alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J &M Aviation • " V,M|/'LNTO F 

87204 •••^ioPOHWlON John Baker Road 

O'Neill Ne. 68763 •"' '^^ERAIIOMJ 

7-21-2011 '•''' '-^- ^ A 10: ?3 

U.S. Dept Of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

To the Administrator, 

My name is James T. ^^Jake'* Dvorak and I am writing this letter to request an 

exemption to 14 CFR 65.91(c) (2) requiring that an A&P practice in the profession 

for 2 years before they can be eligible to take the Inspection Authorization test. My 

reasons that I think an exemption is warranted are as follows. I previously held an 

lA ticket from approximately 1982 to 1996 in which 1 practiced in the aircraft 

maintenance field continuously, renewing my ticket yearly by performing more than 

the required number of inspections to keep my ticket current. In 19961 got out of 

the aviation business to help take care of approximately 30 foster children that came 

through our home and to take over a cattle ranch for my ailing father. I missed the 

aviation field and in October of 20111 was offered the job of Airport Manager of 

the O'Neill Nebraska Airport, aptly named John Baker Field after a well known 

aviation figure who originated from O'Neill. I also was offered a facility to do 

aircraft maintenance. Since November I have been working under the watchful eye 

of an Authorized Inspector who lives some distance away and this makes it difficult 

for all involved. The nearest maintenance facility is approx. 80 miles away and this 

presents a problem to the approx. 15 aircraft located on the field and the 30 to 40 

aircraft within a 40 mile radius that need maintenance. I have a good reputation in 

the aircraft maintenance field and I can provide letters attesting to this fact if need 

be. The job of an AI entails a lot of paper work ie. AD notes, 337's , TCDS and 

FAR's which the internet has made readily available. I have a subscription to a 

service which provides all the necessary info I need, have a fully equipped 

maintenance facility and all the necessary manuals, both parts and maintenance to 

complete the job in a professional manner. The fact that I have extensive experience 

in the Held, of which the majority I was as a holder of an AI makes me believe that 

I am fully qualified now to test again to become the holder of an Inspection 

Authorization. I am also a Private Instrument Rated pilot and want to promote 

general aviation as much as possible and being able to provide all the necessary 

maintenance in a timely manner in a rural area would be a huge help to me in 

achieving this goal. Thank you for considering my request and I wait to hear your 

response. My A&P # is 506760567 

Sincerely,
For 2014 RFS FRM docket

Meeting Between Fuels America and Administrator McCarthy

Date: January 14, 2014

Attendees:

EPA: Administrator McCarthy, Benjamin Hengst, Paul Argyropoulos, Michael Geller, Sarah

Bittleman

Raffaella Cristanetti, Dupont

Nick Yaksich, AEM

Roger Johnson, NFU

Bob Dineen, RFA

Chris Standlee, Abengoa

Brent Erickson , BIO

David Woodruff, ADM

Tom Buis, Growth Energy

Jonathan Lehman, Mascoma

Kyle Gilley, POET

Catharine Ransom, Fuels America/Glover Park Group

Jeff Lautt, POET

Brooke Coleman, AEC

Summary: representatives from the biofuel industry expressed their conce rns regarding the 2014

RFS volume proposal, stating that the proposal had produced a chilling effect on the biofuel

industry.
#### Sampson Tkaczyk et al. *v.*Herman Levine, Administrator (Estate of Olga Gallagher), et al.

*Sampson Tkaczyk*and *Evelyn Tkaczyk,*pro se, the appellants (plaintiffs).

*Walter A. DeAndrade,*for the appellee (defendant Gallagher).

Argued December 3

decided December *3,*1963

It appearing that the plaintiffs in the above-entitled ease have failed to prosecute their appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County with proper diligence, it is ordered that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed.
§ 41.4481-3 Registration. ( a ) For purposes of the regulations in this part, the term “registered” when used in reference to a highway motor vehicle means— ( 1 ) Registered under the law of any State or Territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, or contiguous foreign country, or
( 2 ) Required to be registered under the law of any State or Territory of the United States or contiguous foreign country in which such highway motor vehicle is operated or situated or, in case the vehicle is operated or situated in the District of Columbia, under the law of the District of Columbia. Any highway motor vehicle which is operated under a dealer's tag, license, or permit is considered to be registered in the name of such dealer. A highway motor vehicle is not considered to be registered solely by reason of the fact that there has been issued a special permit for operation of the vehicle at particular times and under specified conditions.
( b ) Any highway motor vehicle which, at any time in the taxable period, is registered both in the name of the owner of the vehicle and in the name of any other person, is considered, for purposes of the regulations in this part, to be registered, at such time, solely in the name of the owner of the vehicle.
[T.D. 6216, 21 FR 9645, Dec. 6, 1956, as amended by T.D. 6743, 29 FR 7931, June 23, 1964; T.D. 8159, 52 FR 33584, Sept. 4, 1987]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Chapero, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 596]

*493Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered March 20, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction of robbery in the second degree under the second count of the indictment, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Without sufficient evidence of the extent of the complainant’s injuries or that the complainant was in substantial pain, the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of robbery in the second degree under the second count of the indictment *(see*Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]; *Matter of Philip A.,*49 NY2d 198, 200 [1980]; *People v Briggs,*285 AD2d 651, 652 [2001]).

The defendant’s contention that his sentence was enhanced for exercising his right to trial rather than accepting a plea agreement is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Giordano,*87 NY2d 441, 452 [1995]; *People v Hurley,*75 NY2d 887, 888 [1990]; *People v Cancel,*266 AD2d 306 [1999]). In any event, a sentence imposed after trial may be more severe than a promised sentence in connection with a plea agreement (see *People v Pena,*50 NY2d 400, 412 [1980], *cert denied*449 US 1087 [1981]; *People v Clarke,*195 AD2d 569, 570-571 [1993]; *People v Nelson,*179 AD2d 784, 786 [1992]). Here, the sentencing minutes indicate that the court relied upon the appropriate factors in imposing a greater sentence than was offered during plea negotiations (see *People v Cancel, supra*at 307). Adams, J.P., Crane, S. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### § 403.61 Sale on open, competitive bids.

If forfeited property is to be sold at public auction to the highest bidder on open, competitive bids, the notice of sale shall so specify, and state the date, hour, and place of such sale.
Amendment to Mr. Tolworthy's Employment Agreement, dated February 28, 2007



 Exhibit 10.30 
 

 
 February 28, 2007 
  

			
	 To:
	  	Thomas Tolworthy
		
	 Re:
	  	 Third Amended and Restated Employment and
 Non-Competition Agreement dated June 12, 2006


 Tom: 
 On behalf of
the Board of Directors of VS Parent, Inc., a Delaware corporation, VS Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Holdings”), and Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc., a New York corporation (“Company”), I am writing to memorialize the
changes that have been agreed upon with respect to your employment relationship. 
 We have agreed to the following changes to the above-referenced agreement
(the “Third Amendment”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Third Amendment: 
 1. The Initial Term is hereby extended so that the same shall terminate eight (8) years after the Original Effective Date, or November 26, 2010, subject to annual renewal as set forth in Section 3 of the Third Amendment.

 2. Section 3 of the Third Amendment is hereby amended by deleting the phrase “not later than six (6) months prior to the
end of the Initial Term” in its entirety and substituting the following in its stead: “not later than twelve (12) months prior to the end of the Initial Term”. 
 3. For fiscal year 2007 your Annual Cash Bonus shall be based upon Vitamin Shoppe’s EBITDA as reflected in the audited financial statements for the
year. If the EBITDA is below $50.3 million, you will not receive any Annual Cash Bonus for 2007. If the EBITDA is $58.6 million or more, you shall receive an Annual Cash Bonus equal to one hundred twenty percent (120%) of your Base Salary for
the 2007 fiscal year. Between such EBITDA numbers, you shall receive an Annual Cash Bonus as follows: 
 2101 91st Street · North Bergen, NJ 07047 
 Telephone: 201-868-5959
· Fax: 201-868-0727 · www.vitaminshoppe.com








 Mr. Thomas Tolworthy 
 February 28, 2007 
 Page 2 
  

				
	 EBITDA
 (Millions)
	  	Annual Cash Bonus as a
Percentage of Base Salary	 
	 $50.3
	  	25	%
	   55.3
	  	100	%
	   58.6
	  	120	%

 Between the three EBITDA targets set forth above ($50.3, $55.3 and $58.6), there will be a straight line
interpolation. For example, if the EBITDA for fiscal 2007 is $54.3 million, you will have earned an Annual Cash Bonus equal to 85% of your Base Salary. All Annual Cash Bonus calculations shall be rounded to the nearest percent. 
 If the foregoing accurately represents your understanding of our agreement, please sign a copy of this letter and return the same to me. 
  

			
	VS Parent, Inc.
	VS Holdings, Inc.
	Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Douglas Korn

		 	Douglas Korn, Chairman of the Compensation
		 	Committee of the Board of Directors of VS
		 	Parent, Inc.
	
	 AGREED AND ACCEPTED AS OF THIS
 2nd DAY OF MARCH, 2007

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas Tolworthy

		 	Thomas Tolworthy
		 	Chief Executive Officer
CHARLES FRANCIS

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 2552

Opinion filed July 16, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Charles Francis, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ.

, CONCUR.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 103 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 103

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the Civil Service 
   Retirement and Disability Fund be excluded from the budget of the 
                       United States Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the Civil Service 
   Retirement and Disability Fund be excluded from the budget of the 
                       United States Government.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 8348 of 
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(n) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and 
disbursements of the Fund--
            ``(1) shall not be included in the totals of--
                    ``(A) the budget of the United States Government as 
                submitted by the President; or
                    ``(B) the congressional budget (including 
                allocations of budget authority and outlays provided 
                therein);
            ``(2) shall be exempt from any general budget limitation 
        imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget 
        outlays) of the United States Government; and
            ``(3) shall be exempt from any order issued under part C of 
        the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
        1985.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 49.0-2 General definitions and use of terms. As used in the regulations in this part, unless otherwise expressly indicated: ( a ) The terms defined in the provisions of law contained in the regulations in this part shall have the meanings so assigned to them.
( b ) The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 means the Act approved August 16, 1954 (68A Stat.), entitled “An Act to revise the internal revenue laws of the United States”, as amended.
( c ) District director means district director of internal revenue. The term also includes the Director of International Operations in all cases where the authority to perform the functions which may be performed by a district director has been delegated to the Director of International Operations.
( d ) Calendar quarter means a period of 3 calendar months ending on March 31, June 30, September 30, or December 31.
www.gpo.gov

### §1300g–6. Gaming activities

#### (a) In general

All gaming activities which are prohibited by the laws of the State of Texas are hereby prohibited on the reservation and on lands of the tribe. Any violation of the prohibition provided in this subsection shall be subject to the same civil and criminal penalties that are provided by the laws of the State of Texas. The provisions of this subsection are enacted in accordance with the tribe's request in Tribal Resolution No. T.C.–02–86 which was approved and certified on March 12, 1986.

#### (b) No State regulatory jurisdiction

Nothing in this section shall be construed as a grant of civil or criminal regulatory jurisdiction to the State of Texas.

#### (c) Jurisdiction over enforcement against members

Notwithstanding section 1300g–4(f) of this title, the courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any offense in violation of subsection (a) of this section that is committed by the tribe, or by any member of the tribe, on the reservation or on lands of the tribe. However, nothing in this section shall be construed as precluding the State of Texas from bringing an action in the courts of the United States to enjoin violations of the provisions of this section.

(Pub. L. 100–89, title I, §107, Aug. 18, 1987, 101 Stat. 668.)
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13

- 668 V

Filed: June 4, 2014

Not for P ublication

*************************************

GERALD LEONARDI, III

, *

*

Petitioner

, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision b ased on

* s tipulation of f

act

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Jeffrey S. Pop

, Beverly Hills, CA , for petitioner.

Ryan D. Pyles , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On June 4, 2014 , the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case

.

I n accordance with t he General Order #9 r equiremen t, petitioner assert s that he did not

incur any costs in pursuit of his petition. Petitioner submitted his request for attorneys’ fees and

costs to respondent. During informal discussions, respondent ra ised objections t o certain items in

petitioner’ s application

. Based on these objectio ns, petitioner amend s his application for

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ s website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosur e would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and

move to redact such information prior to the document = s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the id entified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

redact such material from public access.2

attor ne ys’ fees and costs to $ 18

, 029

. 46

. Respondent does not object to this amount. The

undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $ 18

, 029

. 46

, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a

chec k payable jointly to petitioner and J effrey S. Pop & Associates

, in the amount of $ 18

, 029

. 46

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. M illman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
# LI2019016EN.01000101.xml

| 18.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | LI 16/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

LI 16/1

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 16 of 18 January 2019
  )

On page 135, in Article 4:

before:

‘This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.’,

add the text:

‘This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.’.

---
#### In the Matter of Miller Family Ltd. Partnership, Appellant, v Frank C. Trotta et al., Respondents.

[806 NYS2d 74]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven, dated November 14, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for a use variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J), entered July 6, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

To qualify for a use variance premised upon unnecessary hardship there must be a showing that (1) the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for permitted purposes as currently zoned, (2) the hardship resulted from unique charac*390teristics of the property, (3) the proposed use would not alter the character of the neighborhood, and (4) the alleged hardship was not self-created *(see*Town Law § 267-b [2] [b]; *Matter of Village Bd. of Vil. of Fayetteville v Jarrold,*53 NY2d 254, 257 [1981]; *Matter of Otto v Steinhilber,*282 NY 71, 76 [1939]; *Matter of Elwood Props. v Bohrer,*216 AD2d 562, 563 [1995]).

The petitioner purchased two adjacent properties zoned for single-family homes, and subsequently sought a use variance to permit the development of a multi-family planned retirement community on the properties. Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, evidence adduced during the hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven (hereinafter the Board) established that the petitioners created the hardship by purchasing the land with knowledge that it was zoned for single-family homes and intended to develop multi-family housing on the property anyway. As such, we cannot conclude that the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the application *(see Matter of Clark v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead,*301 NY 86, 89 [1950], *cert denied*340 US 933 [1951]; *Matter of Friends of Lake Mahopac v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Carmel,*15 AD3d 401, 402-403 [2005]; *Matter of Long Is. Leasing Corp. v Casey,*138 AD 2d 596 [1988]; *Matter of Carriage Works Enters. v Siegel,*118 AD2d 568, 569 [1986]). Adams, J.P., Crane, S. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.
§ 0.214 Conduct while on government property. ( a ) Employees must adhere to the regulations that govern the conduct of individuals who are in the buildings or space occupied by, or on grounds of, particular government property.
( b ) Employees shall not solicit, make collections, canvass for the sale of any article, or distribute literature or advertising on Department property without appropriate authorization.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Rubin, CEO, CFO and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

 

/s/ Richard Rubin

CEO, CFO and ChairmanDated: February 27, 2006

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc.and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.