alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC
WALKERAG SUPPLY, LLC, et al Complainant,
v. WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY, WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Respondent. FAA Docket No. 16-14-08

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME
This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based onthe abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practicefor Federally-Assisted AirportEnforcementProceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuantto 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extendedto March 21,2016. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

Randall S. Fiertz Director, Airport Compliance and Management Analysis DateCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that onNovember

# l~2015, I caused to be placed 

### inthe United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe foregoing document addressed to: Agent for Complainants: Mr. William Foster Better Airports, LLC 4504 North Versailles Avenue Dallas, Texas 75205
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Larry S. Kaplan Mr. Keith Yamaguchi Kaplan, Massamillo & Andrews, LLC 200 West Madison Street 16th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60606 Copies to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAAAirport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100 FAA Central Region, ACE-600



### i I 

### ' 

### ' 

# L .1a]j

# i'a~oberfs ! 

### j

# ·~ O'ffi.ce ofAirport Cbmpliance and Management Analysis
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3163 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3163

 To provide that Oregon may not tax compensation paid to a resident of 
      Washington for services as a Federal employee at a Federal 
         hydroelectric facility located on the Columbia River.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 1996

 Mr. Hastings of Washington (for himself and Mrs. Smith of Washington) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that Oregon may not tax compensation paid to a resident of 
      Washington for services as a Federal employee at a Federal 
         hydroelectric facility located on the Columbia River.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF STATE AUTHORITY TO TAX COMPENSATION PAID TO 
              CERTAIN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

    (a) In General.--Section 111 of title 4, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a) General Rule.--'' before ``The 
        United States'' the first place it appears, and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(b) Treatment of Certain Federal Employees Employed At Federal 
Hydroelectric Facilities Located on the Columbia River.--Pay or 
compensation paid by the United States for personal services as an 
employee of the United States at a hydroelectric facility--
            ``(1) which is owned by the United States,
            ``(2) which is located on the Columbia River, and
            ``(3) portions of which are within the States of Oregon and 
        Washington,
shall be subject to taxation by the State of Oregon or any political 
subdivision thereof only if such employee is a resident of such State 
or political subdivision.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to pay and compensation paid after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Home2022 Treaties and Agreements...Denmark (22-314) – Agreement Concerning Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave Radar

# 									Denmark (22-314) – Agreement Concerning Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave Radar							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

March 14, 2022

Defense:  Research and Development

Signed at Ballerup and Washington January 26 and March 14, 2022; entered into force March 14, 2022.
Download Agreement						 [7 MB]

Tags

DefenseDenmarkTreaties

Back to Top
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   EXHIBIT (11)


                             WALL STREET DELI, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                For the Year Ended
                                                  -------------------------------------------
                                                  June 28, 1997   June 29, 1996  July 1, 1995
                                                  -------------   -------------  ------------
<S>                                               <C>             <C>            <C>      
Shares:
   Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding                          3,265,151        3,407,874       3,388,559
   Effect of shares issuable under stock option
      and stock purchase plans as determined by
      the treasury stock method                       14,585          -0-              34,142
                                                  ----------      -----------    ------------
   Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding as adjusted               3,279,736        3,407,874       3,422,701
                                                  ==========      ===========    ============
Per common share computations:
   Net income (loss)                              $   62,822      $(2,547,706)   $   (921,011)
                                                  ==========      ===========    ============
   Per common share                               $      .02      $      (.72)   $       (.27)
                                                  ==========      ===========    ============
</TABLE>




                                      
                                      59
#### Robert P. SMITH, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-15325.

D.C. No. CV-93-5390-AWI/DLB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 22, 2001.

*461Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

. Because the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, Smith’s request for oral argument is denied. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Robert P. Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider-summary judgment for defendant in Smith’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to the courts because the state prison system’s indigence policy requires Smith to choose between buying necessary hygiene supplies and buying legal supplies. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

We lack jurisdiction to address Smith’s contentions regarding the merits of the district court’s original entry of judgment because Smith both failed to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the district court’s order granting summary judgment for defendant and failed to file a timely post-judgment tolling motion. Accordingly, we review only the district court’s order denying Smith’s motion to reconsider.

“An untimely motion for reconsideration is construed as a motion based on Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b).” *Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan,*954 F.2d 1441, 1463 n. 35 (9th Cir.1992). Denial of such a motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993).

Smith contends his failure to file an opposition to summary judgment was due to excusable neglect. He claims he relied on the court’s “information packet,” which stated that if defendant filed a motion, the clerk of court would send Smith “a schedule stating when your response will be due.” We conclude the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct the requisite equitable analysis to determine whether Smith’s failure to oppose summary judgment was due to excusable neglect. *See Bateman v. United States Postal Serv.,*231 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir.2000).

We also note that the district court’s summary judgment order rests in part on the canteen purchase slips presented by defendant that the court had previously “stricken” due to “numerous reliability problems.”

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order denying the motion for reconsideration and remand for the district court to determine excusable neglect and to consider its reliance on stricken evidence.

Smith’s “motion to correct omissions from the record,” filed March 20, 2000, is denied.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Kirby POOLE v. CRIMINAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS, Frank C. Blackburn, et al.

No. 65072.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1979.

In re Kirby Poole, applying for writ of mandamus.- Orleans Parish. Number unknown.

Writ denied.
#### § 91.14 Penalties and other law.

Whoever shall be found guilty of violating any of the regulations in this part while on the property is subject to a fine of not more than $50, or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both (40 U.S.C. 318c). Nothing contained in the regulations in this part shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations or those of any State or municipality applicable to the property referred to in § 91.2 and governed by the regulations in this part.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTIONS 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Repro-Med Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending February 28, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I,
Andrew I. Sealfon, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

Date: June 5, 2007

/s/ Andrew I. Sealfon
---------------------
Andrew I. Sealfon
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
§ 405.415 Requirements of the private contract. A private contract under this subpart must: ( a ) Be in writing and in print sufficiently large to ensure that the beneficiary is able to read the contract.
( b ) Clearly state whether the physician or practitioner is excluded from Medicare under sections 1128, 1156, or 1892 or any other section of the Social Security Act.
( c ) State that the beneficiary or his or her legal representative accepts full responsibility for payment of the physician's or practitioner's charge for all services furnished by the physician or practitioner.
( d ) State that the beneficiary or his or her legal representative understands that Medicare limits do not apply to what the physician or practitioner may charge for items or services furnished by the physician or practitioner.
( e ) State that the beneficiary or his or her legal representative agrees not to submit a claim to Medicare or to ask the physician or practitioner to submit a claim to Medicare.
( f ) State that the beneficiary or his or her legal representative understands that Medicare payment will not be made for any items or services furnished by the physician or practitioner that would have otherwise been covered by Medicare if there was no private contract and a proper Medicare claim had been submitted.
( g ) State that the beneficiary or his or her legal representative enters into this contract with the knowledge that he or she has the right to obtain Medicare-covered items and services from physicians and practitioners who have not opted-out of Medicare, and that the beneficiary is not compelled to enter into private contracts that apply to other Medicare-covered services furnished by other physicians or practitioners who have not opted-out.
( h ) State the expected or known effective date and the expected or known expiration date of the current 2-year opt-out period.
( i ) State that the beneficiary or his or her legal representative understands that Medigap plans do not, and that other supplemental plans may elect not to, make payments for items and services not paid for by Medicare.
( j ) Be signed by the beneficiary or his or her legal representative and by the physician or practitioner.
( k ) Not be entered into by the beneficiary or by the beneficiary's legal representative during a time when the beneficiary requires emergency care services or urgent care services. (However, a physician or practitioner may furnish emergency or urgent care services to a Medicare beneficiary in accordance with § 405.440.)
( l ) Be provided (a photocopy is permissible) to the beneficiary or to his or her legal representative before items or services are furnished to the beneficiary under the terms of the contract.
( m ) Be retained (original signatures of both parties required) by the physician or practitioner for the duration of the current 2-year opt-out period.
( n ) Be made available to CMS upon request.
( o ) Be entered into for each 2-year opt-out period.
[63 FR 58901, Nov. 2, 1998, as amended at 80 FR 71370, Nov. 16, 2015]
```

                                                                                                                           EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  Cognigen  Networks,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Thomas S. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.ss.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) or 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 operations of the Company.

/s/  Thomas S. Smith
--------------------------------------------
Thomas S. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer
Dated: February 19, 2004
```
#### Gloria SILVERSTEIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-707.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 28, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Peter de Manió, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT
32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL

EXECUTIVE
OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT BY

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with this Quarterly
Report of Agricon Global Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert K Bench, President of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) or 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Date: | November 8, 2012 |  | By: | /s/
    Robert K Bench        | 
|----- | ---------------- |  | --- | ----------------------------- | 
|      |                  |  |     | Robert K Bench                | 
|      |                  |  |     | President                     | 
|      |                  |  |     | (Principal Executive Officer) | 
|      |                  |  |     |                               |
# C_2006018EN.01002201.xml

| 25.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/22

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3940 — Lufthansa/Eurowings)

(2006/C 18/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 22 December 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3940. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3940. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### Robert V. ETTARI, Appellant, v. June A. ETTARI, Appellee.

No. 80-319.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 17, 1981.

John L. Avery, Jr., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney & Se-arcy, P. A. and Edna L. Caruso, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

MOORE, BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
#### § 547.703 Penalty imposition.

If, after considering any written response to the Pre-Penalty Notice and any relevant facts, OFAC determines that there was a violation by the alleged violator named in the Pre-Penalty Notice and that a civil monetary penalty is appropriate, OFAC may issue a Penalty Notice to the violator containing a determination of the violation and the imposition of the monetary penalty. For additional details concerning issuance of a Penalty Notice, see appendix A to part 501 of this chapter. The issuance of the Penalty Notice shall constitute final agency action. The violator has the right to seek judicial review of that final agency action in federal district court.
# C_2006022EN.01002603.xml

| 28.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/26

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 2005 — Albert-Bousquet and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-130/05, T-160/05 and T-183/05) (1)

1

(2006/C 22/52)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.

1

---
#### § 589.316 Foreign financial institution.

The term *foreign financial institution* means any foreign entity that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent. It includes depository institutions, banks, savings banks, money services businesses, trust companies, insurance companies, securities brokers and dealers, futures and options brokers and dealers, forward contract and foreign exchange merchants, securities and commodities exchanges, clearing corporations, investment companies, employee benefit plans, dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels, and holding companies, affiliates, or subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. The term does not include the international financial institutions identified in 22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2), the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the North American Development Bank, or any other international financial institution so notified by OFAC.
HomeBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsRemarks & Releases...Decision No. 2 of the U.S.-Panama Environmental Affairs Council in Reference to the Working Procedures of the U.S.-Panama Secretariat for Environmental Enforcement Matters (English)

# 									Decision No. 2 of the U.S.-Panama Environmental Affairs Council in Reference to the Working Procedures of the U.S.-Panama Secretariat for Environmental Enforcement Matters (English)							

October 3, 2018

						Download PDF												[116 KB]

Tags

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs

Back to Top
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual report [electronicresource].**
 
2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc Number:ID 1.27:B 41/3/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000636643
 
September 12, 2019