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

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 1:56 PM

To: 'Hill, Jonathan'; 'John McGraw Aerospace Consulting, LLC'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'; Hightower, Gerald CTR (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Chapman Aerospace LLC (FAA-2015-0297)

October 7, 2015 

Dear Messrs. Hill and McGraw: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0297). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. Please provide the following information: 

 The UAS model petitioner proposes to use for tethered operations. 

 Is the UAS model designed for tethered operations? If not, provide how the tether will be attached to 

the UAS. 

 How the UAS tether will be attached to the fixed point. 

 Provide what type of operations will be used for tethered UASs. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by October 21, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
§ 19.830 Under what conditions do I get an additional opportunity to challenge the facts on which a proposed debarment is based? ( a ) You as a respondent will not have an additional opportunity to challenge the facts if the debarring official determines that— ( 1 ) Your debarment is based upon a conviction or civil judgment;
( 2 ) Your presentation in opposition contains only general denials to information contained in the Notice of Proposed Debarment; or
( 3 ) The issues raised in your presentation in opposition to the proposed debarment are not factual in nature, or are not material to the debarring official's decision whether to debar.
( b ) You will have an additional opportunity to challenge the facts if the debarring official determines that— ( 1 ) The conditions in paragraph (a) of this section do not exist; and
( 2 ) Your presentation in opposition raises a genuine dispute over facts material to the proposed debarment.
( c ) If you have an opportunity to challenge disputed material facts under this section, the debarring official or designee must conduct additional proceedings to resolve those facts.
- Expo Unit Home
- About Us
- Expositions
- Hosting the World’s Fair
- Past U.S. Pavilions
- External Links

HomeExpo Unit...About Us – Expo Unit

# 									About Us – Expo Unit							

### About Us

The Department of State is responsible for U.S. participation in international exhibitions. The Department’s Expo Unit in the Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources, created in 2017, manages U.S. engagement with the Bureau of International Expositions (BIE ), organizes U.S. participation at overseas Expos (also known as World’s Fairs), and mobilizes international support for U.S. candidacies to host Expos. The United States rejoined the BIE in 2017 following passage of bipartisan legislation H.R. 534  (U.S. Wants to Compete for a World Expo Act) signed into law by then-President Trump (P.L. 115-32).

Expos are an excellent, cost-effective platform to promote commercial and public diplomacy objectives reaching millions of people in-person and millions more through traditional and social media.

The United States has had national pavilions at every overseas Expo since 1851 with the exception of two, and hosted a dozen World’s Fairs (the last was New Orleans in 1984).

### Contact Us

The Acting Expo Unit Director is Kara Snesko. You may contact the Expo Unit at expo@state.gov.

Subscribe Here to receive updates on U.S. participation in international expositions.

Tags

Expo UnitPublic DiplomacyUnder Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

Back to Top
§ 28.515 Compensation. A recipient shall not make or enforce any policy or practice that, on the basis of sex: ( a ) Makes distinctions in rates of pay or other compensation;
( b ) Results in the payment of wages to employees of one sex at a rate less than that paid to employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions.
**
**Exhibit 31**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, John W. DeCero, certifythat: 

 
 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 California Republic Auto Receivables Trust2017-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statementof 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 underForm 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

 
 4.
Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 ofRegulation 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 theirrelated 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 Rules13a-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 insuch reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

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

 
 
Date:    March 25, 2020
 
By: /s/ John W. DeCero
 
John W. DeCero, Chief Executive Officer
 
California Republic Funding LLC, Depositor
**
U.S. Department of Transportation Office ofthe Secretary OfTransportation



### July 31,2014

Mr. Charles D. Nottingham Counsel for Jet AviationFlight Services, Inc. BUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 750 1

## ih Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Re: Dockets DOT-OST-2014-0097 and DOT-OST-2014-0098 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, DC 20590



### Application ofJet Aviation Flight Services, Inc., for interstate and foreign charter certificate authority DearMr. Nottingham: We have completed our initial review of the application filed on June 6, 2014, by Jet Aviation Flight Services, Inc. ("JAFS"), for the determination ofits fitness to conduct interstate and foreign charter air transportation ofpersons, property and mail using large aircraft. This review has revealed the need for additional and/or clarifying information before we can complete processing JFAS' application. Specifically, we need the following information: 1. For each ofthe resumes submitted in support ofJFAS' application, please provide the month and year for dates ofemployment, ifnot already provided. 2. For each of the resumes submitted in support of JFAS' application, please accounted for all gaps in employment where applicable. Ifthe individual was unemployed, please indicate the person was unemployed. 3. Provide a 12-month pro forma income statement for JFAS' current small aircraft operations, as well as a 12-month pro forma statement for the company's proposed combined large and small aircraft operations. 4. Provideanupdated balance sheetforJFAS, current withinthe past 3months. 5. State the citizenship of the General Dynamics Corporation beneficial owners holding anequity interest ofmore than 5percent.2

I ask that you respond fully to this request within 30 days ofthe date ofthis letter. You may upload your response via the web at www.regulations.gov, or you may mail your response to U.S. Department ofTransportation Dockets, West Building, Ground Floor, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, D.C. 20590. In either case; your response should be filed in DOT-OST-2014-0097 and DOT-OST-2014- 0098. As is the Department's practice, further processing ofJFAS' application will be deferred pendingreceipt ofthis material. In addition, pleaserememberthat JFAS shouldpromptly provide the Department with any information regarding changes it may undergo in areas affecting its fitness (i.e., management, operating plans or financial condition, compliance disposition, or ownership) while its application is under review by the Department. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Ifyou have any questions regarding this letter or the requested information, please feel free to contact me at (202) 366-2999 or vanessa.balgobin@dot.gov.

cc: Dockets DOT-OST-2014-0097 and DOT-OST-2014-0098 Mr. David C. Agee Ms. AmandaE. Tummons Counsel for Jet AviationFlight Services, Inc. HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP 901 St. Louis Street, Suite 1800 Springfield, MO 65806 Ms. Valerie Fattoross Sales Contracts Administrator JET AVIATION FLIGHT SERVICES, INC. 112 Charles Lindbergh Drive Teterboro, NJ 07608 Mr. MarkButtikofer Principal Operations Inspector Federal AviationAdministration
P. 1


# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 116 ) IV-C-8

2 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:57AM

Sheet 116 of 232, P.2 . 

### 0-87-.Z-Z . . •«--• . . . . ty-c-fi - | ^ • ^ Vs I1 JJJ L "

i UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO NAGENC Y| \ \Xl7 Z ? WASHINGTON ,D.C . 2046 0

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N t

Honorabl e John T . Myer s Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D.C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Myers : Thank yo u fo r passing along th e comment s fromyou r constituent , Mr . Harol d A.Newport , concerning EPA' s proposa l t o requir e onboar d refueling emissio n controls . B e assure d tha t thes e comment s wil l b e considere d a s w e prepar e ou r fina l rule . W e wil l als o b e placing themi n th e publi c docke t fo r th e rulemaking (Docke t No . A-87-11) . Thank yo u agai n fo r you r concer n i n thi s matter . Sincerel yyours , Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s cc : Docke t A-87-1 1 Prepare d by : For

mLetter:sal:2/19/88:AL880722 : — Ann Arbor , M I KXXXXXKXPMX2XH2XXX B bcc : Regio n 0 5 Congressiona l Liaison/Quin n Docke t A-87-1 1 c/ o Jacki e McManu s
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 3558 LT Case No. 2019

- SC

- 047881

_____________________________
K ENNETH K ETRON , Appellant,

v.

M ARG ARET E MBREY , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Brevard County

. Kenneth Friedland , Judge

. Kenneth Ketron, Palm Bay
, pro se

. No Appearance for Appellee.

April 9, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

E DWARDS , C.J
., and M AKAR and B OATWRIGHT , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Mark A. Anderson, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Community First Bankshares, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

a)              All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: August 6, 2004

 
|   | /s/ Mark A. Anderson                  |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Mark A. Anderson                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
' 40217.

#### KELLEY et al. v. MONTGOMERY et al.

Hall, Judge.

When the facts alleged in a petition, together with a copy of an insurance policy attached thereto as an exhibit, showed that the defendants were insurance agents and in 1960 did some of the acts mentioned in former *Code*§ 56-501 in consummating the contract of insurance with a company not licensed to do business in Georgia, and did not show that the policy was for “excess insurance” as contemplated by the Excess Insurance Agents Law (Ga. L. 1949, p. 1201, former *Code Ann.*§ 56-501a et seq.), or that the defendants fully complied with all the provisions of that Act respecting the policy, the petition stated a cause of action against the agents personally as was provided by former *272
      *Code*§ 56-502. Whether the insurance was procured in full compliance with the conditions of the 1949 Act, so as to relieve the defendant agents of personal liability for a loss covered by the policy and not recoverable from the unauthorized insurer, remains a question of defensive proof. (The provisions of former *Code*§§ 56-501 and 56-502 as revised by the Georgia Insurance Code, Ga. L. 1960, p. 289, appear in *Code Ann.*§§ 56r801a, 56-801b, and 56-834b. The Excess Insurance Agents Law was repealed and superseded by provisions of the 1960 Georgia Insurance Code appearing as *Code Ann.*§ 56-613 et seq.).

Decided September 4, 1963.

*Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier, T. Baldwin Martin,*for plaintiffs in error.

*F. G. Schmich, Ii. Thad Crawley,*contra.

The trial court did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P.J., and Bell, J., concur.*
# L_2019320EN.01015901.xml

| 11.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 320/159 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 320/159

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 of 12 July 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036

(Official Journal of the European Union L 189 of 15 July 2019)

On page 52, in point (a) of Article 2:

for:

‘it did not export to the Union the product described in paragraph 1 in the period between 1 October 2010 and 30 September 2011 (original investigation period),’;

read:

‘it did not export to the Union the product described in Article 1(1) in the period between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011 (original investigation period),’.

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128626 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128626 COA: 250332 Kent CC: 02-011062-FC NGOC PHAT TRAN, a/k/a QUANG HANG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 10, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan , lv gtd 472 Mich 881 (2005).

t0221 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2006

Clerk
# L_2020051DE.01001601.xml

| 25.2.2020 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 51/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2020

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 51/16

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) 2019/1784 der Kommission vom 1. Oktober 2019 zur Festlegung von Anforderungen an die umweltgerechte Gestaltung von Schweißgeräten gemäß der Richtlinie 2009/125/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 272 vom 25. Oktober 2019
  )

Seite 129, Anhang II Nummer 1 Tabelle 1 Spalte 1 Zeile 3:

Anstatt:

„Schweißgeräte, betrieben mit einphasigen Stromquellen mit Wechselstromabgabe (AC)“,

muss es heißen:

„Schweißgeräte, betrieben mit ein- und dreiphasigen Stromquellen mit Wechselstromabgabe (AC)“.

---
Skip navigation links
#### § 48.4062(b) [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 208.10 Reservation of rights.

The Secretary reserves the right, in the Secretary's discretion, to waive any provision(s) of this part in any case or class of cases.
#### Josephine Dandrea, Respondent, v Howard M. Hertz et al., Appellants.

[804 NYS2d 106]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated June 9, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to summary judgment by adducing expert opinion evidence that they did not deviate from good and accepted medical practice in their treatment of the plaintiff’s decedent *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). However, the affidavit of the plaintiffs medical expert estab*333lished the existence of triable issues of fact, including whether the defendants were negligent in failing to order another chest X ray before February 2000 in light of the decedent’s history and symptoms. Summary judgment may not be awarded in a medical malpractice action where the parties offer conflicting expert opinions, which present a credibility question requiring a jury’s resolution *(see Shields v Baktidy,*11 AD3d 671, 672 [2004]; *Barbuto v Winthrop Univ. Hosp.,*305 AD2d 623 [2003]; *Fotinas v Westchester County Med. Ctr.,*300 AD2d 437 [2002]; *Halkias v Otolaryngology-Facial Plastic Surgery Assoc., 282*AD2d 650 [2001]). Moreover, contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the opinions of the plaintiffs expert were based upon facts in evidence, and were not conclusory or otherwise insufficient *(see Shields v Baktidy, supra).*Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

Editorial Note on Part 360
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 360 appear at 79 FR 8860, Feb. 14, 2014.

§ 360.5 General rules. ( a ) *Registration is conclusive of ownership.* Definitive savings bonds were issued only in registered form. The registration must express the actual ownership of, and interest in, the bond. The registration is conclusive of ownership, except as provided in § 360.49.
( b ) *Requests for registration.* ( 1 ) Registrations requested must be clear, accurate and complete, conform substantially with one of the forms set forth in this subpart, and include the taxpayer identifying number of the owner or first-named coowner. The registration of all bonds owned by the same individual or fiduciary estate should be uniform with respect to the name of the owner and any description of the fiduciary capacity.
( 2 ) An individual should be designated by the name he or she is ordinarily known by or uses in business, including at least one full given name. The name may be preceded or followed by any applicable title, such as Mr., Mrs., Ms., Miss, Dr., Rev., M.D., or D.D. A suffix, such as Sr. or Jr., must be included when ordinarily used or when necessary to distinguish the owner from another member of his family. A married woman's own first name, not that of her husband, must be used, for example, Mary A. Jones or Mrs. Mary A. Jones, NOT Mrs. Frank B. Jones. The address must include, where appropriate, the number and street, route, or any other local feature, city, State, and ZIP Code.
( c ) *Registration of bonds purchased as gifts.* If the bonds were purchased as gifts, awards, prizes, etc., and the taxpayer identifying numbers of the intended owners are not known, the purchaser's number must be furnished. Bonds so registered will not be associated with the purchaser's own holdings. A bond registered in the name of a purchaser with another person as coowner or beneficiary is not considered a gift or an award. If the purchaser so requests, a bond may be inscribed to provide a “Mail to” instruction, followed by a delivery name and address. No rights of ownership are conferred on such designee.
[63 FR 38049, July 14, 1998, as amended at 71 FR 46858, Aug. 15, 2006; 76 FR 66856, Oct. 28, 2011]
www.gpo.gov

### §1300d–8. Income tax exemption

None of the funds distributed per capita under the provisions of this subchapter shall be subject to Federal or State income taxes.

(Pub. L. 92–555, title III, §304, Oct. 25, 1972, 86 Stat. 1170.)