alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 21.3040 Eligibility; child. ( a ) *Commencement.* A program of education or special restorative training may not be afforded prior to the eligible person's 18th birthday or the completion of secondary schooling, whichever is earlier, unless it is determined through counseling that the best interests of the eligible person will be served by entering training at an earlier date and the eligible person has passed: ( 1 ) Compulsory school attendance age under State law; or
( 2 ) His or her 14th birthday and due to physical or mental handicap may benefit by special restorative or specialized vocational training.
( b ) *Secondary schooling. Completion of secondary schooling* means completion of a curriculum offered by a public or private school which satisfies the requirements for a high school diploma or its equivalent—usually completion of the 12th grade in the public school system.
( c ) *Age limitation for commencement.* No person is eligible for educational assistance who reached his or her 26th birthday on or before the effective date of a finding of permanent total service-connected disability, or on or before the date the veteran's death occurred, or on or before the 91st day of listing by the Secretary concerned of the member of the Armed Forces on whose service eligibility is claimed as being in one of the missing status categories of § 21.3021 (a)(1)(iv) and (3)(ii).
( d ) *Termination of eligibility.* No person is eligible for educational assistance beyond his or her 31st birthday, except as provided under § 21.3041(g)(2). In no event may educational assistance be provided after the period of entitlement has been exhausted. In an exceptional case special restorative training may be provided in excess of 45 months. See § 21.3300.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3512(a))
[30 FR 15632, Dec. 18, 1965, as amended at 34 FR 842, Jan. 18, 1969; 39 FR 38227, Oct. 30, 1974; 40 FR 42879, Sept. 17, 1975; 41 FR 47929, Nov. 1, 1976; 43 FR 35290, Aug. 9, 1978; 73 FR 30489, May 28, 2008]
Presidential Documents

48359 

Federal Register 

Vol. 74, No. 182 

Tuesday, September 22, 2009 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of September 21, 2009 

Notice of September 21, 2009—Continuation of the National 

Emergency With Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten 

to Commit, or Support Terrorism 

On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, the President declared 

a national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to 

commit, or support terrorism, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706). The President took this action 

to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, 

foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the grave 

acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, 

including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and 

Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate 

threat of further attacks against United States nationals or the United States. 

Because the actions of persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support 

terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United 

States, the national emergency declared on September 23, 2001, and the 

measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency must continue 

in effect beyond September 23, 2009. Therefore, in accordance with section 

202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing 

for 1 year the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, 

threaten to commit, or support terrorism. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

September 21, 2009. [FR Doc. E9–23055 

Filed 9–21–09; 2:15 pm] 

Billing code 3195–W9–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSOB#1.EPS</GPH>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             FIRST FINANCIAL BANCORP
              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 ended June 30,  2004,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Leon S.
Zimmerman,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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, 2004                                    /S/LEON S. ZIMMERMAN
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


                                       23
EXHIBIT 32
 COMM BANCORP, INC.
 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350
  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 at the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.
 Date: August 13, 2010
    /s/ William F. Farber, Sr.William F. Farber, Sr.President and Chief Executive Officer   62




---



##### 



COMM BANCORP, INC.
 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350
  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 at the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.
 Date: August 13, 2010
    /s/ Scott A. SeasockScott A. SeasockExecutive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer   63
AFS

- 16

- 13859

- E

September 20, 2016

Exemption No. 10645B

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 1050

Mr. Brent Armenta

Director of Operations

Maverick Airstar, LLC

P.O. Box 3297

Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

Dear Mr. Armenta :

This letter is to inform you that we have g ranted your petition to extend Exemption

No. 10645 , as amended

. It explains the basis for our decision , describes its effect, and lists the

c onditions and limitations.

The Basis for Our Deci sion

By letter dated June 27, 2016 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administ ration (FAA) on

behalf of Maverick Airstar, LLC (Maverick) for an extension of Exemption No. 10645 , as

amended

. That exemption from § 93.323 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regula tions (14 CFR)

allows Maverick relief from the requirement to file a flight plan prior to conducting operations

in the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) Special Flight Rules A rea

.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the condit ions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register beca use the requested exten sion of the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this pe tition would be detrimental to Maverick

.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10645 , as

amended remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore,

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. § § 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA

Administrator has delegat ed to me, Maverick Airstar, LLC is hereby granted an extension to

their exemp tion from 14 CFR 93.323, which relieves Maverick from the requirement to file a

flight plan prior to conducting operations in the GCNP Special Flight Rules A rea

.

The Effect of Our Decision

This exemption terminates on September 30, 2018

, unless sooner sup erseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
#### § 104.4 Relationship of this Part to the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure.

Nothing in this part waives or limits any requirement under the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 BENJAMIN BROOKS, 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3
v. NO. 33,927 4 ROSA DIAZ-BROOKS, 5 Defendant-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Gerard J. Lavelle, District Judge 8 Benjamin Brooks 9 Los Lunas, NM 10 Pro Se Appellant 11 Amanda D. Navarro 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellee 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 VANZI, Judge. 162 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 1 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has 2 been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. 3 {2} AFFIRMED. 4 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

__________________________________ 6 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

_________________________________ 9 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 10

_________________________________ 11 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 12
```

[House Report 107-411]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-411

======================================================================

 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 476, CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT

                                _______
                                

   April 16, 2002.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

   Mrs. Myrick, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 388]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 388, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                  summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 476, 
the Child Custody Protection Act, under a closed rule. The rule 
provides two hours of debate in the House equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
    The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.

                                  

```
#### § 21.224 Prevention of abuse.

Supplies are to be furnished under the most careful checks by the case manager as to what is needed by the veteran to pursue his or her program. Determinations of the supplies needed to enable the veteran to successfully pursue his or her rehabilitation program are made under the provisions of §§ 21.210 through 21.220.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3104, 3111)

[49 FR 40814, Oct. 18, 1984, as amended at 88 FR 84240, Dec. 5, 2023]
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2227 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2227

                     For the relief of Paul Green.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2007

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                     For the relief of Paul Green.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING APPLICATION FOR CHILD'S 
              INSURANCE BENEFIT AND LUMP-SUM DEATH BENEFIT UNDER TITLE 
              II OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

    If an application for a child's insurance benefit under section 
202(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(d)) is filed by or on 
behalf of Paul Green of Walnut Street in Newton, Massachusetts, during 
the 1-year period following the date of the enactment of this Act--
            (1) the application shall be deemed, for purposes of 
        section 202(d) of such Act, to have been filed during the month 
        in which his mother, Marie Pendola Grardina (social security 
        account number 000-00-2579), died; and
            (2) the application shall be deemed to be an application 
        for a lump-sum death benefit under section 202(i) of such Act 
        (42 U.S.C. 402(i)), and for purposes of such section 202(i), to 
        have been filed in the month during which his mother, Marie 
        Pendola Grardina, died.
                                 <all>
```
#### John W. Arfman, Respondent, *v.*M. L. Hare, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment rendered in favor of,the plaintiff in the Municipal Court, fifth district, borough of Manhattan.

Betts, Betts, Sheffield & Betts, for appellant.

Wendt & Berry,'for respondent.

Freedman, P. J.

This action Was brought to recover damages for the alleged breach of warranty in the sale of a horse. The court below by its judgment decided all disputed questions of fact in favor'of the plaintiff. The court had a right to pass upon all questions of fact and its conclusion in this case cannot be said to be clearly against the weight of evidence. ' It must be assumed that the court decided that this defendant, at the time the mare in *778question was offered for sale, and struck off to the plaintiff, represented and warranted her to he sound.

The defendant must be treated under all the facts and circumstances of this case as having been, the agent for the real owner, and having failed, as was determined by the trial court, to disclose his principal, he is,' therefore, liable in damages for such breach of warranty. Argersinger v. Macnaughton, 114 N. Y. 535; Cabre v. Sturges, 1 Hilt. 160.

Judgment must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent.
#### Wetzell *v.*The State.

*Violating Prohibition Law.*

(Decided Jan. 18, 1912.

57 South. 509.)

*Intoxicating Liquors; Time; Evidence; Sufficiency.*— Where the testimony showed only that the sale was made in the winter and before Christmas, it was not sufficient to bring the offense within the statute of limitations in a prosecution for violating the prohibition law.

Appeal from DeKalb Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson.

Ed Wetzell was convicted of violating the prohibition law and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Richard C. Hunt, for appellant.

The evidence was not sufficient to bring the offense within the statute of limitations, and the court improperly denied the defendant the affirmative *charge.*— Gore *v. The State,*58 Ala. 391.

R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

The charges were not *numbered.*— Mav^tin *v. The State,*1 Ala. App. 217; *Gibson v. The State,*89 Ala. 122. There was sufficient evidence to convict, and the affirmative charge was properly denied.

PELHAM, J.

The defendant was tried and convicted for a violator of the prohibition law. The State introduced but one witness who testified to the time of the commission of the offense, and this witness testified that he did not remember the time when he bought the prohibited liquor, but .that “it was in the winter- and was before Christmas.” The evidence is not sufficient *173to show that the offense was committed within the period of the statute of limitations before the finding of the indictment. The defendant asked the general affirmative charge, and insists here that its refusal by the court below is error, because the evidence fails to show that the transaction occurred within the limitation prescribed by the statute in which the offense is punishable.

The record fails to present evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the offense was committed within the period prescribed by statute making it punishable, and the case must be reversed.—*Yancey v. State,*1 Ala. App. 226, 55 South. 267.

Reversed and remanded.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2305]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

Date and Time: Friday, January 30, 2009; 5 p.m.-6 p.m.

Place: Cohen Building, Room 3360, 330 Independence Ave., SW., 
Washington, DC 20237.

Closed Meeting: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
(BBG) will meet in a special session to review and discuss budgetary 
issues relating to U.S. Government-funded non-military international 
broadcasting. This meeting is closed because if open it likely would 
either disclose matters that would be properly classified to be kept 
secret in the interest of foreign policy under the appropriate 
executive order (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose information 
the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly 
frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 
552b.(c)(9)(B)) In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely 
to the internal personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or the 
International Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(2) and (6))

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Persons interested in obtaining more 
information should contact Timi Nickerson Kenealy at (202) 203-4545.

Timi Nickerson Kenealy,
Acting Legal Counsel.
[FR Doc. E9-2305 Filed 1-30-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
§ 17.1200 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* Sections 17.1200 through 17.1230 implement VA's authority under 38 U.S.C. 1720J to provide emergent suicide care.
( b ) *Scope.* If an individual is eligible under § 17.1210, VA will provide emergent suicide care under §§ 17.1200 through 17.1230 and not under other regulations in title 38 CFR through which emergent or other care could be provided. Eligibility under § 17.1210, however, does not affect eligibility for other care under chapter 17 of title 38, U.S.C.
§ 17.631 Award procedures. ( a ) *Amount of scholarship.* ( 1 ) A VIOMPSP scholarship award will not exceed the total tuition and required fees for the program of study in which the applicant is enrolled. All such payments to scholarship participants are exempt from Federal taxation.
( 2 ) The total amount of assistance provided under the VIOMPSP for an academic year to an individual who is a full-time student may not exceed $15,000.00.
( 3 ) The total amount of assistance provided under the VIOMPSP for an academic year to a participant who is a part-time student shall bear the same ratio to the amount that would be paid under paragraph (a)(2) of this section if the participant were a full-time student as the coursework carried by the participant to full-time coursework.
( 4 ) The total amount of assistance provided to an individual may not exceed $45,000.00.
( 5 ) In the case of an individual enrolled in a program of study leading to a dual degree described in § 17.627(a)(1), such tuition and fees will not exceed the amounts necessary for the minimum number of credit hours to achieve such dual degree.
( 6 ) Financial assistance may be provided to an individual under the VIOMPSP to supplement other educational assistance to the extent that the total amount of educational assistance received by the individual during an academic year does not exceed the total tuition and fees for such academic year.
( 7 ) VA will make arrangements with the school in which the participant is enrolled to issue direct payment for the amount of tuition or fees on behalf of the participant.
( b ) *Repeated course work.* Additional costs relating to the repeated course work will not be paid under this program. VA will resume any scholarship payments suspended under this section upon notification by the school that the participant has returned from the leave-of-absence or has satisfactorily completed the repeated course work and is pursuing the course of study for which the VIOMPSP was awarded.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7503, 7504(3))
----

(2004/C 65 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1214/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Macerata

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Macerata, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

----
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 563/2005

of 13 April 2005         

fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in eggs (1), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (2), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2783/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (3), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is hereby replaced by the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 April 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 April 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 49. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 77. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003.

(3)OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 104. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2916/95 (OJ L 305, 19.12.1995, p. 49).

(4)OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 47. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 236/2005 (OJ L 46, 16.2.2005, p. 38).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 13 April 2005 fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95

                     ‘ANNEX I

----

(1)  Origin of imports:

----