alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 1075, Washington, DC 20005 (202) 326

- 5154 Fax (202) 898

- 4810 February 1 6 , 2015

Mr. Paul Gretch

Director

Office of International Aviation

United States Department of Transportation

12 00 New Jersey Ave. , S. E

. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: US Airways, Inc.

– Air China Limited Codesharing

(Docket DOT

- OST

- 20 08

- 01 3 9 )

Dear Mr. Gretch:

On June 5, 2008 , the Department of Transportation (“Department”) issued a Statement of

Authorization to US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”) to display the Air China Limited’s (“Air

China”) “ CA ” designator code on flights operated by US A irways ( 1) between any points within

the United States in conjunction with services held out by Air China between China and the

United States (either non

- stop or via third country intermediate points) and (2) between any

points in the United States and any points in third countries. ( See Notice of Action Taken

, June 5,

2008

, Docket DOT

- OST

- 20 08

- 0139 (“ Action ”).)

In accordance with the Conditions set forth in the Action

, US Airways hereby advises the

Department that the US Airways

- Air China codeshare arra ngement has been terminated effective

immediately

. Accordingly, US Airways and Air China will no longer place their respective

designator codes on each other’s flights

.

Respectfully submitted,

Howard Kass

Vice President

– Regulatory Affairs

Robert A. Wirick

Managing Director, Regulatory & International

A ffairs

Abigail Donovan

Director, Congressional and Federal Affairs

cc: Service List

George Tompkins, Jr. , Counsel for Air ChinaCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on February 1 6 , 2015 , I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing Letter

by email upon those addressees listed below:

urskr@state.gov (Department of State)

cristinasa@state.gov (Department of State)

brian.hedberg@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

todd.homan@dot.gov (D epartment of Transportation)

peter.irvine@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

laura.remo@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

brett.kruger@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

john.allen@faa.gov (Federal Aviation Administration)

dan.weiss@united .com (United)

steve.morrissey@united.com (United))

gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United)

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com (Delta)

chris.walker@delta.com (Delta)

_________________________

Abigail Donovan
115 STAT. 2404 PUBLIC LAW 107–126—JAN. 16, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2336:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–239 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 107–111 (Comm. on Governmental Affairs).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):

Oct. 16, considered and passed House.

Dec. 11, considered and passed Senate, amended.

Dec. 19, 20, House concurred in Senate amendments.

Æ

Public Law 107–126

107th Congress

An Act

To extend for 4 years, through December 31, 2005, the authority to redact financial

disclosure statements of judicial employees and judicial officers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section

105(b)(3)(E) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.

App.) is amended by striking ‘‘2001’’ each place it appears and

inserting ‘‘2005’’.

Approved January 16, 2002.

Jan. 16, 2002

[H.R. 2336]
#### § 12.7 Cases not applicable to provisions of §§ 12.0 to 12.6.

The provisions of §§ 12.0 to 12.6 shall be inapplicable to property known to be that of any person dying in or discharged or absent without leave from a Department of Veterans Affairs field facility other than a veteran admitted as such to such field facility.

[13 FR 7129, Nov. 27, 1948]
### Urban Planners and Urban Geographers Turn to Landsat for Answers

By: U.S. Geological Survey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20163056

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (804 kB pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Version History:  **Version History**                            (1.0 kB txt)                        
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

First posted August 24, 2016

Revised September 19, 2019

**For additional information, contact:**
Director, Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) CenterU.S. Geological Survey47914 252nd StreetSioux Falls, SD 57198

Government organizations that manage and mitigate the continued growth of cities are looking increasingly to the sky for assistance.

#### Suggested Citation

U.S. Geological Survey, 2016, Urban planners and urban geographers turn to Landsat for answers (ver. 1.1, September 2019): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2016–3056, 2 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20163056.

ISSN: 2327-6932 (online)

ISSN: 2327-6916 (print)

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
# Traffic Techs
§ 90.7 Decision to conduct health effects study. ( a ) ATSDR may decide, in its discretion, based upon the results of a health assessment or other available information, to conduct a health effects study for a particular site or sites. Such a decision may, in appropriate circumstances, be made prior to the completion of a health assessment for a site or sites. When deciding whether to conduct a health effects study, ATSDR will consider such factors as the results and recommendations of a health assessment for the site or sites and the need for additional information to determine whether individuals have been exposed to hazardous substances, the degree to which such exposure has occurred, and any possible health effects resulting from such exposure.
( b ) Should ATSDR decide, in its discretion, to conduct a health effect study, it will notify the parties as specified in § 90.6.
#### § 210.9 Harmless errors.

Errors in a Monthly or Annual Statement of Account that do not materially prejudice the rights of the copyright owner shall be deemed harmless, and shall not render that statement of account invalid or provide a basis for the exercise of the remedies set forth in 17 U.S.C. 115(c)(2)(J).

[79 FR 56206, Sept. 18, 2014, as amended at 83 FR 63065, Dec. 7, 2018. Redesignated at 85 FR 58143, Sept. 17, 2020]
#### John C. Fajen, Appellant, *v.*The German Dutch Reformed Church of the Village of Melrose, Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiff ..from a judgment of the Municipal' Court, eleventh district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint and disallowing the counterclaim herein.

Henry William Heifer, for appellant.

Kenneson, Crain & Ailing, for respondent.

MacLean, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover a balance due upon a claim assigned to him for the services of his assignor as architect in drawing plans and superintending the erection of a parsonage and procuring a permanent loan on the church r. edifice and parsonage. The defendant denied that the assignor had been employed otherwise than to prepare plans and superintend the erection of the building in the manner usually performable by an architect, alleged that he had been paid for all of the services rendered by him, and set up a counterclaim for damages suffered by the defendant through the lack of skill and diligence of the assignor. Extended testimony was given by the assignor to sustain the allegations in the complaint, and by the pastor and agent of the defendant in support of the denials and of the counter-' ’ filatm, so that the decision of the learned justice rested upon his belief or disbelief in the veracity of the witnesses. With ample evidence to support his determination, he decided in favor of the defendant upon the chief issue in the case, and disallowed the *798counterclaim, which, was not especially: pressed. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Freedmae, P. J., and Leveetritt, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.1


                            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  First  Financial  Bancorp  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Leon
Zimmerman,  Chief  Executive  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:

         (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.




August 12, 2003                                      /s/Leon Zimmerman
                                                     ------------------
                                                     Chief Executive Officer



A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to First  Financial  Bancorp and will
be retained by First  Financial  Bancorp and  furnished  to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



                                       20
#### Morris and Essex Railroad Company et al., respondents, *v.*Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City, appellants.

[Submitted July 6th, 1903.

Decided June 20th, 1904.]

On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Pitney, whose opinion is reported in *Morris and Essex Railroad Go.*v. *Jersey City, 68 N. J. Eq. (18 Dick.) JJ>.*

Submitted for appellants by *Mr. George D. Record,*corporation counsel of Jersey City; *Mr. Robert Carey,*corporation attorney of Jersey City, on the brief in chancery of *Mr. Allan L. McDermott.*,

*Messrs. Bedle, Edwards & ■Thompson,*for the respondents.

Note.—Decision omitted from its proper place.—Rep.

Decree affirmed by the following vote:

*For*affirmance—The Chiee-Justice, Fort, Hendrickson, Pitney, Vroom, Green, *Gray—¶.*

*For*reversal—Dixon, Garrison, Vredenburgi-i—3.
EVIDENCE.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

February Term, 1885.]

Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.

#### Jennings, Ford & Co. v Haynes.

1. Answer of Third Person to an Inquiry made at Debtor’s Suggestion.

The answer to an inquiry made of one to whom a creditor was referred, by parties against whom he was asserting a claim they -were disputing, they agreeing to pay the claim if he said it was right, is admissible in evidence against the debtor.

2. Self-serving Declarations Inadmissible in Rebuttal.

Where the plaintiff offers in evidence telegrams from defendants, instructing him to buy, to show that he was in their employ, they cannot rebut the admission by evidence of like telegrams, sent by them to others not in their employ.'

3. Incompetent Parts of Answer of a Witness not Reached by Objection to the Question.

Where an objection to a competent question is overruled, if the answer is objectionable, the complaining party should move to exclude the incompetent parts, as the objection to the question does not reach them.

Error to the Common Pleus Court of Hamilton county.

Smith, J.

1. There being evidence tending to show that Jennings, Ford & Co., expressly referred Haynes, the plaintiff, to Alex. Ford for information as to a claim which Haynes was asserting against the firm, and which they were disputing, and agreed to pay it if Alex. Ford said it was right, and would not pay it himself; *Held,*That what Alex. Ford said in answer to such inquiry as to the matter so referred to him, was admissible as evidence against Jennings, Ford & Co. (1 Greenleaf on Ev., sec. 182.)

2. Where a question was put to a witness as to what Ford said in answer to such inquiry, and it was objected to by Jennings, Ford & Co., before it was answered, the court properly overruled the objection. If any answer shown to have *14been made by Ford was incompetent, the defendant should have moved to exclude the incompetent parts, and on failure to do so, cannot afterwards claim it to be incompetent.

Paxton & Warrington, for Plaintiffs in Error.

Wallace Burch, and Hancock & Knowlton, for defendant in error.

3. Where the question is, whether the plaintiff was acting in the employment of the defendants in the purchase of the hogs, and has introduced telegrams to himself from the defendants, instructing him to buy divers lots of hogs for them at various times, and defendants offered to introduce other telegrams of like tenor and effect from themselves to other persons, not in their employ, but in the employ of another, of which plaintiff had no knowledge, *held,*they were properly excluded. *fudgment Affirmed.*

†

 This case was reversed by the supreme court,, with full report. 45 O. S., 278.
7

The CVPIA modifies the operation, management, and physical features of the CVP. The PEIS analyzes a full range of

implementation options across various scenarios. A public

scoping process helped identify two types of implementation provisions in the CVPIA: core programs and multiple

option programs.

Core programs have a single method of implementation at

the programmatic level and are the same in all action alternatives.

Multiple option programs have multiple implementation

methods at the programmatic level and vary among action

alternatives. The multiple option programs include CVP

water system operations, CVP water pricing, and fish and

wildlife habitat improvements (including water acquisition

from willing sellers). Supplemental Analyses were developed to address additional actions under the base alternatives to provide additional comparisons.

The core programs and multiple option programs were used

to formulate the Preferred Alternative, as well as the four

other Alternatives and 15 Supplemental Analyses. 

Description of 

PEIS Programs

CVP Water Contract Renewals (Section 3404(c))

Water Measurement (Section 3405(b))

Water Conservation (Section 3405(e))

(b)(1) “other” Program (Section 3406(b)(1))

Tracy and Contra Costa Pumping Plants 

Fish Protection Facilities Modifications 

(Section 3406(b)(4-5))

Shasta Temperature Control Device 

Construction (Section 3406(b)(6))

Coleman Fish Hatchery Modifications 

(Section 3406(b)(11))

Clear Creek Restoration and Structural 

Modifications (Section 3406(b)(12))

Non-Flow Habitat Restoration Programs on 

Central Valley Streams (Section 3406(b)(13))

Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District 

Diversion Modification (Section 3406)(b)(17))

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Diversion 

Modification (Section 3406(b)(20))

Fish Screens/Bypasses on Central Valley Streams

(Section 3406(b)(21))

Seasonal Field Flooding of up to 80,000 Acres 

(Section 3406(b)(22)) 

Increased Minimum Trinity River Flows (Section

3406(b)(23))

Purchase 30,000 Acres of Retired Lands from 

Willing Sellers (Section 3408(h))

Core Programs in All Alternatives
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

29–012 1996

104th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 104–182

ONE REVISED DEFERRAL, TOTALING $91 MILLION,

AND TWO PROPOSED RESCISSIONS OF BUDGETARY

RESOURCES, TOTALING $15 MILLION

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

ONE REVISED DEFERRAL, TOTALING $91 MILLION, AND TWO PROPOSED RESCISSIONS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES, TOTALING $15

MILLION, PURSUANT TO 2 U.S.C. 683(A)(1)

MARCH 5, 1996.—Message and accompanying papers referred to the

Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed
(1)

To the Congress of the United States:

In accordance with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment

Control Act of 1974, I herewith report one revised deferral, totaling

$91 million, and two proposed rescissions of budgetary resources,

totaling $15 million.

The deferral affects the Department of State U.S. emergency refugee and migration assistance fund. The rescission proposals affect

the Department of Agriculture and the General Services Administration.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 5, 1996.

(3)
4
5
6
7
8
9
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.91 Models or exhibits not generally admitted as part of application or patent.

(a) A model or exhibit will not be admitted as part of the record of an application unless it:

(1) Substantially conforms to the requirements of § 1.52 or § 1.84;

(2) Is specifically required by the Office; or

(3) Is filed with a petition under this section including:

(i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(h); and

(ii) An explanation of why entry of the model or exhibit in the file record is necessary to demonstrate patentability.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a model, working model, or other physical exhibit may be required by the Office if deemed necessary for any purpose in examination of the application.

(c) Unless the model or exhibit substantially conforms to the requirements of § 1.52 or § 1.84 under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, it must be accompanied by photographs that show multiple views of the material features of the model or exhibit and that substantially conform to the requirements of § 1.84.

[62 FR 53190, Oct. 10, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 54670, Sept. 8, 2000; 69 FR 56541, Sept. 21, 2004]

###### 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.
|   |                         | BISNISHome |  Subscribe | Feedback | Contact Us | Site Map |       |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   LATEST NEWS
COUNTRYREPORTS

 INDUSTRY REPORTS

  LEADS

EVENTS
PUBLICATIONSSOURCES OFFINANCECUSTOMS CORNERU.S. STATEEXPORTSUSEFUL LINKS
*BISNIS* the NIS market resource at the USA Trade Center   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |

| Food Sector and Agribusiness      Industry Reports  

Search Industry Reports *Search tips**Search:**Industry Reports     Entire site     BISNIS Bulletin     Embasy Reports     Country Reports     Sources of Finance     Leads     **for:*** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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.

§ 11.304 Fairness to opposing party and counsel. A practitioner shall not: ( a ) Unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A practitioner shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;
( b ) Falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;
( c ) Knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists;
( d ) Make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party;
( e ) In a proceeding before a tribunal, allude to any matter that the practitioner does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused; or
( f ) Request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless: ( 1 ) The person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a client; and
( 2 ) The practitioner reasonably believes that the person's interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information.