alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 10.24 Payment of death claim on lost, destroyed or mutilated adjusted service certificate with bond.

If the veteran named in an adjusted service certificate, issued pursuant to the provisions of section 501 of the World War Adjusted Compensation Act, is deceased, and if, after receipt by the veteran, the adjusted service certificate was lost, destroyed, or so defaced as to impair its value and cannot be identified to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the person entitled to payment thereon will be required to furnish an indemnity bond in the manner and form prescribed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and for an amount equal to the face value of the certificate, with surety or sureties residents of the United States and satisfactory to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with condition to indemnify and save harmless the United States from any claim on account of such certificate, before payment will be made of the proceeds of the certificate and a duplicate adjusted service certificate will not be issued.
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

A •':""'• '"I ' 

Application of 

CRAIG AIR CENTER, INC. 

For authority to conduct scheduled passenger operations as a commuter air carrier under 49 

U.S.C.,41738 

poT-oyr-Zoio-ooo t 

MOTION OF CRAIG AIR CENTER, INC. 

TO WITHHOLD INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: 

October 23,2009 

John T. Vito 

Craig Air Center, Inc. 

855-14 St. Johns Bluff Rd. 

Jacksonville, FL 32225 

Tel.: (904)641-0300 

Fax: (904)642-2012 

E-Mail: itvito@craiqaircenter.com 

Notice: Any person v\/ho wishes to support or oppose this application must file an answer by [7 

days after receipt of the application by the Department of Transportation] and serve that answer 

on all persons served with this filing. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have on this day served the foregoing motion for confidential treatment by 

first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the persons shown in the following service list. 

October 23, 2009 

y^Smn T. Vito, Presid< 

SERVICE LIST 

Mr. William H. Edwards 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Orlando Flight Standards District Office 

5950 Hazeltine National Dr. 

Citadel Int'l - Suite 500 

Orlando, FL 32822 

Jacksonville Aviation Authority 

PO Box 18018 

Jacksonville, FL 32229-8018 

Dept. of Civil Aviation 

POBoxN-975 

Crawford St. 

Nassau, N.P., Bahamas 
AFFIDAVIT OF CITIZENSHIP 

STATE OF FLORIDA 

COUNTY OF DUVAL 

John T. Vito being first duly sworn, deposes and says: 

1. That he is duly elected, qualified, and serving as President of Craig Air Center, Inc. and that 

he is authorized to and does make this affidavit for it. 

2. That John T. Vito is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 

40102(a)(15). 

Dhn T. Vito 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this y ^^4d(Z^C&V^^<::m . 

I • II • iiii Wjife^jin " * y ^ 

NMVMIe •«!*«( M M 

' C0(W*Mlon#OO8»7077 I C^X^J. ^ S^L^^^-^UyL^ 

lonM By W«BOMI WqOty Ami, f Notary Public 

(SEAL) 

«w««*V<«ir'«"^i^'VW 
AFFIDAVIT OF SAFETY COMPLIANCE 

STATE OF FLORIDA 

COUNTY OF DUVAL 

says: 

John T. Vito being first duly sworn, deposes and 

'• toal'di^lt"*XaSr ""'" ^ " '"^'^^'"'<=-'= * =»'- • '-• - - -^a,he Is autabed 

Pa«s ,2 , ,135, as we. as^-the no ^ ^i'i'7^'Z!'CrZ:fS^X^T^' " ^ ^ 

5hn T. Vito 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this?^day of 2>ecl^£:^k^ m 

•yMMM h 

(SEAL) 

^msmst 

WlMif PHMB * SMlOlrioiMl 

,_ CaiwwliiUnfOOSWm 

'•'"*0^ BonMByNailoMlNolMyAttn. 

••«' 

Notary Public
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

#### § 4.1 Complaints regarding invention promoters.

These regulations govern the Patent and Trademark Office's (Office) responsibilities under the Inventors' Rights Act of 1999, which can be found in the U.S. Code at 35 U.S.C. 297. The Act requires the Office to provide a forum for the publication of complaints concerning invention promoters. The Office will not conduct any independent investigation of the invention promoter. Although the Act provides additional civil remedies for persons injured by invention promoters, those remedies must be pursued by the injured party without the involvement of the Office.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

§ 42.54 Protective order. ( a ) A party may file a motion to seal where the motion to seal contains a proposed protective order, such as the default protective order set forth in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. The motion must include a certification that the moving party has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute. The Board may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from disclosing confidential information, including, but not limited to, one or more of the following: ( 1 ) Forbidding the disclosure or discovery;
( 2 ) Specifying terms, including time and place, for the disclosure or discovery;
( 3 ) Prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party seeking discovery;
( 4 ) Forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters;
( 5 ) Designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is conducted;
( 6 ) Requiring that a deposition be sealed and opened only by order of the Board;
( 7 ) Requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way; and
( 8 ) Requiring that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information in sealed envelopes, to be opened as the Board directs.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### Hyman Sonn et al., Respondents, *v.*Henry A. Weissmann et al., Appellants.

Appeal taken by the defendants from a judgment entered upon a verdict, found by direction of the court, in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

James, Schell, Elkus & McGuire (Abraham I. Elkus, of counsel), for appellants.

Hayman & Rosenthal (Morris H. Hayman, of counsel), for respondents. .

*Per Curiam.*

Judgment appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Present: Fitzsimons, Ch. J., and Schughman, J.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### David Boon NORRIS *v.*MILLER COUNTY CHANCERY COURT.

76-87

543 S.W. 2d 946

Opinion delivered December 13, 1976 (Division II)

*Thomas G. Montgomery,*for petitioner.

*770
      *Damon*Young, for respondent.

Elsijane T. Roy, Justice.

A decree of divorce involving Sandra Jean Norris and the petitioner herein, David Boon Norris, was entered May 31, 1974, in the Chancery Court of Miller County.

On March 16, 1976, the respondent herein entered its order finding petitioner, David Boon Norris, in contempt of said court. Petitioner was never served with a copy of this order or the previously filed petition to show cause why he should not be* held in contempt. Both were served upon the attorney who had represented petitioner in the earlier divorce action and whose services were terminated over a year prior to the contempt proceeding.

On April 1, 1976, this Court issued its writ of certiorari for the record in this cause so that the chancery court proceedings might be reviewed.

Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-362(b) (Supp. 1975) provides as follows:

> In cases involving divorce, child custody, child support, or other cases wherein the court has continuing jurisdiction, the attorney of record shall be considered as such for the purpose of subsection (a) herein, only until such time of the entry of a final decree. In such cases wherein the court has continuing jurisdiction, *it shall be insufficient to show that the service was obtained upon the attorney of record after the date of entry of the final decree.*In such cases, service may be obtained by mailing a copy of the petition by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address of the other party, or if no address be known, then to the last known address of the said party. (Italics supplied.)

Respondent has filed no brief in the cause, but a letter has been received by the Clerk of the Supreme Court from the attorney for Sandra Jean Norris stating that the issue herein is moot because by agreement of the parties and later proceedings petitioner “has been afforded all relief requested.” Of course the letter is not a part of the record and cannot be considered by this Court.

*771Obviously the provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-362(b) were not complied with, and the order of March 16, 1976, finding petitioner in contempt of court is invalid.

Temporary writ made permanent.

We agree. Harris, C.J., and Byrd and Holt, JJ.
#### § 86.3 Inventions and discoveries.

Any grant award pursuant to § 86.14 or § 86.33 is subject to the regulations of the Department of Health and Human Services as set forth in 45 CFR parts 6 and 8, as amended. Such regulations shall apply to any activity for which grant funds are in fact used whether within the scope of the project as approved or otherwise. Appropriate measures shall be taken by the grantee and by the Secretary to assure that no contracts, assignments or other arrangements inconsistent with the grant obligation are continued or entered into and that all personnel involved in the supported activity are aware of and comply with such obligations. Laboratory notes, related technical data, and information pertaining to inventions and discoveries shall be maintained for such periods, and filed with or otherwise made available to the Secretary, or those he may designate at such times and in such manner, as he may determine necessary to carry out such Department regulations.
#### § 11.109 Settlement of unmatured adjusted service certificates.

Where an application for final settlement of an adjusted service certificate is received in the Department of Veterans Affairs prior to the maturity date of the certificate, payment will be made under the terms of the Adjusted Compensation Payment Act, 1936. This act provides for payment of the amount due on the certificate, after deducting any unpaid loans with interest through September 30, 1931, in adjusted service bonds. These bonds will be issued by the Treasury Department in denominations of $50, in the name of the veteran only, and will bear interest at the rate of 3 percent per annum from June 15, 1936, to June 15, 1945. Any excess amount not sufficient to purchase a $50 bond will be paid by check.

[19 FR 5087, Aug. 12, 1954]
<SEQUENCE>2
[DESCRIPTION]STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
Exhibit 11
Sutron Corporation
Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
					       Three Months Ended		Nine Months Ended
                                             			September 30,		September 30
                                          			        1997	     1996		1997		1996
                                        			___________	_________	_______		_______
<S>					<C>		<C>		<C>		<C>
Primary
Average shares outstanding		   4,225,851	4,225,851	4,225,851	4,225,851

Net effect of dilutive stock options,
 based on thetreasury stock method 
using average market price		      170,506	37,660		    163,957	10,129
					___________	___________	________	________

Total					4,396,357	4,263,511	4,389,808	4,235,980

Net earnings				$113,042	     $347,859	$354,657	$602,232

Primary per share amounts			        $.03	   $.08		         $.08	     $.14

</TABLE>
#### SUNBURST FARMS, INC., Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee.

Appeal No. 86-749.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 8, 1986.

Thomas A. Rothwell, Jr. and Joseph A. Vicario, Jr., Heron, Burchette, Ruckert *&*Rothwell, Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With them on brief were Alfred G. Scholle and Christine C. Ryan.

Veronica A. Perry, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept, of Justice, New York City, argued for appellee. With her on brief were Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., David Cohen, Director, and Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, Intern. Trade Field Office.

Before NIES, Circuit Judge, MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, and BISSELL, Circuit Judge.

OPINION

NIES, Circuit Judge.

Upon consideration of each of Sunburst Farms’ arguments to the contrary, we conclude that the instant case is controlled by this court’s holding in *Florsheim Shoe Co. v. United States,*744 F.2d 787 (Fed.Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of Chief Judge Re’s opinion.

*Affirmed.*
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-15004

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00030-LC-CJK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

THOMAS STACEY MCDONALD, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(April 10, 2019)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-15004 Date Filed: 04/10/2019 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Megan Saillant, appointed counsel for Thomas McDonald in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of 

the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and the revocation of McDonald’s supervised release and his 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-15004 Date Filed: 04/10/2019 Page: 2 of 2
§ 488.310 Extended survey. ( a ) *Purpose of survey.* The purpose of an extended survey is to identify the policies and procedures that caused the facility to furnish substandard quality of care.
( b ) *Scope of extended survey.* An extended survey includes all of the following: ( 1 ) Review of a larger sample of resident assessments than the sample used in a standard survey.
( 2 ) Review of the staffing and in-service training.
( 3 ) If appropriate, examination of the contracts with consultants.
( 4 ) A review of the policies and procedures related to the requirements for which deficiencies exist.
( 5 ) Investigation of any participation requirement at the discretion of the survey agency.
( c ) *Timing and basis for survey.* The survey agency must conduct an extended survey not later than 14 calendar days after completion of a standard survey which found that the facility had furnished substandard quality of care.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

THE COAST
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC.

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for
the Quarter ended June 30, 2009

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of The Coast Distribution System, Inc (the
Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which this
Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 14, 2009



/s/ JAMES MUSBACHJames MusbachPresident and Chief Executive OfficerA signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
CE-CP-SPRM-MI033-STD-0021 COMMENT 05
CE-CP-SPRM-MI033-STD-0021 COMMENT 05
§ 222.13 Consolidation. ( a ) *Consolidation.* Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, if a claimant has multiple *active proceedings* against the same respondent or multiple active proceedings that arise out of the same facts and circumstances, the Board may consolidate the proceedings for purposes of conducting discovery, submitting evidence to the Board, or holding hearings. Consolidated proceedings shall remain separate for purposes of Board determinations and any damages awards.
( b ) *Timing.* The Board may consolidate proceedings at any time upon its own authority or following consideration of a request by any party, with reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard provided to all affected parties.
( c ) *Procedure.* The party seeking consolidation must submit a request to the Board setting forth the reasons for the request, requesting a conference with the Board and the parties from each affected case, and providing the Board with the docket numbers for each affected proceeding. Requests for consolidation and any responses thereto shall follow the procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(2) of this subchapter.
( d ) *Standard for granting request.* In determining whether to grant a request to consolidate, the Board shall balance the need for and benefits of consolidation with the timeliness of the request and whether any undue prejudice has resulted from the delay in making the request.
( e ) *Smaller claims proceedings.* Where the Board becomes aware that a standard proceeding and a smaller claims proceeding involve the same or substantially similar parties and arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, one or more Officers may hold a conference to determine whether the parties are willing to voluntarily consolidate the separate proceedings into a single proceeding using either the smaller claims procedures or the standard Board procedures. The Board will consolidate proceedings only where the parties agree, doing so would be in the interests of justice, and the proceedings involve the same or substantially similar parties and arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. If the proceedings involve the same or substantially similar parties and arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, but the parties do not agree to voluntarily consolidate the separate proceedings into a single proceeding, then each proceeding shall be considered separately.
[87 FR 30077, May 17, 2022, as amended at 89 FR 2492, Jan. 16, 2024]
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 the Quarterly  Report of Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  October  1,  2005 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Steven
Kass, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


/s/Steven Kass*
--------------
Steven Kass
Chief Financial Officer

November 21, 2005



* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
SERVED: JUNE 20, 2014

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF HEARINGS

. WASHINGTON, DC

lillij 2U1l23 A q: 28

IN THE MAITER OF

GLOBAL ARMS AND AMMUNITION

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0320

(Civil Penalty Action)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 20l2NM710034) has been assigned

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the J~dge, the FAA Hearing

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List.

/

./

G.

onnie A. oder

Chief Administrative Law Judge

Attachment - Service List
Docket No. FAA-2014-0320

(Civil Penalty Action)

SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAlL

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI0001

ONE COPY

Global Arms and Ammunition, Respondent

David Carl Williams, President

28 - 37th Street N.E., Suite A

Auburn, WA 98002

TEL: 206-325-9400

Kyle E. Lomazow, Complainant's Counsel

Office of Regional Counsel (ANM-7)

Federal Aviation Administration

1601 Lind Avenue S.W.

Renton, WA 98057

TEL: 425-227-2164

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge

Office of Hearings, M-20

u.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310)

Washington, DC 20590

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant

FAX: 202-366-7536

I Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI 000, Washington,

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.

2