alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Sound Aircraft Services, Inc. Complainant,

v. Town of East Hampton, NY Respondent. FAA Docket No. 16-14-07

RESPONDENT TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, NEW YORK’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SET A STIPULATED SCHEDULE FOR FILING TH E PLEADINGS IN THIS PROCEEDING

Designation of persons to receive service fo r the Town of East Hampton, New York:

Elizabeth Vail Town Attorney Town of East Hampton 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, NY 11937 EVail@EHamptonNY.Gov W. Eric Pilsk Peter J. Kirsch Catherine van Heuven Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 epilsk@kaplankirsch.com pkirsch@kaplankirsch.com cvanheuven@kaplankirsch.com Telephone: (202) 955-5600 Facsimile: (202) 955-56162 1. Respondent Town of East Hampton, New York (the “Town”) moves, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.11, for an extension of time to file its response to the Complaint in the abovecaptioned matter. Sound Aircraft Services, Inc. (“Sound Aircraft”) filed its Complaint by letter dated October 1, 2014. The FAA issued a Notice of Docketing of the Complaint, accompanied by a certificate of servic e dated October 17, showing service by mail. The Town received the Notice of Docketing by mail on October 23, 2014.

2. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.17(c) and § 16.23(d), the Town’s response is due on November 12, 2014 (twenty (20) days from Octobe r 17, 2014, plus five (5) days for service by mail and one day to avoid the Veterans Day hol iday on November 11). Sound Aircraft’s Reply would be due ten (10) days after that, and the To wn’s Rebuttal would be due ten (10) days after the Reply.

3. The parties have conferred about this schedule and discusse d the limited size of the Town’s staff, the time needed for the Town to compile collection and review the records necessary to respond to the Compla int, including the preparation of transcripts of Town meetings at which the fee increases were discussed, the issues raised in the Complaint, the schedules in other litigation between the part ies, and the various holidays and other commitments of the parties and counsel over the next several weeks. Taking that into account, the parties agree that the schedule should be extended to afford the pa rties adequate time to prepare their papers. Accordingly, the parties propose that the F AA adopt the following schedule for filing the pleadings in this matter: December 21, 2014: The Town files its Answer and/or response to the Complaint. February 6, 2015: Sound Airc raft files its Reply. February 27, 2015: The To wn files its Rebuttal.
# C_2014196EN.01000401.xml

| 26.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 196/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 196/4

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2014/C 196/04)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 26 February 2014 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 73992 |
| Decision number | : | 90/14/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Iceland |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Norðurþing Harbour fund |
| Legal basis | : | Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement |
| Type of measure | : | Individual aid |
| Objective | : | Infrastructure financing for regional development |
| Form of aid | : | Equity, municipality loan and subordinated loan |
| Budget | : | ISK 969 million |
| Duration | : | 15 years for municipality loan and 25 years for subordinated loan |
| Economic sectors | : | Port infrastructure |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | State Treasury, The Ministry of Industries and Innovation |
| Skúlagata 4 |
| 150 Reykjavík |
| ICELAND |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

26 February 2014

Case number

Case number

:

73992

Decision number

Decision number

:

90/14/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Iceland

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Norðurþing Harbour fund

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Individual aid

Objective

Objective

:

Infrastructure financing for regional development

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Equity, municipality loan and subordinated loan

Budget

Budget

:

ISK 969 million

Duration

Duration

:

15 years for municipality loan and 25 years for subordinated loan

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Port infrastructure

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

State Treasury, The Ministry of Industries and Innovation

Skúlagata 4

150 Reykjavík

ICELAND

and

| Bureau of Norðurþing |
| --- |
| Ketilsbraut 7-9 |
| 640 Húsavík |
| ICELAND |

Bureau of Norðurþing

Ketilsbraut 7-9

640 Húsavík

ICELAND

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
----

EXHIBIT 23.1 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 

We consent to the incorporation by reference to theRegistration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-57230) and related prospectus ofTurbosonic Technologies, Inc. for the registration of 900,000 shares of itscommon stock and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-57248)pertaining to the Turbosonic Technologies, Inc. 2000 Stock Plan of our reportdated August 27, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofTurbosonic Technologies, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2004 included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-KSB). 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP September 28, 2004 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada 

----
#### § 263.80 Purpose and scope.

This subpart establishes procedures under which the Board may issue a directive or take other action to require a state member bank, bank holding company, or a savings and loan holding company to achieve and maintain adequate capital.

[76 FR 56604, Sept. 13, 2011]
U.S. Department of Transportation Mr. Robert Finamore 400 7th Street, S .W., Room 6402 Washington, DC 20590
Subject: Statement of Reciprocity 19.09.2013 1309493JHH
The Icelandic Transport Authority hereby confirms, that it will grant, on the basis of reciprocity, to any air carrier designated by the United States of America, the right to conduct fifth, sixth and seventh freedom traffic rights on scheduled or non-scheduled basis, which are in conformity to the Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of Iceland, signed at Washington 14 June 1995 and as amended by exchange of diplomatic notes, 1 March 2002, and the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community arid its Member States, signed on April25 and 30, 2007, which Iceland and Norway became parties to on 17th December 2009. Sincerely
Halla Sigrun Sigur rd6ttir Director of Facilitation and Coordination

Icelandi c Transport Authority P .O . Box 470 · 202 K6pavogur · Iceland· Te l : +354 480 6000 · icet ra@ icet ra.is · www.icetra . is
**Exhibit 32.2**
**Certification**
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of ElcomInternational, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does herebycertify, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended May 31, 2003 (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in theForm 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presentedin the Form 10-K.      Dated: May 7, 2004 /s/ Kathryn A. Monaco   Kathryn A. MonacoChief Accounting Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
     The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as aseparate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' 
EQUITY AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         146,863
<SECURITIES>                                 6,546,693
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,693,556
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,830,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          164,236
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,434
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,535,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,830,530
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               345,484
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               160,309
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                185,175
<INCOME-TAX>                                    71,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   114,175
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        



</TABLE>
NO T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FR EDDY M AR TIN DAVILA, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-73577 Age n c y No. A078-054-504 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, TALLM AN a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Fre ddy M artin Da

vila , a native and c itiz e n of Nic ara gua , pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a ppe a l from the i m m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r C AT. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie wfor 

# FIL ED JUN 30 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).substa

ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. Blandino-Me d ina v . Holde r , 712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th C ir. 2013). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Da v ila fa ile d to de m onstra

te it wa s m ore like l y

tha n not he would besubje c te d to tortureif re turne d to Nic ara gua . Se e id. (upholding denia l of C AT re lie f whe re pe titione r pre se nte d a se rie s of worst-c a se sc e na rios rathe r tha

n pre se nting ha

rd e vide nc e of a

c le ar proba b ility of torture ba s e d on fa

m ily ’ s pre vious a ssoc iation with the Som oz a re gim e ); s e ealso Roble to-Pastora v . Holde r , 591 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th C ir. 2010) (a ffirm ing de nia l of C AT re lie f whe re pe titione r pre se nte d “ no e v ide nc e ” of a like lihood of torture

in Nic ara gua .). W e re

je c t Da vila ’ s atte m

pts to distinguish Blandino-Me dina and Roble to-Pastora , a n d we re j e c t his c onte ntion tha

t the B IA fa ile d to c onside r his a

nd his m othe r’ s te stim ony . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 3 5 7 7 2
42422.

#### WHITEHEAD et al. v. HENSON et al.

*Pannell and Joslin, JJ., concur.*

Decided May 19, 1967.

Felton, Chief Judge.

In *Whitehead v. Henson,*223 Ga. 329, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this court which affirmed the judgment of the trial court. In compliance with the mandate of the Supreme Court the original judgment of affirmance by this court is vacated and the judgment of the trial court is reversed under the rulings by the Supreme Court. *Judgment reversed.*

*743
      *A. Tate Conyers,*for appellants.

*Harold Sheats, J. C. Murphy, Charles M. Lokey,*for appellees.
§ 1268.8 Administrative transactions and agreements between Banks. ( a ) *Delegation of administrative duties.* A Bank may delegate the administration of an AMA program to another Bank whose administrative office has been examined and approved by FHFA, or previously examined and approved by the Federal Housing Finance Board, to process AMA transactions. The existence of such a delegation, or the possibility that such a delegation may be made, must be disclosed to any potential participating financial institution as part of any AMA-related agreements signed with that participating financial institution. A Bank may contract with one or more parties, including without limitation another Bank, to provide services related to the administration of its own AMA program or the AMA program of another Bank for which it has been delegated administrative responsibility, without the necessity for further disclosure to the participating financial institutions.
( b ) *Termination of agreements.* Any agreement made between two or more Banks in connection with the administration of any AMA program may be terminated by any party after a reasonable notice period.
( c ) *Delegation of pricing authority.* A Bank that has delegated its AMA pricing function to another Bank shall retain a right to refuse to acquire AMA at prices it does not consider appropriate, pursuant to contractual provisions among the parties.
Editorial Note on Part 220
Editorial Note: A copy of each form referred to in this part is filed as a part of the original document. Copies are available upon request to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any Federal Reserve Bank.

§ 220.101 Transactions of customers who are brokers or dealers. The Board has recently considered certain questions regarding transactions of customers who are brokers or dealers. ( a ) The first question was whether delivery and payment under § 220.4(f)(3) must be exactly simultaneous (such as in sight draft shipments), or whether it is sufficient if the broker-dealer customer, “as promptly as practicable in accordance with the ordinary usage of the trade,” mails or otherwise delivers to the creditor a check in settlement of the transaction, the check being accompanied by instructions for transfer or delivery of the security. The Board ruled that the latter method of setting the transaction is permissible.
( b ) The second question was, in effect, whether the limitations of § 220.4(c)(8) apply to the account of a customer who is himself a broker or dealer. The answer is that the provision applies to any “special cash account,” regardless of the type of customer.
( c ) The third question was, in effect, whether a purchase and a sale of an unissued security under § 220.4(f)(3) may be offset against each other, or whether each must be settled separately by what would amount to delivery of the security to settle one transaction and its redelivery to settle the other. The answer is that it is permissible to offset the transactions against each other without physical delivery and redelivery of the security.
[11 FR 14155, Dec. 7, 1946]
# C_2014088EN.01001701.xml

| 27.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/17

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 6 December 2013

in Case E-18/13

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

v

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/81/EC — Failure to implement)

2014/C 88/14

In Case E-18/13, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed to adopt or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of all measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 21 ar of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 6 December 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

v

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 21ar of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 21ar of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

| 2. | Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
# C_2017042EN.01000301.xml

| 9.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/3

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2017/C 42/03)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 11 November 2016 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case No | : | 79784 |
| Decision No | : | 201/16/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title | : | Six month prolongation of the special tax system for shipping |
| Legal basis | : | The Parliamentary resolution on income and net wealth taxes, the Tax Act (LOV-1999-03-26-14) sections 8-10 to 8-20, and the Regulation to the Tax Act (FOR-1999-11-19-1158) sections 8-11, 8-13, 8-15, 8-16 and 8-20. |
| Type of measure | : | Scheme |
| Objective | : | Maritime transport |
| Form of aid | : | Favourable tax |
| Budget | : | NOK 100 million |
| Duration | : | 1.1.2017 – 30.6.2017 |
| Economic sectors | : | Maritime transport |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Skatt Øst |
| P.O. Box 1073 Valaskjold |
| N-1705 Sarpsborg |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

11 November 2016

Case No

Case No

:

79784

Decision No

Decision No

:

201/16/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title

Title

:

Six month prolongation of the special tax system for shipping

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

The Parliamentary resolution on income and net wealth taxes, the Tax Act (LOV-1999-03-26-14) sections 8-10 to 8-20, and the Regulation to the Tax Act (FOR-1999-11-19-1158) sections 8-11, 8-13, 8-15, 8-16 and 8-20.

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Scheme

Objective

Objective

:

Maritime transport

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Favourable tax

Budget

Budget

:

NOK 100 million

Duration

Duration

:

1.1.2017 – 30.6.2017

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Maritime transport

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Skatt Øst

P.O. Box 1073 Valaskjold

N-1705 Sarpsborg

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
# C_2011208EN.01000601.xml

| 14.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 208/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/6

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 8 February 2011 in the case of Pálmi Sigmarsson v Seðlabanki Íslands (Central Bank of Iceland)

(Case E-3/11)

2011/C 208/05

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 8 February 2011 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 February 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Pálmi Sigmarsson v Seðlabanki Íslands (Central Bank of Iceland), on the following question:

Is it compatible with paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 43 of the EEA Agreement that the Icelandic State should prevent an Icelandic national, resident in Britain, from transferring Icelandic krónur, which he has purchased on the offshore market in Britain, to Iceland?

---