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



## :2 L1 

### IO: 

## 2bcongress of the United States

Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief US Department of Transportation Essential Air Service Division 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. DeVany: llouse of Representatives

August 16,2012 Ul\l:\IITIEE (J'\ FlN:\:\( HL SFR\ 'ICES**h~tK\:X.·U:,** IJui**"''~'c** .\\.D**C~** 1\I.':.H Sn Y ( )PP•. >BTi**~\i** f"Y JOINT LCOI\0,\HC UJ\L\liTJTF

I am writing to you today 

### in support 

### of the request made by Mr. Rclbert G. Heck, Chairman of the Rhinelander-Oneida County Ait1)0rt Commission, to award the Essential Air Service (EAS) Contract for Rhinelander-Oneida County Aiq>mt (RHl) to SkyWcst Airlines.

In reviewing Mr. Heck's letter to you dated July 31, 2012, I agree that all carriers that made a proposal 

### for service do bling signi11cant contributions when proposing to serve the Rhinelander Market. 

### However, it is clear that 

### when taking SkyWest's proposal into account, the services 

### provided by SkyWcst'will best meet the needs of passengers at RHI, while at the saine tline achieve the mission of the EAS prot,rram in the most efficient manner 

### possible.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact my Outreach Director, Kevin Jenkins, at (715) 298-9344 or by e-mail at kevin.jenkinsav,mail.house.gov.

Once again, I am pfeased to support the request of RHI for the award of an EAS contrad to SkyW est Airlines.

SPD/kj Sincerely, 

# /e/--**~**

# .//;(,~-'" 

# ''**/)1f~** Sean I . )uffy...--

# ~ Member of Congress

\\**,\:-~** iV

... (., .P }\**,~.l.d:!(.l;** 1.\n.::. l!l'>:!,\\;:Hi!l lhH <.\**l)r;~\** l Bl riP!'"'' \X v-1**·~·,;~;, ~**  ;:-.:. nc**.~w~** I**~;~.f~Hr** l 1 J!**!/IJ.?.J.U~-55(~;;;** • l'\\ (}IJ.n}.:).:))VJ T• 1: t.·l"1;n;. I···H:::,;;',

.. ::;h-"·**t.~Sl h::n-~·-:r**  1 · •

.. h 1ff>**h~** •tt,l' ;t< •\**•)~,** \(1 )**ih~~H** l'H· ( "j·\J**')-;;~.** \ 1 J>d <II l \'-\.**,~-~-~1.') .1.~** **)'~'.")**
HomeKey Topics – Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and Stability...James Timbie Forum on Arms Control and Nonproliferation

# 									James Timbie Forum on Arms Control and Nonproliferation							

The Department of State’s James Timbie Forum on Arms Control and Nonproliferation is dedicated to fostering new voices and new ideas on nuclear policy. The Forum is named for James Timbie, a forty-year veteran of the Department of State and a key player in the formation or implementation of virtually every important arms control and nonproliferation effort that occurred during his tenure. Timbie was a model diplomat, scientist and public servant, and he continues to be a role model for all those who aspire to join or excel in the field.

The Timbie Forum hosts diverse, dynamic and sometimes provocative panels, speakers and presentations in the hopes of generating the kinds of ideas and leaders that will help reduce the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction and other unconventional weapons.

For inquiries, email: TimbieForum@state.gov.

Tags

Arms Control and NonproliferationBureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and Stability

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: October 30, 2014 D -73-14

___________________________________ In the Matter of SUR G. NOVEL, a Suspended Attorney. COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STANDARDS, Petitioner; SUR G. NOVEL, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4018339)

___________________________________ Calendar Date: August 25, 2014 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Stein, McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________ Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany (Jevon L. Garrett of counsel), for petitioner. Sur G. Novel, Bangkok, Thailand, respondent pro se.

__________ Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2002. He resides in Thailand. By decision dated June 27, 2013, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of six months (Matter of Novel, 107 AD3d 1377 [2013]). He now applies for reinstatement. Petitioner opposes the application. Because we conclude that respondent has not made the showing required by our rules for reinstatement (see Rules of App-2- D-73-14

Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.12 [b] [i]), we deny the application. We also deny respondent's request for a waiver of the requirement that an applicant for reinstatement must have taken and attained a passing score on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination subsequent to the entry of the suspension order (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.12 [b] [ii]). Lahtinen, J.P., Stein, McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that respondent's application for reinstatement is denied.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
###### Editorial Note on Part 457

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

#### § 457.1216 Continued services to enrollees.

The State must follow the requirements related to continued services to enrollees in accordance with the terms of § 438.62 of this chapter.
#### Nathan Lewis et al., Appellants, *v.*Cornelius Hosey, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of defendant dismissing the complaint of the plaintiffs, rendered in the Municipal Court, eighth district, borough of Manhattan.

The material facts appear in the opinion.

Rathan Lewis, for appellants.

Respondent not appearing on the appeal.

Freedman, P. J.

This is an action brought by the plaintiffs to recover the sum of $18 claimed by them to be due for rent of certain premises for the month of April, 1898.

The whole question involved seems to be a question of fact, upon which both parties gave testimony directly in conflict.

*790The plaintiffs claiming that the payment of rent should date from the 1st of each month, and the defendant claiming that the payment of rent was to- date from the 6th or 7th of each month.

It is undisputed that the defendant took possession of the premises on the 6th or 7th day of January, 1898, paying therefor the sum of $9, according to the agreement that one-half month’s rent-should only be charged for the first month. On the 7th day of February he paid $18, the monthly rental, and again on the 6th day of March. He vacated the premises on the 7th of April. These facts coupled with the testimony as to the contents of the receipts (which testimony was inadmissible if it had been properly objected to), created such a conflict of testimony that the judgment of the trial court should not be disturbed. As the respondent failed to appear, no costs should be awarded.

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, without costs.
§ 426.480 Withdrawing an appeal of an ALJ's decision. ( a ) *Withdrawal of an appeal of an ALJ's decision.* A party who filed an appeal of an ALJ's decision may withdraw the appeal before the Board issues a decision regarding the ALJ's decision.
( b ) *Process of withdrawing an appeal of an ALJ's decision.* To withdraw an appeal of an ALJ's decision, the party who filed the appeal must send a written notice announcing the intent to withdraw to the Board and to any other party.
( c ) *Actions the Board must take upon receiving a notice announcing the intent to withdraw an appeal of an ALJ's decision* — ( 1 ) *Appeals involving one aggrieved party, or initiated by CMS or a contractor.* If the Board receives a notice withdrawing an appeal of an ALJ's decision before the Board has issued its decision, the Board must issue a decision dismissing the appeal.
( 2 ) *Appeals involving joint complaints.* If the Board receives a notice withdrawing an appeal from an aggrieved party who is named in a joint appeal before the Board issues its decision, the Board must issue a decision dismissing only that aggrieved party from the appeal. The Board must continue its review of the ALJ's decision for the remaining aggrieved party or parties.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3057 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3057

To amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate the prohibitions on 
 the transmission of abortion related matters, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 1996

  Mrs. Schroeder (for herself, Mrs. Meyers of Kansas, Mr. Waxman, Mr. 
Stark, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Frank of 
Massachusetts, Ms. Norton, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Wilson, Ms. 
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Torkildsen, Mr. 
    Thompson, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Fazio of California, Mr. Olver, Mrs. 
Morella, Mr. Berman, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Zimmer, Mr. 
   Abercrombie, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Skaggs, Mr. 
     Boucher, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Meehan, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Yates, Mr. 
 Greenwood, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms. Brown of Florida, 
  Mr. Coleman, Ms. Rivers, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. Dellums, Mr. Filner, Mr. 
Bryant of Texas, Mr. Gejdenson, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Miller of California, 
Mr. Sanders,  and Mr. Watt of North Carolina) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate the prohibitions on 
 the transmission of abortion related matters, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Comstock Cleanup Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. IMPORTATION OR TRANSPORTATION OF CERTAIN ABORTION-RELATED 
              MATTERS.

    Section 1462 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking subparagraph (c) of the first undesignated paragraph.

SEC. 3. MAILING OF ABORTION-RELATED MATTERS.

    Section 1461 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``; and'' the first place it appears, and all that follows 
through ``Is declared'' and inserting ``is declared''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3437 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3437

  To amend the Small Business Act to exempt subcontracts for dredging 
 activities from local buy requirements under the business development 
            program authorized by section 8(a) of that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 1996

 Mr. Hoekstra introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Small Business Act to exempt subcontracts for dredging 
 activities from local buy requirements under the business development 
            program authorized by section 8(a) of that Act.

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

SECTION 1. SUBCONTRACTS FOR DREDGING.

    Section 8(a)(11) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(11)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``This paragraph shall 
not apply to subcontracts for dredging activities.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                        (11,201)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  127,387
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    180,946
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               297,132
<PP&E>                                          63,386
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 333,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          198,523
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,895
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,914
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   340,332
<SALES>                                        745,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               745,671
<CGS>                                          363,061
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  363,061
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               457,506
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,586
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (95,482)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (95,482)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.041)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.041)
        

</TABLE>
§ 423.1076 Request for Departmental Appeals Board review. ( a ) *Manner and time of filing.* ( 1 ) Any party that is dissatisfied with an ALJ's decision or dismissal of a hearing request, may file a written request for review by the Departmental Appeals Board.
( 2 ) The requesting party or its representative or other authorized official must file the request with the DAB within 60 calendar days from receipt of the notice of decision or dismissal, unless the Board, for good cause shown by the requesting party, extends the time for filing.
( b ) *Content of request for review.* A request for review of an ALJ decision or dismissal must specify the issues, the findings of fact or conclusions of law with which the party disagrees, and the basis for contending that the findings and conclusions are incorrect.
- Office Home
- Key Topics

HomeEntrepreneurship...Global Entrepreneurship Summits

# 									Global Entrepreneurship Summits							

GES aims to showcase inspiring entrepreneurs and investors from around the world creating new opportunities for investment, partnership, and collaboration; connect American entrepreneurs and investors with international counterparts to form lasting relationships; and highlight entrepreneurship as means to address some of the most intractable global challenges. The summit typically includes a wide range of workshops, panels, ignite talks, pitch competitions, mentoring, and networking sessions aimed to give participants tailored opportunities to gain skill and relationships that will help their ventures grow. There are also demonstration areas and experiential learning exhibitions to create opportunities for participants to connect with industry experts.

## 							Discover More						

### 											Previous GES Summits										

          -  																GES Archive (2017 & 2019)																 
          -  																GES Archive (Prior to 2017)																 

Back to Top
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 4 0 2 2 2 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. J U A N D A N I E L L I N G R A M , a l s o k n o w n a s 1 G , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 6 : 0 7

- C R

- 9 5

- 1 3

B e f o r e S M I T H , P R A D O , a n d H A Y N E S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e a t t o r n e y a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t J u a n D a n i e l l I n g r a m h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. I n g r a m h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w

o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s

e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 20 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-40222 Document: 00511085735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
#### Hilda Alma COUTURE, Appellant, v. John M. COUTURE, Appellee.

No. 74-666.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 4, 1975.

William John Mason, Miami, for appellant.

Warren Bishop, Ocala, Norman A. Sand, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is as a result of domestic litigation. The wife, in her amended complaint, sought to charge a special equity in certain properties of a corporation, which was not a party to the litigation. The trial judge, in his final judgment of dissolution of marriage, adjudicated she had no interest in the corporate property and also that she was not possessed of any corporate stock.

We find that these issues were not properly presented to the trial judge as the corporation was not a party to the litigation and, therefore, we affirm the final judgment except as it relates to Paragraph 7, where the court attempted to adjudicate the wife’s lack of interest in the corporate real and personal property. We strike this paragraph as surplusage. In Paragraph 9, the court purported to adjudicate the wife’s rights as a stockholder in the corporation, and we strike this paragraph from said final judgment because this was not an issue presented to the trial court.

In all other respects, the final judgment of dissolution of marriage is affirmed as modified.
#### Carlyn A. CASON et al. v. Wendell FORMBY et al. Carlyn A. CASON v. Wendell FORMBY et al.

No. 56548.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 11, 1975.

In re: Carlyn A. Cason, et al applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Bossier. 317 So.2d 654.

Writ denied. On the facts found, the judgment of the court of appeal is correct.

BOLIN, J., takes no part.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended December 2, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Metcalf, Senior Vice President of Administration, Chief Financial
Officer and Corporate Secretary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(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/ John Metcalf                               
|John Metcalf                                   
|Senior Vice President of Administration,       
|Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary
|Dated: January 4, 2007                         

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 0652 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 0 -NM - 045 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
#### § 800.237 Person.

The term *person* means any individual or entity.