alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
\\DC - 043547/000001 - 6558435 v1 Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 T +1 202 637 5600 F +1 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com Robert E. Cohn Partner 202.637.4999 Direct Line Robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com
By E-Mail
May 26, 2015
Todd Homan Director, Office of Aviation Analysis Peter Irvine Associate Director, Office of Aviation Analysis Matt Zisman, Transportation Industry Analyst U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Aeromexico Confidential Document Page AM000271 (Docket DOT-OST-2015-0070) Gentlemen: Aeromexico previously provided the Department with a CD and hard copies of its confidential documents in support of its Joint Application with Delta Air Lines for antitrust immunity. One page in that document production (AM000271) did not scan properly from the original and thus appeared to have been redacted. Attached please find a legible copy of that page AM000271. AM requests confidential treatment for this page, as it has for its other documents, see Motion for Confidential Treatment under 14 CFR 302.12 (April 17, 2015).
Sincerely,

Robert E. Cohn Patrick R. Rizzi Counsel to Aeromexico
###### 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 Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.37 Description of mark.

A description of the mark must be included if the mark is not in standard characters. In an application where the mark is in standard characters, a description may be included and must be included if required by the trademark examining attorney.

[73 FR 13784, Mar. 14, 2008]

###### 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 Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.206 Divorce. The validity of a divorce decree regular on its face, will be questioned by the Department of Veterans Affairs only when such validity is put in issue by a party thereto or a person whose interest in a claim for Department of Veterans Affairs benefits would be affected thereby. In cases where recognition of the decree is thus brought into question: ( a ) Where the issue is whether the veteran is single or married (dissolution of a subsisting marriage), there must be a bona fide domicile in addition to the standards of the granting jurisdiction respecting validity of divorce;
( b ) Where the issue is the validity of marriage to a veteran following a divorce, the matter of recognition of the divorce by the Department of Veterans Affairs (including any question of bona fide domicile) will be determined according to the laws of the jurisdictions specified in § 3.1(j).
( c ) Where a foreign divorce has been granted the residents of a State whose laws consider such decrees to be valid, it will thereafter be considered as valid under the laws of the jurisdictions specified in § 3.1(j) in the absence of a determination to the contrary by a court of last resort in those jurisdictions.

Cross Reference:
Evidence of dependents and age. See § 3.204. [27 FR 6281, July 3, 1962, as amended at 35 FR 16831, Oct. 31, 1970; 40 FR 53581, Nov. 19, 1975; 52 FR 19349, May 22, 1987]
41756.

#### DuBOSE v. CITY OF LUMPKIN.

Argued January 5, 1966

Decided February 23, 1966

Rehearing denied March 9, 1966

*298
      *Jesse DuBose,*for appellant.

*Carlton S. Brown,*for appellee.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Section 128 of the Act of 1953, supra, provides in part: “Nothing -herein shall prevent incorporated cities and towns from requiring by ordinance that the owners of motor vehicles residing within the corporate limits of such cities and towns to register the numbers of State licenses with the clerk or council or other officer to be designated by such city or town, together with a brief description of such motor vehicle, and requiring the- payment of a registration fee, and to provide a penalty for the violation of such ordinance; provided, however, that no municipality shall charge a license fee (as distinguished from a registration fee) in addition to that charged by the State, except commercial vehicles.”

No attack was made on the validity of such Act in the trial court but such question was first raised in the petition for certiorari. Accordingly, no constitutional question was presented to the superior court by the petition for certiorari or to this court on appeal as to the validity of such Act. See *Brackett v. City of Atlanta,*51 Ga. App. 92 (1) (179 SE 584); *Bolton v. City of Newnan,*147 Ga. 400 (94 SE 236).

The power granted municipalities by the General Assembly in the above quoted Act is not the.grant of a “power to legislate concerning an offense which is fully covered by the penal laws of the State,” *Moran v. City of Atlanta,*102 Ga. 840, 844 (30 SE 298), but is an expressed power to provide for a separate registration of vehicles with municipalities by the owners residing in such municipalities. Therefore, the contention of ■ the appellant that the ordinance covered a matter pre-empted by the General Assembly and therefore was a special law in viola*299tion of the constitutional provisions of Art. I, Sec. IV, Par. I, Constitution of 1945 *(Code Ann.*§ 2-401), is without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
---

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 of Silverado Gold
Mines Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending February
28, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Garry L. Anselmo, Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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.

| | /s/ Garry L. Anselmo       
| | ---------------------------
| | Garry L. Anselmo,          
| | Principal Financial Officer
| |                            
| | April 13, 2009             

---
§ 21.124 Combination course. ( a ) *General.* A combination course is a course which combines training on the job with training in school. For the purpose of VA vocational rehabilitation, a course will be considered to be a combination course, if the student spends full-time on the job and one or more times a week also attends school on a part-time basis. A veteran may pursue the components of a combination course in the following manner: ( 1 ) Concurrent school and on-job training;
( 2 ) Primarily on-job with some related instruction in school;
( 3 ) In a school as a preparatory course to entering on-job training; or
( 4 ) First training on-job followed by the school portion.
( b ) *Cooperative course.* A cooperative course is a special type of combination course which usually: ( 1 ) Has an objective which the student attains primarily through school instruction with the on-job portion being supplemental to the school course;
( 2 ) Is at the college or junior college level although some cooperative courses are offered at post-secondary schools which do not offer a college degree or at secondary schools;
( 3 ) Requires the student to devote at least one-half of the total training period to the school portion of the course; and
( 4 ) Includes relatively long periods each of training on the job and in school such as a full term in school followed by a full term on the job.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(7))
[49 FR 40814, Oct. 18, 1984; 50 FR 9622, Mar. 11, 1985]
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    this Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2006 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Thor Industries, Inc.
 Date: May 30, 2006
        
    /s/
    Wade F. B. ThompsonWade F. B. ThompsonChairman, President and Chief Executive

Officer (principal executive officer)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEINER ANIBAL RODAS MIRANDA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-70219 

Agency No. A206-774-793 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. 

Weiner Anibal Rodas Miranda, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing 

his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 15 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-70219 

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-

85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo claims of due process violations in 

immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 

2004). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rodas 

Miranda failed to establish the harm he fears would be on account of a protected 

ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if 

membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show 

that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”);

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be 

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang 

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). We do not reach Rodas 

Miranda’s contentions regarding the cognizability of his proposed particular social 

group because the agency did not deny relief on that ground. See SantiagoRodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the 

grounds relied on by the BIA). Thus, Rodas Miranda’s asylum and withholding of 

removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Rodas Miranda failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or 
3 16-70219 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

Rodas Miranda’s contentions that the agency violated his due process rights 

fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error and prejudice are

required to prevail on a due process claim).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 21.140 Evaluation and improvement of rehabilitation potential. ( a ) *General.* The purposes of these services are to: ( 1 ) Evaluate if the veteran: ( i ) Has an employment handicap;
( ii ) Has a serious employment handicap; and
( iii ) Is reasonably feasible for a vocational goal or an independent living goal.
( 2 ) Provide a basis for planning: ( i ) A program of services and assistance to improve the veteran's potential for vocational rehabilitation or independent living;
( ii ) A suitable vocational rehabilitation program; or
( iii ) A suitable independent living program.
( 3 ) Reevaluate the vocational rehabilitation or independent living potential of a veteran participating in a rehabilitation program under Chapter 31, as necessary.
( 4 ) Enable a veteran to achieve: ( i ) A vocational goal; or
( ii ) An independent living goal. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3104)
( b ) *Periods during which evaluation and improvement services may be provided.* Evaluation and improvement services may be provided concurrently, whenever necessary, with a period of rehabilitation services, including: ( 1 ) Initial evaluation or reevaluation;
( 2 ) Extended evaluation:
( 3 ) Rehabilitation to the point of employability:
( 4 ) A program of independent living services: or
( 5 ) Employment services, incidental to obtaining or maintaining employment.
( c ) *Duration of full-time assistance.* If evaluation and improvement services are furnished on a full-time basis as a preliminary part of the period of rehabilitation to the point of employability, or as the vocational rehabilitation program, the duration of such assistance may not exceed 12 months, except as provided in § 21.74(c). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3105)
( d ) *Scope of services.* Evaluation and improvement services include: ( 1 ) Diagnostic services;
( 2 ) Personal and work adjustment training;
( 3 ) Medical care and treatment;
( 4 ) Independent living services;
( 5 ) Language training, speech and voice correction, training in ambulation, and one-hand typewriting;
( 6 ) Orientation, adjustment, mobility and related services; and
( 7 ) Other appropriate services.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(1), (6), (9), (10), (15))
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 11, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 11, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0094. IN THE INTEREST OF C. A. B. et al., CHILDREN (MOTHER) .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Juvenile Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 12916J478 12916J479 12916J480
#### § 19.100 Notification of right to appeal in simultaneously contested claims.

All interested parties will be specifically notified of the action taken by the agency of original jurisdiction in a simultaneously contested claim and of the right and time limit for initiation of an appeal, as well as hearing and representation rights.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105A(a) (2016))

[57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 84 FR 179, Jan. 18, 2019]
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 April 2, 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

May 17, 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.
---

CERTIFICATION OF
  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  PURSUANT TO
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Garry L. Anselmo, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
  Officer of Silverado Gold Mines Ltd., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Silverado Gold Mines Ltd., for the
  quarterly period ending August 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements
  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
  information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents
  in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
  Silverado Gold Mines Ltd.

| | By:    | /s/ Garry L. Anselmo   
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Garry L. Anselmo       
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| |        | Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | October 14, 2003       

---
#### § 17.45 Hospital care for research purposes.

Subject to § 17.102(g), any person who is a bona fide volunteer may be admitted to a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital when the treatment to be rendered is part of an approved Department of Veterans Affairs research project and there are insufficient veteran-patients suitable for the project.

[35 FR 11470, July 17, 1970. Redesignated at 61 FR 21965, May 13, 1996; 79 FR 54615, Sept. 12, 2014]
§ 18.512 Definitions of “normal operation” and “statutory objective.” For the purpose of these regulations, the terms *normal operation* and *statutory objective* shall have the following meaning: ( a ) *Normal operation* means the operation of a program or activity without significant changes that would impair its ability to meet its objectives.
( b ) *Statutory objective* means any purpose of a program or activity expressly stated in any Federal statute, State statute, or local statute or ordinance adopted by an elected, general purpose legislative body.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6101-6107)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CLARIDGE
HOTEL AND CASINO CORPORATIONS FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000730409
<NAME> CLARIDGE HOTEL AND CASINO CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      10,605,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,326,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   935,000
<INVENTORY>                                    302,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,360,000
<PP&E>                                      48,697,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,869,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             169,732,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       38,521,000
<BONDS>                                     85,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,417,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               169,732,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           148,328,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               90,060,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            65,714,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               174,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,745,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (14,365,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (5,398,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,967,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,967,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 17.1001 Definitions. For purposes of §§ 17.1000 through 17.1008: ( a ) The term *health-plan contract* means any of the following: ( 1 ) An insurance policy or contract, medical or hospital service agreement, membership or subscription contract, or similar arrangement under which health services for individuals are provided or the expenses of such services are paid;
( 2 ) An insurance program described in section 1811 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c) or established by section 1831 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j);
( 3 ) A State plan for medical assistance approved under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 *et seq.*);
( 4 ) A workers' compensation law or plan described in section 38 U.S.C. 1729(a)(2)(A); or
( b ) The term *third party* means any of the following: ( 1 ) A Federal entity;
( 2 ) A State or political subdivision of a State;
( 3 ) An employer or an employer's insurance carrier;
( 4 ) An automobile accident reparations insurance carrier; or
( 5 ) A person or entity obligated to provide, or to pay the expenses of, health services under a health-plan contract.
( c ) The term *duplicate payment* means payment made, in whole or in part, for the same emergency services for which VA reimbursed or made payment.
( d ) The term *stabilized* means that no material deterioration of the emergency medical condition is likely, within reasonable medical probability, to occur if the veteran is discharged or transferred to a VA or other Federal facility that VA has an agreement with to furnish health care services for veterans.
( e ) The term *VA medical facility of jurisdiction* means the nearest VA medical facility to where the emergency service was provided.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1725)
[66 FR 36470, July 12, 2001, as amended at 76 FR 79071, Dec. 21, 2011; 77 FR 23617, Apr. 20, 2012]