alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# SQUIRE:: PATTON BOGGS Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP 1200 19th Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036 ch a rles. d o n IevCcil sa u i rea b. com +1.202.626.6840

October 22, 2014 

### VIA EMAIL
Mr. Robert Finamore Chief, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590
Re: Polynesian Limited—Request for Thirty-Day Extension of Cabotage Operations, Docket DOT-OST-2014-0144
Dear Mr. Finamore: In accordance with the Department of Transportation's Notice of Action Taken issued August 28, 2014, in the captioned docket, I am writing on behalf of Polynesian Limited ("Polynesian") to request approval of an additional thirty days of cabotage operations between Pago Pago and the Manu'a Islands, American Samoa. Polynesian requests approval of cabotage operations through November 30, 2014. The circumstances described in Polynesian's initial application have not changed. Polynesian's application continues to meet the requirements of 49 USC 40109(g) for grant of an emergency cabotage exemption. The Pago Pago-Manu'a Islands route remains without U.S. carrier service. Polynesian is the only air carrier able to provide much needed transportation between the two points and thus prevent severe hardship to American Samoa residents. Indeed, in addition to operating regular service Polynesian has been called upon to provide medical evacuation during the past thirty days. There is a clear need for continued service for an additional thirty days. Please contact the undersigned with any questions.

### Mr. Robert Finamore October 22, 2014 Page 2 Very truly yours, 

# all,"

. ! ~ 

### Charles F. Donley II ~


### cc: Office of the Governor Executive Office Building, Third Floor, Utulei Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 Fax: 011 684-633-2269 jhi

~ 

### cooley.com ; perkmann(cD-cooley.com ; bberlin(cD-cooley.com alex.sene.jr(W-gmail.com steve.morrisseyCaD-united.com ; dan.weissCaD-united.com pdoell _naca.cc
#### § 81.2 Provisions of EEOICPA concerning this part.

EEOICPA imposes several general requirements concerning the development of these guidelines. It requires that the guidelines produce a determination as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50% or greater probability) that the cancer of the covered employee was related to radiation doses incurred by the employee in the performance of duty. It requires the guidelines be based on the radiation dose received by the employee, incorporating the methods of dose reconstruction to be established by HHS. It requires determinations be based on the upper 99 percent confidence interval (credibility limit) of the probability of causation in the RadioEpidemiological tables published under section 7(b) of the Orphan Drug Act (42 U.S.C. 241 note), as such tables may be updated. EEOICPA also requires HHS consider the type of cancer, past health-related activities, the risk of developing a radiation-related cancer from workplace exposure, and other relevant factors. Finally, it is important to note EEOICPA does not include a requirement limiting the types of cancers to be considered radiogenic for these guidelines.
#### LILLIE *v.*AUDITOR GENERAL.

Taxation — Mandamus—Redemption—Certificate of Error.

During the pendency of a suit involving relator’s right to redeem from a tax sale, mandamus will not lie to determine the same issues and to compel the auditor general to issue a certificate of error and permit the relator to redeem from the sale without paying the statutory penalty.

Mandamus by Walter I. Lillie, trustee of the estate of Mary A. White, deceased, against Oramel B. Fuller, auditor general, to compel the issuance of a certificate of error as against certain sales of State tax lands, and for other relief.

Submitted December 19, 1913.

(Calendar No. 35,388.)

Writ denied January 3, 1913.

*Walter I. Lillie, in pro. per.*

*Roger I.*Wykes, Attorney General *(Charles W. McGill*and *George L. Hauser,*of counsel), for respondent.

Brooke, J.

This is an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the auditor general to issue a certificate of error canceling two certain tax deeds conveying lands belonging to the estate of which relator is trustee. Relator further prays:

> “That your petitioner be allowed to redeem from the sale of said property for the tax thereon assessed for the year 1908 and sold as State tax land at the sale made in May, 1913, without paying the 100 per cent, as required by section 140 of the tax law of the State of Michigan.”

Inasmuch as it appears from the petition and answer that relator on July 3, 1913, filed a bill of complaint in the circuit court for the county of Ottawa, in chancery, wherein the purchaser at the tax sale, his attorney in fact, and the respondent herein were made defendants, in which proceeding substantially the same questions are in*539volved as are here presented, we must decline at this time to pass upon the merits of the case.

Relator’s rights either have been or may be fully protected by the payment into court of a sum of money sufficient to entitle him to a reconveyance upon any theory, after which the matters in controversy can be determined by the court to which relator has already appealed and which has assumed jurisdiction.

Writ denied.

Steere, C. J., and Moore, McAlvay, Kuhn, Stone, Ostrander, and Bird, JJ., concurred.
#### § 21.7807 Examination of records.

In administering benefits payable under 10 U.S.C. chapter 1606, VA will apply the provisions of § 21.4209 in the same manner as they are applied in the administration of 38 U.S.C. chapters 34 and 36.

(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16136(b), 38 U.S.C. 3690; Pub. L. 98-525)

[53 FR 34740, Sept. 8, 1988, as amended at 61 FR 20729, May 8, 1996]
#### RHEDEREI M. JEBSEN COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

(No. C-786.

Decided March 17, 1924)

*On Defendant’s Demurrer*

*Jurisdiction.*— See *Deutsch-Australische, etc.,*v. *United States, ante,*p. 450.

*The Reporteras*statement of the case:

The defendant’s demurrer in the above-entitled case was sustained and the petition dismissed, with the following

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The court holds it has not jurisdiction, and its reasons for this holding are stated in the opinion in *Deutsch-Australische, etc.,*case, No. C-576, decided this day, *ante,*p. 450.

The fact alleged that plaintiff corporation is now a citizen of Denmark does not alter the situation.
# Official Journal L 347/29 D

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 347 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5029 December 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 347

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5029 December 2007

---

| Contents | | II   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2007/856/EC |
| | * | Council Decision of 8 November 2007 concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and of Romania to the Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual Obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 | 1 |
| | | 2007/857/EC |
| | * | Council Decision of 8 November 2007 amending Annex I to the 2005 Act of Accession | 3 |

Contents

II   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory

page

DECISIONS

2007/856/EC

*

Council Decision of 8 November 2007 concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and of Romania to the Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual Obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980

1

2007/857/EC

*

Council Decision of 8 November 2007 amending Annex I to the 2005 Act of Accession

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Exhibit 32

                            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 Cogenco International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David W. Brenman, President, 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.


Dated: November 7, 2003

                                                       By: /s/  David W. Brenman
                                                           ---------------------
                                                                David W. Brenman
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
§ 486.106 Condition for coverage: Referral for service and preservation of records. All portable X-ray services performed for Medicare beneficiaries are ordered by a physician or a nonphysician practitioner as provided in § 410.32(a) of this chapter or by a nonphysician practitioner as provided in § 410.32(a)(2) and records are properly preserved. ( a ) *Standard—referral by a physician or nonphysician practitioners.* Portable X-ray examinations are performed only on the order of a physician licensed to practice in the State or by a nonphysician practitioner acting within the scope of State law. Such nonphysician practitioners may be treated the same as physicians treating beneficiaries for the purpose of this paragraph. The supplier's records show that: ( 1 ) The portable X-ray test was ordered by a licensed physician or a nonphysician practitioner acting within the State scope of law; and
( 2 ) Such physician or non-physician practitioner's order meets the requirements at § 410.32 of this chapter, and includes a statement concerning the condition of the patient which indicates why portable X-ray services are necessary.
( b ) *Standard—records of examinations performed.* The supplier makes for each patient a record of the date of the portable X-ray examination, the name of the patient, a description of the procedures ordered and performed, the referring physician or nonphysician practitioner, the operator(s) of the portable X-ray equipment who performed the examination, the physician to whom the radiograph was sent, and the date it was sent.
( c ) *Standard—preservation of records.* Such reports are maintained for a period of at least 2 years, or for the period of time required by State law for such records (as distinguished from requirements as to the radiograph itself), whichever is longer.
[34 FR 388, Jan. 10, 1969. Redesignated at 42 FR 52826, Sept. 30, 1977. Further redesignated and amended at 60 FR 2326, Jan. 9, 1995; 60 FR 45086, Aug. 30, 1995; 77 FR 69372, Nov. 16, 2012; 84 FR 51830, Sept. 30, 2019]
§ 38.780 Financial management. ( a ) *Compliance.* All recipients will comply with applicable requirements of the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, as implemented by 2 CFR part 200.
( b ) *Financial Management.* All grantees must use a financial management system that complies with 2 CFR part 200. Grantees must meet the applicable requirements of the Office of Management and Budget's regulations on Cost Principles at 2 CFR 200.400-200.475.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(d), 2400 note and 2 CFR 200.400-200.475)
#### Charles Rose, Respondent, *v.*Thomas F. Brady et al., Appellants.

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, ninth district, borough of Manhattan, after a trial had before the court without a jury.

Thomas W. McEnight, for appellants.

Frederick H. Lincoln, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

It has been repeatedly held that all the facts necessary to confer jurisdiction upon an inferior court must appear in the record. The record contains no proof of the residence of the defendants, and, as this defect is one which may be asserted for the first time on appeal (Tyroler v. Gummersbach, 28 Misc. Rep. 151), the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, but under the circumstances, without costs. Willis v. Parker, 30 Misc. Rep. 750; 62 N. Y. Supp. 1078.

Present: Beekmaw, P. J., Giegebich and O’Gobmah, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, without costs.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2494 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase from 1 year to 2 years 

the post-employment restrictions of Members and elected officers of either 

House of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2007 

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase from 

1 year to 2 years the post-employment restrictions of 

Members and elected officers of either House of Congress. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF POST-EMPLOYMENT RESTRIC4 TIONS. 

5 (a) EXTENSION.—Section 207(e)(1)(A) of title 18, 

6 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘1 year’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘2 years’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 2494 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply to any individual who leaves of3 fice (to which the restrictions in section 207(e)(1)(A) of 

4 title 18, United States apply) more than 120 days after 

5 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### § 4.43 Osteomyelitis.

Chronic, or recurring, suppurative osteomyelitis, once clinically identified, including chronic inflammation of bone marrow, cortex, or periosteum, should be considered as a continuously disabling process, whether or not an actively discharging sinus or other obvious evidence of infection is manifest from time to time, and unless the focus is entirely removed by amputation will entitle to a permanent rating to be combined with other ratings for residual conditions, however, not exceeding amputation ratings at the site of election.
Fw: Our response to your first set of comments

Jan King to: Sherry Russell 07/12/2011 03:53 PM

Jan King

Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group

phone: (919) 541-5665

fax: (919) 541-2664

Mailcode: C404-05

----- Forwarded by Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/12/2011 03:53 PM -----

From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Laity, James A." <James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov>, "Mancini, Dominic J." 

<Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lea 

Anderson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ginger 

Tennant/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Randy Waite/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich 

Scheffe/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/12/2011 02:11 PM

Subject: Our response to your first set of comments

Jim, and Dom, 

Attached is our response to your comments on page one of the notice in the first set of comments. 

Please let me know if you have any questions or if you are in agreement with these edits. Thanks.

Lydia
ED ST4r 

## UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 

### IX 

## 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

Printed on Rerycled Paper
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.30

                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT

         This Termination Agreement is entered into this ___ day of ___________,
2003, by and among DNAPrint Genomics, Inc., a Utah corporation (collectively,
"DNAPrint"), and GenBiomics, LLC ("GenBiomics").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, DNAPrint and GenBiomics are parties to a Consultant Agreement
dated May 17, 2002 (the "Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the parties desire to terminate the Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree that the Agreement is hereby
terminated and is of no further force or effect. DNAPrint hereby fully releases
and forever discharges GenBiomics from any and all claims, demands, and causes
of action, of any nature whatsoever that DNAPrint has had, may now have, or may
hereafter have, against GenBiomics by reason of any matter occurring prior to
and including the date of this Agreement. GenBiomics hereby fully releases and
forever discharges DNAPrint from any and all claims, demands, and causes of
action, of any nature whatsoever that GenBiomics has had, may now have, or may
hereafter have, against DNAPrint by reason of any matter occurring prior to and
including the date of this Agreement.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the
date first above written.

GenBiomics, LLC                           DNAPrint Genomics, Inc.



By:                                       By:
   ----------------------------------        ----------------------------------
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 Bel Fuse Inc (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Colin Dunn, Vice President of Finance 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 to my knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.











Date:  May 6, 2011
/s/ Colin DunnColin DunnVice President of Finance and Secretary
JURISDICTION — JUDGMENT.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

February Term, 1885.]

Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.

#### Voss et al. v. Loomis, Trustee, et al.

1. Probate Court May Compel Assignee to Account.

An action may be brought on the bond of an assignee or trustee for failure to file and. settle his account, or deliver the trust property to his successor, the probate court having first fixed his liability, and ordered the distribution.

2. Assignee May Sue his Successor, in the Superior Court.

Where an assignee or trustee, fails to deliver to his successor, the trust property, he maybe sued in the superior court of Cincinnati.

3. Several Judgment against one or more Obligors not Allowed.

The action, by his successor on the bond of a deposed assignee or trustee, must be a. joint suit against all the obligors. It is error to render a several judgment against one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed against the rest.

Fekor to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.

Jordan, Jordan & Williams, for plaintiffs in error.

Storer & Harrison, for defendants in error. ■

Cox, J.

1. The probate court has jurisdiction to compel an assignee or trustee to-account for money and property in his hands for distribution, and for failure to-do so, an action on his bond may be brought when there is an order of that court fixing his liability and ordering the money to be paid, or on failure of the assignee to file and settle his account, or deliver to his successor all property and effects belonging to the trustee.

2. Under sec. 6341, Rev. Stat., providing that the successor of a trustee or assignee failing to deliver over to the successor trust property, may proceed against such trustee or assignee by action in the “common pleas or otherwise,”' the successor may bring his action in the superior court.

3. In an action on such bond, a joint suit against all the obligors is the only remedy, and it is error for the court to render a several judgment against one or-more, leaving the action to proceed against the others. Board of Education v. Miner, 23 O. S., 211, 243; Roby v. Rainsberger, 27 O. S., 674.

Judgment of the superior court reversed.
# Official Journal C 231A/15 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 231A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5815 July 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 231A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5815 July 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2015/C 231A/01 | Call for expressions of interest — Contract staff members in the area of surveillance and prevention — function group I (FG I) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Parliament

2015/C 231A/01

Call for expressions of interest — Contract staff members in the area of surveillance and prevention — function group I (FG I)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN