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

###### National Park Service

# AGENCY:

National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Fire Management Plan, Grand Canyon National Park.

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Fire Management Plan for Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. The document describes and analyzes the environmental impacts of several action alternatives, including the preferred alternative for management of fire in Grand Canyon National Park. The                               ( print page 39710)                            preferred alternative analyzes the use of prescribed fire, wildland fire use, suppression fire and manual and mechanical thinning. A no-action alternative was also evaluated. Alternative 2 (Mixed Fire Treatment) was selected as the preferred alternative.                    

# DATES:

The National Park Service will execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental Protection Agency of the Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Information will be available for public inspection online at                         *http://parkplanning.nps.gov/​grca*                         (select Fire Management Plan), in the Office of the Superintendent, Steve Martin, PO Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona, 86023, 928-638-7945, or in the Office of Planning and Compliance, Mary Killeen, PO Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona, 86023, 928-638-7885.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chris Marks, Project Lead, Fire Management Plan, PO Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona, 86023, 928-606-1050,                         *Christopher_marks@nps.gov*.                    

Dated: June 30, 2009.

Michael D. Snyder,

Regional Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service.

[FR Doc. E9-18996 Filed 8-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4312-ED-P
RESPONDED ON DECEMBER 2, 200910:48 AM 

### Marion C. Blakey, President 

### &Chief Executive Officer, Aerospace Industries Association

NationalJournal Blog: What shouldbe the top five items on the agenda of the newfederal advisorycommittee onthe aviation industry?
The formation ofa federal advisory committee is a timely initiative that has the potential to provide a much-needed forum to address important issues affecting the commercial aviation industry. It's especially important at a time when the industryis feeling the effects ofthe economic downturn and reporting huge losses.
AIA representatives attending the Transportation Department forum were encouraged to hearboth Secretary LaHood andAdministrator Babbitt assure the audience thatthis federal panel would be different than others before it. This suggests that not onlywill the panel's recommendations be acted uponbutthat, more importantly, the panel's yearlong deliberationswill also not hinder or delay efforts such as NextGen acceleration and FAA reauthorization thatwill help the aviation industryrecover.
The overarching issue that the panel needs to address is "The Future Impact of Government Legislation, Regulation, Policy, Taxes and Fees on the Health and Growth of the U.S. Civil Aviation Industry." This encompasses a broad number offocus areas and should include, but notbe limited to:
• Domestic and international environmental laws and regulations; • FAA funding; • Acceleration ofNextGen; • Competitiveness ofthe U.S. civil aviation industryin the global market place. I !The panel provides an excellent opportunityto pull together a cross-section ofthe industry that have a stake in the issues affecting its future. This includes stakeholders from manufacturing companies; passenger andcargo mainline and regional airlines; labor unions; general andbusiness aviation representatives; airports; passenger advocates andfinancial analysts.
Commercial aviation helps drive $1.1 trillion in U.S. economic activity andmore than 10 million U.S.jobs. Taking steps to restore this sector's health, which has lost nearly $60 billion since 2001, will be a boon not only to aviation, but to our entire economy.
#### George *W.*Pistey *v.*George Vlastaris

King, O. J., Murphy, Alcorn, Comley and House, Js.

Argued May 7

decided May 26, 1964

*George C. Gravatas,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Edward J. Behuncik,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

On October 19,1961, John R. Pistey recovered a judgment in the Court of Common Pleas against the defendant in the amount of $4604.40 damages and $116.04 costs. On that date, John R. Pistey assigned the judgment to George W. Pistey, who is his father and also the plaintiff in the present action. On May 1, 1962, the defendant brought a petition under General Statutes § 52-270 against the Pisteys in the Court of Common Pleas, praying that the judgment of October 19, 1961, be set aside and a new trial granted. The court denied the petition for a new trial and found the issues for the Pisteys. One of those issues as presented by the pleadings in that matter was whether the assignment of the original judgment was without consideration.

The action now before us was brought by the plaintiff to collect the judgment assigned to him by his son. He made a motion for summary judg*717ment supported by an affidavit. In a counter affidavit, tbe defendant alleged that there was no consideration for the assignment of the judgment from John R. Pistey to the plaintiff. This allegation had been one of the issues before the court on the petition for a new trial. It had been decided against the present defendant. The determination of that issue is res judicata in the present action between the same parties, and the defense based on the alleged invalidity of the assignment for lack of consideration may not be retried. The counter affidavit, therefore, showed no facts sufficient to entitle the defendant to defend. *Rathkopf*v. *Pearson,*148 Conn. 260, 263, 170 A.2d 135.

The court was correct in holding that the counter affidavit was insufficient, in ordering it stricken, and in rendering a summary judgment.

There is no error.
I

EPA Region 9 SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST

To evaluate compliance with 40 CFR 51, Appendix V

Complete

Incomplete

Not Applicable To Rule

Material Missing

4401 4605

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS (per Appendix V, Section 2.1)

(a) Submittal letter from Governor/designee X X

(b) Evidence of adoption X X

(c) State/District legal authority to adopt X X

(dl) Copy of actual rule/plan X X

(d2) Rule changes indicated by underline/cross-out X X

(e) Proof that action met procedural requirements X X

(f) Copy of public notice X X

(g) Certification that hearing fulfilled public notice x x

(h) Public comments & agency response X X

TECHNICAL SUPPORT (per Appendix V, Section 2.2)

(a) Regulated pollutants identified x x

(b) Affected sources & attainment status identified X X

(c) Rule/plan emissions impact N/A N/A

(d) Attainment, PSD & other required demonstration N/A N/A

(e) Modeling support as appropriate N/A N/A

(f) Reliance on continuous emission reductions X X

(g) Evidence of limits & other needed requirements X X

(i) Justification for deviation from EPA policy N/A N/A

OVERALL COMPLETENESS C C

Submittal Date July 28, 2011

District Name San Joaquin Valley APCD

Date Reviewed August 2, 2011

EPA Reviewer C.G. Allen

Key:

N!A=

0 =

Notes:
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 221 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con. Res.221
                                            Agreed to September 28, 1996

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                          Concurrent Resolution

 
                 Correcting the enrollment of H.R. 3159.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3159, the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives shall make the following corrections:
        (1) In section 5902(b) proposed to be inserted in title 49, 
    United States Code, by section 204(b), strike ``electric'' and 
    insert ``electronic''.
        (2) In section 204(e)(1), by inserting after ``respectively'' 
    the following: ``, and by moving the text of paragraph (2), as so 
    redesignated down 1 line and to the left, flush full measure and 
    indenting such paragraph''.
        (3) In section 205(1), by inserting ``in subsection (a)'' 
    before ``a comma''.
        (4) In paragraph (4) of section 5905(a) proposed to be inserted 
    in title 49, United States Code, by section 206, after ``(c),'', 
    move the remainder of the text of the paragraph down 1 line and to 
    the left, flush full measure.
        (5) In section 206(2), by striking ``9(b)(1)'' and inserting 
    ``(b)(1)''.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
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

David F. Viviano, 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.

 November 25, 2014

h1117

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2014

148376(19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 148376

COA: 315335

Wayne CC: 09-003770-FC

DOUGLAS C. JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 24, 2014 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6231(e)-2 Judicial decision not a bar to certain adjustments. ( a ) *In general.* A court decision with respect to a partner's income tax liability attributable to nonpartnership items shall not be a bar to further proceedings with respect to that partner's income tax liability if that partner's partnership items become nonpartnership items after the appropriate time to include such nonpartnership items in the earlier court proceeding has passed. Thus, the Internal Revenue Service could issue a later deficiency notice for the same taxable year with respect to that partner or that partner could bring a refund suit with respect to those items that have become nonpartnership items.
( b ) *Effective date.* This section is applicable to partnership taxable years beginning on or after October 4, 2001. For years beginning prior to October 4, 2001, see § 301.6231(e)-2T contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 1, 2001.
[T.D. 8965, 66 FR 50562, Oct. 4, 2001]
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic 

Conferences of the International Air 

Transport Association 

OST-2011- a / Z ^ 

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

lATA AGREEMENT APPROVED & IMMUNIZED 

DOCKET OST-_££^- O ( 2. H ACTION DATE /i^^f2.^ 20 li 

This approval and grant of antitrust immunity is subject, where applicable, 

to conditions previously imposed. 

Tiiis action is effective afler 7 days unless a petition is filed under 

14 CFR 385.30 or a review is undertaken on the Department's own motion. 

In view of the agreement's nor.controversial nature and the availability of 

the above^ocedure, tj)af2j^ay,p^pd in 14 CFR 303.42 is waived. 

7 July 2011 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to 

Douglas E. Lavin 

Regional Vice President - North America 

International Air Transport Association 

1776 K.St. N.W.#12'''Floor 

Washington DC 20006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: N.M.J., A MINOR

PETITION OF: B.P. :

:

:

:

: No. 41 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of April, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
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 Annual Report of Apex Resources Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tadas Dabasinkas, Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 10th day of August, 2017.





| |     |                                                     | 
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------- | 
| | By: | */s/ Tadas Dabasinkas*                              | 
| |     | Tadas Dabasinkas                                    | 
| |     | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
Exhibit 10.1 

On June 6, 2008, Encorium Group, Inc. (“Encorium”) entered into a non-binding letter of intent (“LOI”) with Prologue Research International, Inc. (“Prologue”), Pursuant to the LOI, the Company is toacquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Prologue. In accordance with the terms of the LOI, upon execution of the term sheet Encorium paid $500,000 to Prologue as a non-refundable exclusivity fee. On July     ,2008 Encorium entered into an amendment to the LOI pursuant to which the parties agreed that the paid $500,000 exclusivity fee previously paid by Encorium to Prologue would be credited to Encorium upon closing of the transaction, the result of whichthe total compensation for the acquisition was reduced from $13.5 million to $13.0 million.
Amendment No. 2 to Stockholders Agreement



 Exhibit 10.11 
 AMENDMENT No. 2 
 TO THE STOCKHOLDERS AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 2 to the Stockholders Agreement (“Stockholders Agreement”) dated December 13, 2002 by and among The First American
Corporation, a California corporation, Pequot Private Equity Fund II, L.P. A Delaware limited partnership (“Pequot”) and First Advantage Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) is hereby made effective on
October 1, 2006. 
 WHEREAS, the Stockholders Agreement stipulates in Section 5.1 that the size of the Board of Directors
shall be no more than 10 directors and was subsequently amended by Amendment #1 to the Stockholder’s Agreement dated March 31, 2006; 
 WHEREAS, Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Company desires to expand the size of the Board to no more than 14 directors because it is in the best interest of the Company; 
 WHEREAS, Pequot believes that it is in the Company’s best interest to expand the size of the Board to no more than 14 directors; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the Parties agree as follows:

 Section 5.1 (a) which states in part: 
 “...ensure that the size of the board of directors of Parent, (the “Board”) shall be no more than 10 directors and...” 
 And which was previously revised by replacing 10 with 12 per Amendment #1 shall hereby be revised to change the number of Directors from 12 to 14
and hereby state in the same part: 
 “...ensure that the size of the board of directors of Parent, (the “Board”) shall be
no more than 14 directors and...” 
 Notwithstanding the foregoing, all other provisions and terms of the Stockholders Agreement
shall remain in force and effect to the extent of the original intent of the provisions and terms of the Stockholders Agreement. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Agreement on and as of the date herein. 
  

			
	The First American Corporation
		
	By:	 	/s/    Kenneth D. Degiorgio
	Name: Kenneth D. Degiorgio
	Title: Senior Vice President and General Counsel
	Date: September 28, 2006

  

			
	 Pequot Private Equity Fund II, L.P.
 By: Pequot Capital Management, Inc.
 Its: Investment Manager

		
	By:	 	/s/    Carlos Rodriques
	Name: Carlos Rodrigues
	Title: Chief Financial Officer/ Pequot Ventures
	Date: September 28, 2006









			
	First Advantage Corporation
		
	By:	 	/s/    Julie Waters
	Name: Julie Waters
	Title: Vice President and General Counsel
	Date: September 28, 2006
§ 1.7520-4 Transitional rules. ( a ) *Reliance.* If the valuation date is after April 30, 1989, and before June 10, 1994, a taxpayer can rely on Notice 89-24, 1989-1 C.B. 660, or Notice 89-60, 1989-1 C.B. 700 (See § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b ) of this chapter), in valuing the transferred interest.
( b ) *Effective date.* This section is effective as of May 1, 1989.
[T.D. 8540, 59 FR 30150, June 10, 1994]
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Brian E. Schaaf, certify that:

 

1.                                     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust 2015-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                     Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 report;

 

3.                                     Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                     I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                     All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon, as indenture trustee of the issuing entity, and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as owner trustee of the issuing entity.

 
| Dated March 24,   2017 |                                               |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                        |                                               |
|                        | /s/ Brian E. Schaaf                                |
|                        | Brian E. Schaaf                                    |
|                        | Vice President and   Assistant Treasurer           |
|                        | Ford Motor Credit   Company LLC, as Servicer       |
|                        | (senior officer in   charge of servicing function) |

 

----
SERVED JUNE: 11, 2012 

U.S.· DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AIR TRANSPORT 

INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., 

Respondent 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0202 . 

Case No. 2011 SO 700200 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

)> 

On June7, 2012, the Respondent, Air Transport International, L.L.C., filed a 

Withdrawal of Appeal and a request to dismiss the Complaint that the Complainant, the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FJ\A), had issued on March 20, 2012. The 

Respondent's Withdrawal of Appeal stated that the parties had reached a settlement. 

There is no hearing currently set in this matter. 

It Is Hereby Ordered: 

1) The Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, set for June 28, 20I2 at 

II :OOam Eastern time is cancelled. 

2) Pursuant to I4 C.F.R. §13.2I5, the Respondent, Air Transport International, 

L.L.C., has Withdrawn its Appeal, and this proceeding is dismissed with 

prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 
FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0202 

(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 

Cindi McConnell, President 

Air Tninsport International, L.L.C., Respondent 

One Cantrell Center 

2800 Cantrell Road 

Little Rock, AK 72202 

TEL: 501-615-3500 

FAX: 501-603-2096 

Gerald A. Ellis, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal A viationAdministration, 600 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing 

Docket Clerk, AGC-430 ..