alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Docket No. FAA**- 2011**  **- 1324** 

**Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted **Date** Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  5/12 /11 **Regional Airline Association Connie**  **Arn old**  5/12/11

**Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman**  5/12/11 **ATA Joe White**  5/12/11
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Reginald WILSON.

No. 80-K-2461.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 21, 1980.

In re Reginald Wilson, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and a stay order. Parish of Orleans. No. 278-598.

Denied. Stay order recalled.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.
**GAO-09-130R**                      Published: Oct 20, 2008. Publicly Released: Oct 20, 2008.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

This letter responds to Congress' September 26, 2008, request that GAO address questions submitted for the record by Members of the Committee related to the September 11, 2008, hearing entitled The Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues.

## Full Report

Full Report (15 pages)

Accessible Text 

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Transportation

AviationAviation securityCommercial aviationInteragency relationsProgram evaluationProgram managementSchedule slippagesStrategic planningTransportation industryTransportation planningCost awarenessCost estimates
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     In  connection  with the filing by Wincroft,  Inc.  (the  "Company") of the
Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  September 30, 2004 (the
"Report"), I, Danny Wettreich,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
               and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          2.   The information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all
               material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
               operation of the Company.







                                               /s/ Danny Wettreich
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Danny Wettreich
                                               Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  November 5, 2004
#### Herschel McKINZIE, Jr., a minor by and through his parents and next friends, Herschel McKinzie, Sr. and Marilyn McKinzie and Herschel McKinzie, Sr. and Marilyn McKinzie, individually, Appellants, v. HOLLYWOOD, INC., Appellee.

No. 80-2128.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 6, 1981.

Rehearing Denied May 27, 1981.

Stephen G. Fischer of Fox *&*Fischer, P. A., Miami, for appellants.

Richard A. Sherman of Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, Tutan, O’Hara & McCoy, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This interlocutory appeal is from an order setting aside a default entered by the clerk after appellant failed to timely respond to appellants’ complaint. The order may not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. *1196*Leibman v. Sportatorium, Inc.,*374 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).

Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.
#### § 561.503 Exclusion from licenses.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control reserves the right to exclude any person, property, or transaction from the operation of any license or from the privileges conferred by any license. The Office of Foreign Assets Control also reserves the right to restrict the applicability of any license to particular persons, property, transactions, or classes thereof. Such actions are binding upon actual or constructive notice of the exclusions or restrictions.
#### § 587.305 Government of the Russian Federation.

The term *Government of the Russian Federation* means the Government of the Russian Federation, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, and any person owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of the Russian Federation.
HomeUnited Kingdom

# United Kingdom

492 items

        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (13-1108) – Agreement for the Sharing of Visa, Immigration, and Nationality Information	  November 8, 2013 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (13-930) – Agreement Concerning the Use of Wideawake Airfield on Ascension Island by Civil Aircraft Not Engaged in Scheduled International Air Services	  September 30, 2013 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (12-413) – Treaty Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation	  April 13, 2012 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (10-201.49) – Instrument Amending the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters	  February 1, 2010 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (10-201.23) – Instrument Amending the Treaty on Extradition	  February 1, 2010 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (09-925) – Memorandum of Understanding for the Loan of Orion High Power Microwave (HPM) Test System	  September 25, 2009 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (09-312) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Cooperation on Future Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation Projects for the Integrated Soldier Capability	  March 12, 2009 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (08-919.1) – Memorandum of Understanding for the Loan of Electromagnetic Launcher Equipment	  September 19, 2008 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (08-716) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Cooperative Outboard Logistics Update (COBLU) In-Service and Life Cycle Support (ILCS)	  July 16, 2008 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (08-312) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety Matters	  March 13, 2008 

previous page1…4344454647…50next page

Back to Top
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSÉ BEZAREZ,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 316, 2020

§

§ Court Below: Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. I.D. No. 0703000796 (N)

§ 

§

§

Submitted: September 30, 2020

Decided: October 1, 2020

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,

it appears to the Court that:

(1) On September 17, 2020, the appellant, José Bezarez, filed a notice of 

appeal from an August 7, 2020 Superior Court order denying his second motion for 

postconviction relief. Under Supreme Court Rules 6 and 11, a timely notice of 

appeal should have been filed on or before September 8, 2020.

(2) On September 18, 2020, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice 

directing Bezarez to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely 

filed. In response to the notice to show cause, Bezarez states that, during the time 

for taking a timely appeal, he was suffering from serious mental health issues and 
2

the death of his long-time girlfriend, which delayed his efforts to file the notice of 

appeal. It also appears that Bezarez delivered his notice of appeal to prison personnel

for mailing by September 3, 2020.

(3) This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal when the notice of 

appeal is not timely filed, unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file 

a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.1 A notice of 

appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable time period to be 

effective.2 Unfortunately for Bezarez, prison personnel are not court-related 

personnel, and Delaware has not adopted a rule similar to the federal prison mailbox 

rule, which deems a notice of appeal as filed at the time it is delivered to prison 

authorities for mailing.3 

(4) Bezarez does not claim, and the record does not show, that the failure 

to file a timely appeal in this case is attributable to court-related personnel. 

Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.4

 

1 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).

2 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a).

3

Schafferman v. State, 2016 WL 5929953 (Del. Oct. 11, 2016).

4

See Pickle v. State, 2018 WL 559096 (Del. Jan. 24, 2018) (dismissing untimely appeal where the 

appellant argued that his appeal “was late due to the holidays and weather conditions, staffing 

shortages at the prison, and his learning disabilities and mental health issues”).
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 

that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Karen L. Valihura

Justice
697 A.2d 983

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. John C. JOHNSON, III, Respondent.

No. 341, Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 13, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 1997, there having been filed with this Court by John C. Johnson, III, his verified Statement of Resignation dated 'May 9, 1997, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of John C. Johnson, III, be and it is hereby accepted and he is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      24,425,037
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,343,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                   235,278
<INVENTORY>                                  4,376,321
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,283,128
<PP&E>                                      20,150,500
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,182,536
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,813,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,854,433
<BONDS>                                      1,154,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       388,255
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,925,677
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,813,482
<SALES>                                     49,134,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            49,134,074
<CGS>                                       27,494,242
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,332,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               344,110
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                18,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             344,110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,263,415
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,816,184
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,543,610
<DISCONTINUED>                               5,886,822
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (343,212)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3021 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3021

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To guarantee the continuing full investment of Social Security and 
        other Federal funds in obligations of the United States.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3021

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To guarantee the continuing full investment of Social Security and 
        other Federal funds in obligations of the United States.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) In General.--In addition to any other authority provided by 
law, the Secretary of the Treasury may issue to each Federal fund 
obligations of the United States under chapter 31 of title 31, United 
States Code, before March 30, 1996, in an amount not to exceed the sum 
of--
            (1) the amounts deposited in such fund on or after the 
        earlier of--
                    (A) the date on which such Secretary would not 
                otherwise be able to issue such obligations to such 
                fund, or
                    (B) March 15, 1996,
        and before March 30, 1996, and
            (2) the face amount of obligations held by such fund which 
        mature during such period.
    (b) Obligations Exempt From Public Debt Limit.--
            (1) In general.--Obligations issued under subsection (a) 
        shall not be taken into account in applying the limitation in 
        section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code.
            (2) Termination of exemption.--Paragraph (1) shall cease to 
        apply on the earlier of--
                    (A) the date of the enactment of the first increase 
                in the limitation in section 3101(b) of title 31, 
                United States Code, after the date of the enactment of 
                this Act, or
                    (B) March 30, 1996.
    (c) Federal Fund.--For purposes of this section, the term ``Federal 
fund'' means any Federal trust fund or Government account established 
pursuant to Federal law to which the Secretary of the Treasury has 
issued or is expressly authorized by law directly to issue obligations 
under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, in respect of public 
money, money otherwise required to be deposited in the Treasury, or 
amounts appropriated.
    (d) Extension of Existing Authority.--Subparagraph (B) of section 
1(c)(2) of Public Law 104-103 is amended by striking ``March 15, 1996'' 
and inserting ``March 30, 1996''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 7, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Samuel SHERADSKY, Appellant, v. Edward N. MOORE, Stephen F. Kessler, Leon A. Roth and Miriam Beckerman, Appellees.

No. 80-241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 21, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 24, 1980.

Samuel Sheradsky, Miami, in pro. per.

Simon, Schindler & Tripp and Tobias Simon, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

*1207PER CURIAM.

The parties are former law partners who, upon the dissolution of their partnership, undertook to divide the responsibility for closing out then pending cases and collecting fees therefrom. The only agreement between them was a partnership agreement which called for each of the partners to receive a certain percentage of the partnership’s net income. The trial court found that, in addition to a partner being entitled to receive his or her percentage of all fees collected on pre-dissolution cases, the “collecting” partner was entitled to an additional twenty per cent of the fees collected by such partner as the overhead expenses attributable to his working on the case and collecting the fee. Both sides agree that the trial court was wrong. Sheradsky, on his appeal, claims he was entitled not to a mere twenty per cent, but to 41.12 per cent off the top of the fees collected by him, that being the historical overhead expense of the former firm. Moore and the remaining partners, on their cross-appeal, claim that neither Sheradsky nor they were entitled to any additional amount for their closing out and collecting efforts. We agree with the appellees.

The final judgment under review is reversed upon our holding that (1) a law partner in dissolution owes a duty to his former firm to conclude the firm’s business pending at time of dissolution and is not entitled to extra compensation for this activity in the absence of a specific agreement among the partners which provides therefor, *Welsh v. Carroll,*378 So.2d 1255 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); *Kreutzer v. Wallace,*342 So.2d 981 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); *Frates v. Nichols,*167 So.2d 77 (Fla.3d DCA 1964); and (2) in this context, overhead expenses are extra compensation.

Finding no error in the trial court’s order reserving ruling on Sheradsky’s motion to tax costs, we affirm that order. *Roberts v. Askew,*260 So.2d 492 (Fla.1972). The final judgment of the trial court is reversed with directions to enter judgment in favor of the appellees in accordance with this opinion.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
In-Person Attendees: The External Power Supply Test Procedures NOPR Meeting Meeting Date: Friday, November 21, 2014 Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Albert, Larry Sr. Technical Manager Product Safety and Compliance Black & Decker 701 E. Joppa Road TW050 Towson MD 21286 Boesenberg, Alex Manager, Regulatory Affairs National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900 Rosslyn VA 22209 Brookman, Douglas Facilitator Public Solutions, Inc. 108 Newburg Avenue Baltimore MD 21228 Callahan, Susan L. Manager, Energy Relations OSRAM SYLVANIA 100 Endicott Street Danvers MA 01923 Cook, Keith R. Vice President Technology Policy& Standards Lighting Philips Electronics North America 1050 K Street NW Suite 900 WashingtonDC 20001 Gopal, Sriram Policy Analyst Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 402 WashingtonDC 20036 Hakkarainen, S. PekkaVice President Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. 7200 Suter Road CoopersburgPA 18036 Hodges, John A. Attorney at Law Wiley Rein 1776 K Street, NW WashingtonDC 20006 Holstein, Chris Vice President of Marketing Panasonic 26 Century Blvd, Suite 500Nashville TN 37214-3683 Logan, Erica Director, Environment and Sustainability Information Technology Industry Council 1101 K Street NW, Suite 610 WashingtonDC 20005 Moyer, Dan N/A Consumerx Electronics Association1919 S. Eads St Arlington VA 22202 Protopappas, Peter N/A Navigant Consultant Inc. 1801 K Street NW, Suite 500 WashingtonDC 20006-1301 Ringeisen, Blake N/A Lawrence Berkeley National Labortory (LBNL) 1 Cyclon Rd Berkeley CA N/A Sheikh, Shahid A. Director, Global Energy Regulations Intel Corporation MS: JF3-246, 2111 NE 25th Ave. Hillsboro OR 97124 Skahan, Chris N/A Navigant Consultant, Inc. 2722 Merrilee Drive N/A N/A N/A
HomePhilippines

# Philippines

195 items

        -    TIAS  		Philippines (13018) – Agreement for Cooperation in the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program	  January 14, 1999 
        -    TIAS  		Philippines (96-1122.1) – Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters	  November 22, 1996 
        -    TIAS  		Philippines (96-1122) – Treaty on Extradition	  November 22, 1996 
        -    TIAS  		Philippines (93-406) – Agreement concerning Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights	  April 6, 1993 
        -    TIAS  		Philippines (89-1109) – Understanding Concerning Principles and Procedures for the Expansion of Trade and Investment	  November 9, 1989 

previous page1…181920

Back to Top
#### RAY GEOPHYSICAL DIVISION OF MANDREL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al. v. Burnell O’QUIN and Wife, Gwendolyn O’Quin.

No. 50798.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 13, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1979.

Roberts & Easterling, M. M. Roberts, Hattiesburg; William Ben Regan, Magnolia, for appellant.

Roach, McMillan & Welch, John Gordon Roach, Jr., McComb, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; Russel D. Moore, Special Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and BOWLING, JJ.

AFFIRMED.