alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 10, 2015

Mr. Aaron Nettles

405 Northwest 73 rd Street

Lawton OK 73505

Dear Mr. Nettles :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your March 5 , 2015 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0550 ) , but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety o r how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to proc ess your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Nia Daniels

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
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.

§ 360.11 Computation of amount. ( a ) *General.* The purchases of bonds in the name of any person in an individual capacity are computed separately from purchases in a fiduciary capacity, e.g., as representative for the estate of an individual.
( b ) *Bonds included in computation.* In computing the purchases for each person, the following outstanding bonds are included: ( 1 ) All bonds registered in the name and bearing the taxpayer identifying number of that person alone;
( 2 ) All bonds registered in the name of the representative of the estate of that person and bearing that person's taxpayer identifying number; and
( 3 ) All bonds registered in the name of that person as coowner that also bear that person's taxpayer identifying number.
( c ) *Bonds excluded from computation.* In computing the purchases for each person, the following are excluded: ( 1 ) Bonds on which that person is named beneficiary;
( 2 ) Bonds to which that person has become entitled— ( i ) Under § 360.70 as surviving beneficiary upon the death of the registered owner;
( ii ) As an heir or a legatee of the deceased owner;
( iii ) By virtue of the termination of a trust or the happening of a similar event; and
( 3 ) Bonds that are purchased and redeemed within the same calendar year.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1324

To enforce the law regulating the height of buildings in the District of

Columbia by prohibiting the District of Columbia from issuing any building or occupancy permit for the proposed development located at 1328

G Street Northwest unless the development is modified to conform to

such law.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 24, 1995

Mr. STARK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To enforce the law regulating the height of buildings in

the District of Columbia by prohibiting the District of

Columbia from issuing any building or occupancy permit

for the proposed development located at 1328 G Street

Northwest unless the development is modified to conform

to such law.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FROM

4 ISSUING BUILDING OR OCCUPANCY PERMIT.

5 The District of Columbia may not issue any building

6 or occupancy permit for the proposed development located
2

•HR 1324 IH

1 at 1328 G Street Northwest, as described in D.C. Act 10–

2 395, unless the development is modified so that the height

3 of the building proposed to be constructed under the devel4 opment does not exceed 110 feet.

Æ
§ 539.306 Goods, technology, or services produced or provided by a designated foreign person. With respect to the prohibitions in §§ 539.201 and 539.202, the term *goods, technology, or services produced or provided by a designated foreign person* includes but is not limited to the following: ( a ) Goods grown, manufactured, extracted, or processed by a designated foreign person;
( b ) Technology developed, owned, licensed, or otherwise controlled by a designated foreign person;
( c ) Services performed by or on behalf of a designated foreign person, or by a third party under contract, directly or indirectly, to a designated foreign person, regardless of location.
# Electronic Articles ofOrganization For Florida Limited Liability Company Article I The name ofthe Limited Liability Company is: TECNOMEDIA & SATELLITE SERVICES LLC



## Article II L14000087377 FILED 8:00 AM May 30 2014 Sec. OfState jshivers



### The street address ofthe principal office ofthe Limited Liability Company is: 2179 N POWERLINE ROAD STE 1 POMPANO BEACH, FL. US 33069


### The mailing address ofthe Limited Liability Company is: 2179 N POWERLINE ROAD STE 1 POMPANO BEACH, FL. US 33069 

## Article III Other provisions, ifany: THE PURPOSE FORWHICH THIS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IS ORGANIZED IS TO CONDUCT ANY AND ALL LAWFUL BUSINESS. THE COMPANY SHALL BE MEMBER MANAGED.


## Article IV The name and Florida street address ofthe registered agent is: ANTONIO REGOJO 3550 BISCAYNE BLVD #507 MIAMI, FL. 33137 Having been named as registered agent and to accept service ofprocess for the above stated limited liability company atthe place designated in this certificate, Ihereby acceptthe appointment as registered agent and agree to actin this capacity. I further agree to comply with the provisions ofall statutes relating to the proper and complete performance ofmy duties, and I am familiar with and acceptthe obligations ofmy position as registered agent. Registered Agent Signature: ANTONIO REGOJO

## Article V The name and address ofperson(s) authorized to manage LLC: Title: MGR CLAUDIO P FERNANDEZ 2179 N POWERLINE ROAD STE 1 POMPANO BEACH, FL. 33069 

### Signature ofmember or an authorized representative Electronic Signature: ANTONIO REGOJO 

### L14000087377 FILED 8:00 AM May 30 2014 Sec. OfState jshivers

I am the member or authorized representative submitting these Articles ofOrganization and affirm that the facts stated herein are true. I am aware that false information submitted in a document to the Department ofState constitutes a third degree felony as provided for in s.817.155, F.S. I understand the reqmrementto file an annual reportbetween January 1st and May 1stin the calendar year following formation ofthe LLC and everyyear thereafter to maintain "active" status.
HomeBureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs...Anticrime Sanctions and Deterrence Tools

# 									Anticrime Sanctions and Deterrence Tools							

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs manages a variety of deterrence tools to help disrupt and deter transnational crime and corruption. The bureau coordinates implementation of anticrime tools, provides foreign policy guidance to the Departments of Treasury and Justice on program implementation, and works with Embassies around the globe to combat transnational crime and corruption.

#### **Anticrime Rewards Programs**

The Department of State manages two U.S. government programs that offer rewards of up to $25 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of members of significant transnational criminal organizations and the disruption of other forms of transnational organized crime.  Learn more»

#### **Anticorruption Visa Restrictions**

The Department of State uses visa restrictions as part of a multifaceted approach to combatting corruption globally.  Learn more»

Tags

Anti-Corruption and TransparencyBureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsCombating Drugs and CrimeCorruptionDrugsNarcotics

Back to Top
#### Stephen A. Pearce, Appellant, *against*Henry L. Bogert *et al.,*Respondents.

(Decided December 5th, 1881.)

To authorize a justice of a district court in the City of New York to dismiss a complaint on the ground that, one of the defendants being a nonresident, the action should have been commenced by a short summons instead of the ordinary summons, proof of the fact of such non-residence is requisite; and if such proof is not given until after answering, the objection is waived.

Appeal from a judgment of the district court in the City of New York for the Third Judicial District.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*C. J. G.*Hall, for appellant.

*Henry L. Bogert,*for respondents.

J. F. Daly, J.

On the return day of the summons certain of the defendants appeared and objected to the jurisdiction of the justice, on the ground that the action had been commenced by long summons, and that this was improper because three certain other defendants (who did not put in an appearance) were not residents of the City of New York. No affidavit of such non-residence was produced by the parties making the objection, and the fact of non-residence did not appear. The justice therefore properly overruled the objection. The objecting defendants thereupon filed answers in which the objection of non-residence was not taken, and an adjournment was had. On the adjourned day the objecting defendants came into court with an affidavit that Mr. Kenyon was a non-resident, and moved to dismiss on that ground. The motion was granted. This was error. It was too late after pleading to take the objection in question. It had not been regularly taken before answer, because it was not then *278based on any proof of the fact of non-residence, and defendants having pleaded, waived the defect. It was not a question of jurisdiction of the cause of action, which could have been raised at any time, but of irregularity in the form- of summons, objections as to which are always waived by pleading before objecting. If a defendant wishes to avail himself of irregularities in the form of summons, he must object before pleading *(Andrews*v. Thorp, 1 E. D. Smith, 615), and must also make the fact of non-residence appear. To warrant the justice in dismissing a complaint on that objection, he must have proof, just as he would réquire in the first place to authorize him to issue a short summons to an alleged non-resident *(Sperry*v. Mayor, 1 E, D. Smith, 361).

The judgment should be reversed with costs.

Van Hoesen, J., concurred.

Judgment reversed, with costs.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 315.88 Payment to a State claiming title to abandoned bonds. ( a ) *General.* The Department of the Treasury may, in its discretion, recognize an escheat judgment that purports to vest a State with title to a definitive savings bond that has reached the final extended maturity date and is in the State's possession, when the State presents evidence satisfactory to Treasury that the bond has been abandoned by all persons entitled to payment under Treasury regulations. A State claiming title to a definitive savings bond as the heir to a deceased owner must comply with the requirements of subpart L, and not this section. Treasury will not recognize an escheat judgment that purports to vest a State with title to a bond that has not reached its final extended maturity date. Treasury also will not recognize an escheat judgment that purports to vest a State with title to a bond that the State does not possess, or a judgment that purports to grant the State custody of a bond, but not title.
( b ) *Due process.* At a minimum, a State requesting payment under this section must demonstrate to Treasury's satisfaction that it made reasonable efforts to provide actual and constructive notice of the escheat proceeding to all persons listed on the face of the bond and all persons who may have an interest in the bond, and that those persons had an opportunity to be heard before the escheat judgment was entered.
( c ) *Fulfillment of obligation.* Payment to a State claiming title under this section fulfills the United States' obligations to the same extent as if payment had been made to the registered owner.
[80 FR 80264, Dec. 24, 2015]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             353
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,694
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,121
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,405
<PP&E>                                           4,053
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,774
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,152
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,494
<COMMON>                                        33,719
<OTHER-SE>                                         615
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,995
<SALES>                                         14,068
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,068
<CGS>                                            5,891
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,876
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 212
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,980
<INCOME-TAX>                                        67
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,913
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,913
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
Request for Information Vidutube Productions, Inc (FAA-2015-3837) 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Howe: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−3837). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your

petition.

Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 9:23 AM 

To: vidutubecom@gmail.com

z Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closedset filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date 

listed below.

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

information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary 

information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov 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 January 4, 2016.

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.

FAA Office of Rulemaking
39569.

#### TIFT COUNTY v. SMITH et al.

Decided June 25, 1963.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The judgment of this court, *Tift County v. Smith,*107 Ga. App. 140 (129 SE2d 172), affirming the judgment of the superior court overruling the defendant’s general and special demurrers to the plaintiff’s petition having been reversed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in *Tift County v. Smith,*219 Ga. 69 (131 SE2d 527), in so far as the plaintiff’s petition sought to recover damages arising from the creation of the cul-de-sac, the judgment of this court affirming the judgment of the trial court is vacated and the judgment of the trial court is reversed to the extent that such judgment permitted a recovery for the creation of the cul-de-sac. Otherwise the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with the prior opinion of this court.

*Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part. All the Judges concur.*

*95
      *Eugene Cook, Attorney General, Carter Goode, Paul Miller, Assistant Attorneys General, Maxwell Hines,*for plaintiff in error.

*Robert R. Forrester, Seymour S. Owens,*contra.
FAA Home
Airports
Resources
Series 150 Advisory Circulars (ACs) for Airport Projects

# AC 00-63 - Use of Cockpit Displays of Digital Weather and Operational Information (Cancelled)

- ShareShare
- 

- Facebook					Share on Facebook
- Twitter					Tweet on Twitter

## Document Information

- Number
- 00-63
- Title
- Use of Cockpit Displays of Digital Weather and Operational Information
- Date cancelled
- 2014-04-04
- Cancellation notes
- AC 00-63A
- Date issued
- 2004-09-24
- Office of Primary Responsibility
- AFS-410
- Description
-  	This Advisory Circular provides guidance to aircraft flight crewmembers and other airmen for the use of Flight Information Services Data Link (FISDL) systems 
- Content
-    -  AC 00-63.pdf  (PDF) 

## View All

      - Current Series 150 ACs
      - Cancelled Series 150 ACs
      - Draft Series 150 ACs
      - Advisory Circulars

## Export All

      - Current Series 150 ACs  (CSV)
      - Cancelled Series 150 ACs  (CSV)

## Top Requests

      - AC 150/5300-13B, Airport Design
      - AC 150/5320-6G, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation
      - AC 150/5370-10H, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports
      - AC 150/5340-1M, Standards for Airport Markings
      - AC 150/5340-30J, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids
      - AC 150/5390-2C, Heliport Design
§ 501.734 Introducing prior sworn statements of witnesses into the record. ( a ) At a hearing, any person wishing to introduce a prior, sworn statement of a witness who is not a party to the proceeding, that is otherwise admissible in the proceeding, may make a motion setting forth the reasons therefor. If only part of a statement is offered in evidence, the Administrative Law Judge may require that all relevant portions of the statement be introduced. If all of a statement is offered in evidence, the Administrative Law Judge may require that portions not relevant to the proceeding be excluded. A motion to introduce a prior sworn statement may be granted if: ( 1 ) The witness is dead;
( 2 ) The witness is out of the United States, unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the prior sworn statement;
( 3 ) The witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, imprisonment or other disability;
( 4 ) The party offering the prior sworn statement has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or,
( 5 ) In the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, it would be desirable, in the interests of justice, to allow the prior sworn statement to be used. In making this determination, due regard shall be given to the presumption that witnesses will testify orally in an open hearing. If the parties have stipulated to accept a prior sworn statement in lieu of live testimony, consideration shall also be given to the convenience of the parties in avoiding unnecessary expense.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50872

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO AGUIRRE-JOYA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-97-CR-1019-ALL-H

- - - - - - - - - -

May 20, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court-appointed attorney for Pedro Aguirre-Joya

(“Aguirre”) has filed a motion to withdraw from representation of

Aguirre and a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Aguirre has filed no response to his attorney’s

motion and brief. Our independent review of the brief and the

record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, Aguirre’s

court-appointed attorney’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED; the

attorney is excused from further responsibilities herein and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
www.gpo.gov

### §1506. Educational assistance and training

#### (a) Use of fund

The Secretary of Labor shall provide for grants to States to provide educational assistance and training for United States workers. The Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Education in making grants under this section.

#### (b) Allocation of funds

Within the purposes described in subsection (a) of this section, funds in the account used under this section shall be allocated among the States based on a formula, established jointly by the Secretaries of Labor and Education, that takes into consideration—

(1) the location of foreign workers admitted into the United States,

(2) the location of individuals in the United States requiring and desiring the educational assistance and training for which the funds can be applied, and

(3) the location of unemployed and underemployed United States workers.

#### (c) Disbursement to States

(1) Within the purposes and allocations established under this section, disbursements shall be made to the States, in accordance with grant applications submitted to and approved jointly by the Secretaries of Labor and Education, to be applied in a manner consistent with the guidelines established by such Secretaries in consultation with the States. In applying such grants, the States shall consider providing funding to joint labor-management trust funds and other such non-profit organizations which have demonstrated capability and experience in directly training and educating workers.

(2) Not more than 5 percent of the funds disbursed to any State under this section may be used for administrative expenses.

#### (d) Limitation on Federal overhead

The Secretaries shall provide that not more than 2 percent of the amount of funds disbursed to States under this section may be used by the Federal Government in the administration of this section.

#### (e) Annual report

The Secretary of Labor shall report annually to the Congress on the grants to States provided under this section.

#### (f) “State” defined

In this section, the term “State” has the meaning given such term in section 1101(a)(36) of title 8.

(Pub. L. 101–649, title VIII, §801, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5087.)

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, and not as part of the Job Training Partnership Act which comprises this chapter.