.C. 856(g)(2)); sec. 858(a) (74 Stat. 1008; 26 U.S.C. 858(a)); sec. 859(c) (90 Stat. 1743; 26 U.S.C. 859(c)); sec. 859(e) (90 Stat. 1744; 26 U.S.C. 859(e)); sec. 6001 (68A Stat. 731; 26 U.S.C. 6001); sec. 6011 (68A Stat. 732; 26 U.S.C. 6011); sec. 6071 (68A Stat. 749, 26 U.S.C. 6071); sec. 6091 (68A Stat. 752; 26 U.S.C. 6091); sec. 7805 (68A Stat. 917; 26 U.S.C. 7805), Internal Revenue Code of 1954; 860(e) (92 Stat. 2849, 26 U.S.C. 860(e)); sec. 860(g) (92 Stat. 2850, 26 U.S.C. 860(g)))

[T.D. 7767, 46 FR 11265, Feb. 6, 1981, as amended by T.D. 7936, 49 FR 2106, Jan. 18, 1984]
#### Richard Mulcahy, Respondent, *against*The New York Floating Dry Dock Company, Appellant.

(Decided June 16th, 1878.)

A corporation which lets a dry dock to a person, who uses it in his own business of repairing a vessel, is not liable for iujuries to a workman employed by him, caused by a defective plank in staging built by him for the purpose of such repairs, where, though the planks for the staging were furnished by the corporation, yet they formed no part of the dry dock let, and the person using them for his staging had the right to accept or reject them or any of them.

Appeal from a judgment of this court, entered upon a verdict for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made on the minutes.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Benedict, *Taft f*Benedict, for appellant.

*W W.*Croodrich, for respondent.

Larremore, J.

The business of the defendant is the maintenance of sectional dry docks, by which vessels are lifted out of the water for the purpose of repair. On August 7th, 1876, John Williams, a master carpenter, hired defendant’s dock to raise and repair a vessel called the “Delia Carleton.” The staging necessary for repairing her was built by direction of Williams, and by men under his employ. The planks for the staging were furnished by the defendant. Plaintiff (with others) was employed to make such repairs- *94and, while using the staging thus furnished, was thrown down and injured by reason of the breaking of a plank upon which he was standing. For this injury he obtained a judgment of damages in this court, a review of which is sought on this appeal.

The controlling question in the case is, whether the defendant, by furnishing the planks for the staging, became liable for its defective construction. No agent or employee of the defendant had any supervision over or direction of the work. That was confided to Williams and his men, who had the right to accept or reject any plank unsuitable for the purpose intended. If he, or any one acting under him, neglected their duty, upon what principle of justice can the defendant be held responsible? There was no representation or warranty that all the planks were fit for use, and the defendant cannot be held accountable for a defect which the-plaintiff or his employer failed to discover.

In *Cook*v. *The President of the N. Y. Floating Pry Dock Company*(1 Hilt. 436), the judgment was sustained on the ground that the “ standards ” were a necessary grant of the machine for floating vessels for repairs, and that their insufficiency for that purpose created a liability as to a person injured thereby. The Court of Appeals, in reversing the judgment (opinion of Gould, J.), affirms the doctrine established by the general term of this court in that case, as to the liability of the defendant where its own imperfect structure was the cause of the injury.

I think the principle of this case in harmony with those enunciated in the case last cited; and that the judgment in this action should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Van Brunt and Beach, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 110

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 8, 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and

Administration

JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the appointment of Howard H. Baker, Jr.

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on

5 the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in
2

HJ 110 RFS

1 the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by

2 reason of the expiration of the term of Jeannine Smith

3 Clark of the District of Columbia on August 25, 1995,

4 is filled by the appointment of Howard H. Baker, Jr. of

5 the District of Columbia. The appointment is for a term

6 of six years and shall take effect on the date on which

7 this joint resolution becomes law.

Passed the House of Representatives November 7,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
AS TO AVOIDANCE OF JUDGMENT FOR. LACK OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS.

Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.

#### O. C. Lawrence v. Louis Foyer et al.

Decided, March 23, 1901.

*Judgments*— To *Set Aside Judgment for Want of Service Evidence Must T)e Conclusive.*

Where the defendant in an action seeks to avoid a judgment taken before a justice of the peace against him. in all respects regular as shown by the record, for the reason that no service of summons was served upon him, it must conclusively appear that no service was made.

*Robert A. Costner,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. C. Rogers,*contra.

Hale, J.; Caldwell, J., and Marvin, J., concur.

This case comes into this court on appeal. Lawrence prosecuted his action in the court of common pleas to obtain the cancellation of a judgment rendered against him in favor of the defendant before a justice of the peace on the alleged ground *221that no service of summons was served upon him in the action in the justice’s court.

The constable certified in his return on the summons that he served the same by leaving a copy at the usual place of residence of the defendant named in the summons.

On the trial the plaintiff, to establish his contention, called all persons residing in his family at the time of the alleged service of summons, and each testified that no copy of a summons was left him and that he had no knowledge that any such paper was left at the house.

The defendant, in support of his contention, called the constable, who testified that he made service as certified in the return, specifying the person with whom the summons was left.

A similar issue was determined by this court in *Schubert*v. *Wrackel*at a former term, in which we held that where the defendant in an action seeks to avoid a judgment taken before a justice of the peace against him, in all respects regular as shown by the record, for the reason that no service of summons was served upon him, it must conclusively appear that no service was made.

The evidence in that case was in all respects like the evidence produced in this action. We there held that the evidence offered was not sufficient-to bring the case within the rule authorizing the setting aside of the judgment. That case was reviewed and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Following that case, and, under the evidence, we feel compelled to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1523

SUSAN J. BEARNS, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

JAMES E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal 

Service, 

 Defendant – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. 

(8:06-cv-03085-DKC) 

Submitted: January 8, 2010 Decided: February 9, 2010 

Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Sheldon L. Gnatt, KNIGHT, MANZI, NUSSBAUM & LAPLACA, P.A., Upper 

Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United 

States Attorney, Michael P. Grady, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Susan J. Bearns appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Bearns’s civil 

action. On appeal, Bearns contends the district court erred in 

granting summary judgment to the Defendant on her retaliation 

and hostile work environment claims. We affirm. 

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment 

de novo. Jennings v. U.N.C., 482 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2007) 

(en banc). “At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed 

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there 

is a ‘genuine’ dispute as to those facts.” Scott v. Harris, 550 

U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Summary 

judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and 

disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there 

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c). “[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is 

sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to 

return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). 

With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the 

parties’ briefs and the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. See Bearns v. Potter, No. 8:06-cv-03085-DKC (D. Md. 

2 
3 

Mar. 6, 2008). 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
§ 1.40-1 Questions and answers relating to the meaning of the term “qualified mixture” in section 40(b)(1). Q-1. What is a “qualified mixture” within the meaning of section 40(b)(1)?
A-1. A “qualified mixture” is a mixture of alcohol and gasoline or of alcohol and special fuel which ( 1 ) is sold by the taxpayer producing such mixture to any person for use as a fuel, or
( 2 ) is used as a fuel by the taxpayer producing such mixture.
Q-2. Must alcohol be present in a product in order for that product to be considered a mixture of alcohol and either gasoline or a special fuel?
A-2. No. A product is considered to be a mixture of alcohol and gasoline or of alcohol and a special fuel if the product is derived from alcohol and either gasoline or a special fuel even if the alcohol is chemically transformed in producing the product so that the alcohol is no longer present as a separate chemical in the final product, provided that there is no significant loss in the energy content of the alcohol. Thus, a product may be considered to be “mixture of alcohol and gasoline or of alcohol and a special fuel” within the meaning of section 40(b)(1)(B) if such product is produced in a chemical reaction between alcohol and either gasoline or a special fuel. Similarly a product may be considered to be a “mixture of alcohol and gasoline or of alcohol and a special fuel” if such product is produced by blending a chemical compound derived from alcohol with either gasoline or a special fuel.
Thus, for example, a blend of gasoline and ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), a compound derived from ethanol (a qualified alcohol), in a chemical reaction in which there is no significant loss in the energy content of the ethanol, is considered for purposes of section 40(b)(1)(B) to be a mixture of gasoline and the ethanol used to produce the ETBE, even though the ethanol is chemically transformed in the production of ETBE and is not present in the final product. [T.D. 8291, 55 FR 8948, Mar. 9, 1990]
AMENDMENT TO THE GEHL
COMPANY  
RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN
“B” 
December 15, 2006 



Section 2.01(p) of Plan B is amended
by the addition of the following at the end thereof: 



	 	
Effective
January 1, 2007, the Executive Officers of the Company as of such date (i.e., William D.
Gehl, Malcolm F. Moore, Thomas M. Rettler, Michael J. Mulcahy, Kenneth H. Feucht, Daniel
M. Keyes, Daniel L. Miller and James J. Monnat) shall cease to be eligible to be
“Employees” and shall be treated for all purposes under the Plan pursuant to the
rules of Section 3.06(c) for a Participant who transfers to a non-Employee status. 







*     *     *
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3480 Polyacrylamide polymer (modified cationic) denture adhesive. ( a ) *Identification.* A polyacrylamide polymer (modified cationic) denture adhesive is a device composed of polyacrylamide polymer (modified cationic) intended to be applied to the base of a denture before the denture is inserted in a patient's mouth to improve denture retention and comfort.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III.
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* A PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before December 26, 1996 for any polyacrylamide polymer (modified cationic) denture adhesive that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before December 26, 1996 been found to be substantially equivalent to a polyacrylamide polymer (modified cationic) denture adhesive that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other polyacrylamide polymer (modified cationic) denture adhesive shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being place in commercial distribution.
[52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at 61 FR 50707, Sept. 27, 1996]
550

700

600

600

60

5

0

00

550

550

550

550

650

500

700

700

550

600

ZachryRanch

Airport

16

16

16

F M 6 4 9

F M 6 4 9

L A V IO L E T A R D

F M 6 4 9

L A V IO L E T A

R D

F M 6 4 9

F M 6 4 9

R A

N C H O B L A N C O R D

F M 6 4 9

Z A C H A R Y R A N C H R D

16

16

16

F M 6 4 9

F M 6 4 9

L A V IO L E T A R D

F M 6 4 9

L A V IO L E T A

R D

F M 6 4 9

F M 6 4 9

R A

N C H O B L A N C O R D

F M 6 4 9

Z A C H A R Y R A N C H R D

Los

Tanques Creek

Los Tanques Creek

Escobas Creek

Los Tanques Creek

Escobas Creek

Los Ta

n

qu

es Creek

Escobas

Cree

k

Los

Ta

nques

Creek

Escobas Creek

L

os Tanques Cre

e

k

Fandango

Cree

k

Randado

Randado

Oil Field

South

Manila Oil

Field

Escobas

Ranch

San

Antonio

Viejo

Arroyo

Huisache

Escobas

Armstrong

Ranch

San

Pablo

Ranch

Thompsonville

Guerra

Randado

Chargos

Creek

98°52'30"

30"

NQ

00'

00'

99° 55'

NR

07'

27°

57'

27°

27°

00'

57' 98°

27° 30"

30"

55'

52'

07'

30"

NR

NQ

00'

30"

99°

30"

5' 5'

2' 2'30"

E

5 5

29 29

29

29

5 5

29

29

5 000m

29

29

29

5

29

5

29

29

5

29

29

29

5

000m

29

000m

29

5

5

5 5

30

5

30

5

29

5

29

5

5

000m

29

5

5 5

29 29

29

5 01 11

95

05

06

87

07

00

N

02

96

E

88 88

99

02 03 12

90

12

96

09

97

01

89

05

94

09 10

90

95

08

89

N

07

00

06

87

92

11

98

10

94

93

92

98

03

97

93

08 860 000

FEET

890

830 FEET

16

000

FEET

930

FEET

000

16 000

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

TEXAS

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

TX 2798-222

RANDADO, TX

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

RANDADO QUADRANGLE

TEXAS

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 14R

Imagery......................................................NAIP, April 2008

Roads.....................................US Census Bureau TIGER data

with limited USGS updates, 2008

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 1995

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2004

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Texas Coordinate System of 1983

(south zone)

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is also draft version 0.5.10

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 2 ́

1 MILS

5° 23 ́

96 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

14R

NQ

NR 30 00

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988