alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order 201 1

- 5

- 1 7

Served: May 25 , 201 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 25 th Day of May, 2011

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2009

- 0155

ORDER EXTENDING COMMENT PERIOD

On May 24 , 201 1

, Mr. Hubert Horan filed a motion requesting an extension of the comment

period until June 2, 2011. 1 Mr. Horan states that he was not served with the Department’s recent

Show Cause Order in this proceeding (Order 2011

- 5

- 8), and that he did not have adequate notice of

the issuance of the Order.

We will grant the motion. The Department inadvertently omi tted Mr. Horan from the service

list. We agree with Mr. Horan that this extension will not cause undue harm to any parties in this

case.

We will serve this Order on all parties on the service list in this docket.

1 DOT

- OST

- 2009

- 0155

- 0056.1 (posted May 25, 2011). Joint Application of:

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

VIRGIN BLUE AIRLINES PTY LTD

VIRGIN BLUE INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES

PTY LTD D/B/A V AUSTRALIA

PACIFIC BLUE AIRLINES (NZ) LTD

PACIFIC BLUE AIRLINES (AUST) PTY LTD

Under 49 U.S.C. §§ 41308

- 41309 for approval of

and antitrust immunity for alliance agreements2 A CCORDINGLY :

1. We grant the motion submitted by Mr. Hubert Horan dated May 24, 2011.

2. Objections or comments to Order 2011

- 5

- 8 are due no later than June 2, 2011, and answers

to objections or comments shall be due no later than June 9 , 2011.

By:

TODD HOMAN

Director

– Office of Aviation Analysis

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available at: http://www.regulations.gov
#### Ambrose Giraudat, Respondent, *against*Henry Korn, Appellant.

(Decided June 3d, 1878.)

The denial of a motion made at trial term to postpone the trial of a cause, on the ground of the absence of a material witness, cannot be reviewed upon appeal from an order made at special term by a judge other than the judge who presided at the trial, upon a motion for a new trial based upon affidavits alleging surprise and mistake.

*It seems,*that the only modes by which such refusal of the court can be reviewed upon appeal are, either by making the affidavits used on the application for postponement a part of the record and appealing from the judgment, or by suffering a default at the time of the court’s refusal to postpone, and appealing from an order denying a motion to open such default.

Appeal from an order made at special term denying a motion for a new trial, made upon affidavits alleging surprise and mistake.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*F. J. Moissen,*for appellant.

*Ooudert*Brothers, for respondent.

Van Brunt, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial, upon the ground of surprise, mistake, &c.

*407The surprise and mistake, &e., consisted in surprise of the defendant’s counsel at the rulings of the court, and mistake of the court in not postponing the trial upon the application of the defendants, upon the ground of the absence of witnesses whose testimony was material to the defendant.

If the court erred in excluding or admitting testimony, that can be remedied by appeal, and as the court have affirmed the judgment upon the merits, this ground affords no claim for relief.

The action of the court in refusing to postpone the cause upon the ground of the absence of a material witness cannot be reviewed in this manner.

If the papers upon which the application to postpone was printed had formed part of the record upon the appeal from the judgment the action of the court could have been reviewed upon that appeal; or if the defendant had suffered a default, a review might have been had of the order denying the motion to open the default; but after a trial had been had I know of no means of reviewing the error made during the trial, except upon appeal from the judgment. No motion can be made before- a judge other than the one trying the cause for a new trial, for error of fact or law, unless the judge who presided at the trial, if living and in office, specially directs the motion to be heard before another judge, and consequently the judge before whom this motion was made had no power to entertain the same (§ 1002, Code).

I am of the opinion, therefore, that the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
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 Quarterly Report of American Tax Credit Properties III
      L.P.
      (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 29, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, David Salzman, Chief Executive Officer of Richman Housing Credits Inc.,
      general partner of Richman Tax Credit Properties III L.P., general partner
      of
      the Registrant, certify, 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;
                and




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









/s/
      David
      Salzman


David
      Salzman


Chief
      Executive Officer of Richman


Housing
      Credits Inc., general partner


of
      Richman Tax Credit Properties III


L.P.,
      General Partner of the Registrant


March
      28,
      2008
January 5, 2017 

Mr. Paul Eisenhart, II 

118 Muzzey Road 

Shepherdstown, WV 25443 

Dear Mr. Eisenhart: 

This is in response to your letter, dated February 16, 2016, sent to the public docket 

(No. FAA-2016-3899) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption 

from the requirements in FAA Order 8900.2 for appointment as a Designated Maintenance 

Examiner (DME), specifically, the experience requirements for concurrently and actively 

exercising the privileges of a valid aviation mechanic certificate while also employed by an FAA 

Aviation Maintenance Technician School. 

The relief you seek is not a regulatory requirement, therefore your petition for exemption is 

being dismissed. However, a blanket deviation was issued by the Regulatory and Support 

Division, AFS-600, to FAA Order 8900.2A on February 10, 2016, that may address your 

concern. This has been enclosed for your reference. If you seek further relief, you would need 

to submit another request for deviation to AFS-600. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James Crotty 

Manager, Aircraft and Airport 

 Rules Division 

Enclosure
----

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-377/03) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Communities' own resources - Undischarged TIR carnets - Failure or delay in paying the corresponding own resources)

(2006/C 294/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and G. Wilms, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: E. Dominkovits, A. Goldman and M. Wimmer, Agents, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, Lawyer)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Default or delay in the payment of the own resources to the Commission — Failure to comply with accounting rules — Irregular release of certain transit documents (TIR carnets) by the Belgian customs authority

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 264, 01.11.2003.

----
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.

# SUMMARY:

                        Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         notifying the public that the agency has made such a submission.                    

# DATES:

Submit comments on or before September 9, 2009. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.

*Copies:*                         Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer.                    

# ADDRESSES:

                        Address all comments concerning this notice to:                         *Agency Clearance Officer*, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and                         *OMB Reviewer*, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Title:*                     Application for Small Business Size Determination.                

*SBA Form Number:*                     355.                

*Frequency:*                     On Occasion.                

*Description of Respondents:*                     Small Businesses.                

*Responses:*                     600.                

*Annual Burden Hours:*                     2,400.                

Jacqueline White,

Chief, Administrative Information Branch.

[FR Doc. E9-19013 Filed 8-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24D0133. JASMINE RENEE ANDREWS v. REGIONS BANK et al.

In 2020, Jasmine Andrews executed a promissory note with Regions Bank

(“Regions”). In 2022, Andrews sued Regions, along with John Turner, David Turner

and Chakira Galloway (the “individual defendants”). Regions answered and

counterclaimed for amounts due on the promissory note.

On August 30, 2023, the trial court entered an order which: (1) granted the

defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the individual

defendants, and that Andrews had failed to state a viable claim against Regions; (2)

granted Regions’ motion for summary judgment and awarded it $27,446.05; and (3)

denied all other pending motions as moot.

On September 29, 2023, Andrews filed an “Application for Certificate of

Probable Cause” in the Supreme Court, which docketed it as an application for

discretionary appeal. The Supreme Court transferred the case to this Court. See Case

No. S24D0196 (Oct. 18, 2023). 

Nothing remains pending in the court below and the order dismissing the

defendants and granting Regions summary judgment is a final judgment. See OCGA

§ 5-6-34 (a) (1); OCGA § 9-11-56 (h). As such, the order is subject to direct appeal.

See, e. g., Whiddon v. Stargell, 192 Ga. App. 826, 827-828 (386 SE2d 884) (1989).

Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (j), this Court will grant a timely application for discretionary

review if the lower court’s order is subject to direct appeal.

Accordingly, this application is hereby GRANTED. Andrews shall have ten

November 27, 2023
days from the date of this order to file a notice of appeal in the trial court. See OCGA

§ 5-6-35 (g). The clerk of the trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order

in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/27/2023
Offer Letter, dated November 7, 2006



 Exhibit 10.61 
 November 7, 2006 
 Mr. Mark Barrenechea 
  

	Re:	Position on the Board of Directors of Rackable Systems, Inc. (“Rackable Systems”) 

 Dear Mark: 
 I am very happy
to offer you a position on the Board of Directors of Rackable Systems (the “Board”). 
 All members of Rackable Systems’ Board
receive an annual cash retainer of $35,000 paid quarterly. Additional cash retainers are paid to Board members who serve as chairman or members of Board committees. 
 In addition, upon appointment to the Board you will be granted a non-statutory stock option to purchase 30,000 shares of Rackable Systems’ common stock. This option will vest over a four year period commencing on
the date of your appointment, with 1/48th vesting per month of service. In addition, all Board members are granted a stock option to purchase 10,000 shares of Rackable Systems’ common stock upon their re-election to Board at each year’s
annual stockholders meeting. 
 Rackable Systems will also reimburse you for your travel expenses in attending Board and committee meetings.

 If the terms of this letter are acceptable to you, please confirm to me your willingness to serve on Rackable Systems’ Board. Upon
your agreement, I will submit your nomination to the Board for formal consideration. We look forward to your favorable reply. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	RACKABLE SYSTEMS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/    GARY
GRIFFITHS        

		 	Gary Griffiths
		 	 Chairman Nominating and
 Corporate Governance Committee
Amendment No. 2 to the KCS Energy, Inc. 2005 Employees and Directors Stock Plan



 Exhibit 10.43 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE KCS ENERGY, INC. 
 2005 EMPLOYEES AND DIRECTORS STOCK PLAN 
 Section 8.1 of the KCS Energy, Inc. 2005 Employees and Directors Stock Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following language: 
 “8.1. Adjustment Provisions. 
 8.1.1. If any recapitalization, reclassification, spinoff, combination, repurchase, stock split or reverse split or consolidation of Common Stock is effected: 
 8.1.1.1. the outstanding shares of Common Stock are exchanged, in connection with a merger or consolidation of the Company or a sale by the Company of all or a part of its assets for a different number or class of
shares of stock or other securities of the Company or for shares of the stock or other securities of any other corporation; 
 8.1.1.2. new, different or
additional shares or other securities of the Company or of another corporation are received by the holders of Common Stock; or 
 8.1.1.3. any distribution
is made to the holders of the Common Stock other than a cash dividend; then the Administrator shall make proportionate adjustments to: 
 8.1.1.3.1. the
number and class of shares or other securities that may be issued or transferred pursuant to Section 3 hereof or pursuant to outstanding Options, SARs, awards of Restricted Stock or awards of Bonus Stock; 
 8.1.1.3.2. the number and class of shares or other securities available for issuance under the Plan; and 
 8.1.1.3.3. the purchase price to be paid per share under outstanding Options, the number of shares to be issued pursuant to Section 3, or the amount to be paid by the Company upon an exercise of an SAR under
Section 4.1.3. 
 8.1.2. Upon the dissolution or liquidation of the Company, the Plan shall terminate, and all previously granted awards shall lapse on
the date of such dissolution or liquidation.” 
 This Amendment No. 2 to the Plan is effective this 7th day of November, 2006.

  

			
	Petrohawk Energy Corporation
		
	By:	 	/s/ Floyd C. Wilson
	Name:	 	    Floyd C. Wilson
	Title:	 	    President and Chief Executive Officer
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(a)(7)-2 Designation or selection of tax matters partner for a limited liability company (LLC). ( a ) *In general.* Solely for purposes of applying section 6231(a)(7) and § 301.6231(a)(7)-1 to an LLC, only a member-manager of an LLC is treated as a general partner, and a member of an LLC who is not a member-manager is treated as a partner other than a general partner.
( b ) *Definitions* — ( 1 ) *LLC.* Solely for purposes of this section, *LLC* means an organization— ( i ) Formed under a law that allows the limitation of the liability of all members for the organization's debts and other obligations within the meaning of § 301.7701-3(b)(2)(ii); and
( ii ) Classified as a partnership for Federal tax purposes.
( 2 ) *Member.* Solely for purposes of this section, *member* means any person who owns an interest in an LLC.
( 3 ) *Member-manager.* Solely for purposes of this section, *member-manager* means a member of an LLC who, alone or together with others, is vested with the continuing exclusive authority to make the management decisions necessary to conduct the business for which the organization was formed. Generally, an LLC statute may permit the LLC to choose management by one or more managers (whether or not members) or by all of the members. If there are no elected or designated member-managers (as so defined in this paragraph (b)(3)) of the LLC, each member will be treated as a member-manager for purposes of this section.
( c ) *Effective date.* This section applies to all designations, selections, and terminations of a tax matters partner of an LLC occurring on or after December 23, 1996. Any other reasonable designation or selection of a tax matters partner of an LLC is binding for periods prior to December 23, 1996.
[T.D. 8698, 61 FR 67462, Dec. 23, 1996]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 60 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 60

    Commending India for its commitment to religious pluralism and 
                               tolerance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 1995

     Mr. Rose (for himself and Mr. Gilman) submitted the following 
     concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                        International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Commending India for its commitment to religious pluralism and 
                               tolerance.

Whereas in 1920, Mohandas K. Ghandhi initiated a popular movement against the 
        British colonialists which eventually led to Indian independence in 
        1947;
Whereas that movement, known as ``satayagraha'', has become synonymous with 
        nonviolent passive resistance;
Whereas India was founded as a secular republic, stressing tolerance and respect 
        for all religions;
Whereas few other nations have been so prolific in religious thought or have 
        been the birthplace of faiths which have been followed by so many 
        throughout the world;
Whereas India is now the world's largest democracy with over 900,000,000 people, 
        comprised of Hindus, Moslems, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jews, Jains, 
        Parsis, and other ethnic and religious minorities; and
Whereas the Constitution of India grants specific rights for religious groups to 
        follow their own religious laws: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That--
            (1) the Government of India should be commended for its 
        commitment to religious pluralism and tolerance;
            (2) the Government of India should be recognized for its 
        willingness to give refuge to displaced victims of religious 
        persecution; and
            (3) the people of the United States recognize and 
        appreciate the enormous contributions of India to the cause of 
        religious harmony throughout the world.
                                 <all>
```
#### Kelvin J. MILES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; Maryland Parole Commission, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-6437.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 9, 2002.

Decided June 21, 2002.

*705Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Kelvin Miles appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. *See Miles v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety,*No. CA-02-626-S (D.Md. Mar. 1, 2002). 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.

*DISMISSED.*