alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL

AND SCOT SPENCER

AIRLIFT GROUP, INC.

AND RICHARD BERNARD

Unauthorized Air Transportation,

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules

Enforcement Proceeding

STATUS REPORT

DOT-OST-1995-272

formerly Docket 49233

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and

settlement negotiations.

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents

and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-

17486.
2

There have been no further settlement discussions.

Date: February 28, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

~

Blane Workie

Acting Assistant General Counsel for

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

Vinh Q. Nguyen

Senior Trial Attorney

United States Department of Transportation

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Room 96-429

Washington, D.C. 20590

TEL: 202-366-9342

FAX: 202-366-7152
3

Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272

I hereby certify that on this 28th day of February, 2014, a true and correct copy of the

foregoing Status Report was seryed in the following manner to the following:

Original

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations, M-30

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140

1200.New Jersey Avenue, S.E ..

Washington, D.C. 20590

By First Class Mail

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder

Chief Administrative Law Judge

Office of Hearings, M-20

U.S. Department of Transportation

Washington, D.C. 20590

TEL: (202) 366-2142

FAX: (202) 366-7536

By First Class Mail

Scot Spencer

SBD Aircraft Services

255 S Leland Norton Way

Sam Bernardino, CA 92408

Scot Spencer

22604 Esplanada Circle

Boca Raton, Florida 33433
No. 76-1270.

#### New York *v.*Luis J.

Ct. App. N. Y. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 3, 2015

d0126 

# Order

Clerk February 3, 2015

149389(88)(89)

MICHELLE R. BUTTON, f/k/a MICHELLE R.

BROWN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149389

COA: 306724

Osceola CC: 10

- 012170

- NI

TIM BILLS TRUCKING, INC. and MICHAEL

DWAYNE TYLER,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 23,

2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously. The motion to stay execution of judgment is DENIED.
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 357
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 357 appear at 70 FR 57431, Sept. 30, 2005.

§ 357.23 Judicial proceedings—sovereign immunity. ( a ) *Department and Federal Reserve Banks not proper parties.* The Department and the Federal Reserve Banks are not proper defendants in a judicial proceeding involving competing claims to a security held in Legacy Treasury Direct ® nor are they subject to any injunction or restraining order issued with respect to a security. The Department will not recognize a notice of a pending or contemplated judicial or administrative proceeding affecting a security in Legacy Treasury Direct.
( b ) *Orders* — ( 1 ) *Ownership rights.* The Department will recognize a final order entered by a court that affects ownership rights in a security in Legacy Treasury Direct if: ( i ) The order is consistent with the provisions of this subpart and the terms and conditions of the security; and
( ii ) The Department has received evidence of the order, as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
( 2 ) *Transaction request.* The Department will honor a transaction request submitted by a person appointed by a court and having authority under an order of a court to dispose of the security or payment with respect thereto if: ( i ) The ordered disposition of the security or payments with respect thereto is consistent with the provisions of this subpart and the terms and conditions of the security; and
( ii ) The Department has received evidence of the appointment and order, as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Evidence required.* Before the Department will recognize an order or determination entered by a court, the Department must have received a certified copy of the judgment, decree, or order and any additional documents deemed necessary by the Department. A certificate from the clerk of the court, bearing the seal of the court, must also be submitted stating that the judgment, decree, or order is still in full force and has not been stayed or appealed, and that the time for filing an appeal has passed. Before the Department will honor a transaction request submitted by a person appointed by a court, the Department must receive a certified copy of the order making the appointment and describing specifically the person's authority, and any additional documents deemed necessary by the Department.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1535-0068)
40647.

#### RIDER v. JARRARD et al.

Pannell, Judge.

1. While contributory negligence is an affirmative defense and generally must be pleaded, *Watts v. Colonial Stages Co.,*45 Ga. App. 115, 119 (2) (163 SE 523), *Woolworth Co. v. Wood,*32 Ga. App. 575 (2) (124 SE 110), *Fuller v. Louis Steyerman & Sons, Inc.,*46 Ga. App. 830 (2) (169 SE 508); yet, where a plaintiff alleges she is without fault and attributes her injuries solely to the defendant’s negligence and the answer denies this allegation, this raises the issue as to whether plaintiff was guilty of lack of such ordinary care for her own safety as would bar her recovery. *Davies v. West Lumber Co.,*32 Ga. App. 460, 462 (2b) (123 SE 757); *Wells v. Steinek,*49 Ga. App. 482 (1), 483 (176 SE 42). The issue may also be raised by the evidence, where admitted without objection, even though not authorized by the pleadings. *Kelly v. Locke,*186 Ga. 620, 630 (198 SE 754). It follows, *646therefore, that where in a negligence action by a guest against the host driver and a third party arising out of injuries resulting from a collision between automobiles driven by the host and the third party, the petition affirmatively alleged that plaintiff “was without fault but that the proximate cause of her injuries was the defendant’s negligence,” which allegation was expressly denied by the answer, and the evidence authorized a finding that plaintiff “several hours before the collision knew the host driver was drinking, that the collision occurred because the host driver was driving from one side of the road to another at night without lights,” that immediately after the collision the host driver “wobbled around” and smelled strongly of whiskey, and so did plaintiff, it was not error for the trial judge to charge the jury relative to the question of whether the plaintiff was guilty of such lack of ordinary care for her own safety as would bar her recovery. The charges complained of were not erroneous.

Decided April 29, 1964.

*John N. Crudup,*for plaintiff in error.

*Kenyon, Kenyon & Gunter, E. D. Kenyon,*contra.

2. Nor were said charges erroneous and not sound as abstract principles of law.

3. The trial judge did not err in overruling plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
H. R. 2630

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project

in the State of Illinois.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION

DEADLINE FOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period specified

in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would

otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Project No. 3246, the Commission shall, at the request of the

licensee for the project, in accordance with the good faith, due

diligence, and public interest requirements of that section and the

Commission’s procedures under that section, extend until October

15, 1997, the time period during which the licensee is required

to commence construction of the project.

(b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall take effect on the

expiration of the extension, issued by the Commission under section

13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), of the period required

for commencement of construction of the project described in subsection (a).

(c) REINSTATMENT OF LICENSE.—The Commission is authorized

to reinstate the license for the project referred to in subsection

(a), effective as of the date of its expiration or termination.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
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 Nissan Auto Receivables 2017-A Owner Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and
 5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
  Date:  June 23, 2017
 By:/s/ Mark KaczynskiMark KaczynskiPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofNissan Motor Acceptance Corporation(senior officer in charge of theservicing function)
 9
#### § 549.407 Payments from blocked accounts to satisfy obligations prohibited.

Pursuant to § 549.201, no debits may be made to a blocked account to pay obligations to U.S. persons or other persons, except as authorized by or pursuant to this part.
#### H. HOFFMAN, Respondent, v. MAX STUDNA, Appellant.

Kansas City Court of Appeals,

March 6, 1911.

1. APPELLATE PRACTICE: Defective Abstract of Record. Where appellant undertook to correct, by interlineation, his defective abstract of. the record, without permission from the appellate court, and where the original abstract showed that appellant’s motion for a new trial was not filed within four days, and the purported bill of exceptions was not filed in time, there is nothing before the appellate court for review except the record proper, and there being no exceptions to the record, on respondent’s motion, the judgment will be affirmed, because of the insufficiency of the abstract.

2. -: Corrections by Interlienation. It is too late for a party to ask the indulgence of the court after he .has undertaken without authority to correct the defects of his abstract by interlineation.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit *'Court.*— Hon. *Herman Brumbach,*Judge.

. Affirmed.

TP. *B. Dicldnson*for appellant.

*Joseph*P. *Fontron*for respondent.

BROADDUS, P. J.

Respondent moves to affirm the judgment -in this case because of the insufficiency of the appellant’s abstract.

The abstract served on respondent recites that the' verdict was returned November 15, 1909, and the date of filing the motion for a new triai November 22, 1909; that appellant was granted until on or before the 3d day of the January terra, 1910, to file his bill of exceptions; and that it' was filed the 31st day of January.

*524The appellant it seems after his attention was called to the fact by respondent that his abstract was defective, undertook to correct it by interlineation without permission from this court and now asks to consider it as if made before the copy was served on respondent.

The appellant’s original abstract before he mutilated it by the said interlineations shows that the action of the court was right in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial because it was not filed within four days from the rendition thereof; and as the purported bill of exceptions was not filed within the time allowed by the court, there is nothing before us for review except the record proper to which no exceptions are taken, it follows that the judgment should be affirmed. Sometimes in the furtherance of justice we allow amendments to be made to abstracts when permission is asked for that purpose, but we do not think this is an instance to call for the exercise of any liberality in that respect. It is too late for a party to ask the indulgence of the court after, he has without authority undertaken to correct the defects of his abstract by interlineation.

The cause is affirmed.

All concur.
WOL-OES9L SON

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

aa War
bo

wr fliia

TM r T T r 1 "T ' T

presen
—

ADDIE VEIN
cpetenoe avTana —1 Gamana
—— a ars te
F foe tele
a

’ TE T jibes be 5 mal r T T 4 T T u r a r T T T T T T T T T T T ah
@
|
e| | =)
ae Ai i
= ps"
7j
_io
i j
ie - i
cs on
SHOSTAROICR
|
°
eeu =
f 7
a 3
° 4
ei
ine é 1
| manunarasrens i
Stamount 4
| *
s
| 4
|
im |
sascut
|
|
: |
1]
\ 4
|
= i 4
| in i isianabl le J, J Dac sal n
wr — to a" uA ara ES ; : : : “a
eens =
insignia oe waco oats ba anor NOS 16530-10M
see et nt * Saab cap
Toy reatas agente fuld ws aed
eee I x
{et Te ie mr solvent hy NOS SEAMAP SERIES ;
Preece cestntrteetndd NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN |
SRN Torben Spt 8 n= ix wae so f
Foreteheneet ities NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSENERIC ADMINISTRATION a L
ZSeeeeears “_—_ 1
patil eset ge ee
mom

MERCATOR PROJECTION
Scale 1°=8 enthes (10 16cm
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Larry G. Gerdes, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Transcend Services, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2004; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

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

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: July 29, 2004
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Assistant Secretary Stewart Travels to Philippines, Singapore, and Indonesia

# 									Assistant Secretary Stewart Travels to Philippines, Singapore, and Indonesia							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

May 26, 2023

From May 30 – June 6, 2023, Assistant Secretary for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance Mallory Stewart will travel to the Philippines, Singapore, and Indonesia.

In Manila, Philippines, she will participate in bilateral talks and briefings on arms control and risk reduction with government officials.

In Singapore, A/S Stewart will serve as a Delegate to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Shangri-La Dialogue: 20th Asia Security Summit.  The conference is Asia’s premiere defense meeting for officials to discuss and debate the region’s most pressing security challenges and engage in bilateral meetings.

In Jakarta, Indonesia, A/S Stewart will meet with government officials about regional and international security and arms control issues.

Tags

Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and StabilityBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsIndonesiaOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelPhilippinesSingapore

Back to Top
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.                  

###### Office of the United States Trade Representative

# AGENCY:

Office of the United States Trade Representative.

# ACTION:

Notice of a Partially Opened Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Small and Minority Business (ITAC-11) will hold a meeting on Monday, September 14, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The meeting will be closed to the public from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., and opened to the public from 12 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

# DATES:

The meeting is scheduled for September 14, 2009, unless otherwise notified.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, Training Room A, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura Hellstern, DFO for ITAC-11 at (202) 482-3222, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

During the opened portion of the meeting the following agenda items will be considered.
    - Congressional SME Initiative.
    - Foreign Direct Investment.
    - World Bank Opportunities for Small and Minority Business.
    - Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee Updates—ITA, SBA, OPIC, Exim Bank.
    - Export Controls.

Lisa A. Garcia,

Acting Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison.

[FR Doc. E9-20118 Filed 8-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190-W9-P
§ 525.512 Transactions related to the provision of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components, or software updates for personal, non-commercial use. ( a ) All transactions prohibited by this part that are related to the provision, directly or indirectly, of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components for medical devices, or software updates for medical devices to an individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this part are authorized, provided the items are in quantities consistent with personal, non-commercial use.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, *agricultural commodities, medicine,* and *medical devices* are defined as follows: ( 1 ) *Agricultural commodities.* For the purposes of this section, *agricultural commodities* are: ( i ) Products that fall within the term “agricultural commodity” as defined in section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602); and
( ii ) That are intended for ultimate use as: ( A ) Food for humans (including raw, processed, and packaged foods; live animals; vitamins and minerals; food additives or supplements; and bottled drinking water) or animals (including animal feeds);
( B ) Seeds for food crops;
( C ) Fertilizers or organic fertilizers; or
( D ) Reproductive materials (such as live animals, fertilized eggs, embryos, and semen) for the production of food animals.
( 2 ) *Medicine.* For the purposes of this section, *medicine* is an item that falls within the definition of the term “drug” in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
( 3 ) *Medical devices.* For the purposes of this section, a *medical device* is an item that falls within the definition of “device” in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
Note 1 to § 525.512 .
This section does not relieve any person authorized thereunder from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations.
[89 FR 67557, Aug. 21, 2024]