alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AJV-16-0010-E 

June 10, 2016 

 Exemption No. 16804 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-6818 

Mr. A. Randy Pacheco 

68-615 Farrington Highway 14A 

Waialua, HI 96791 

Dear Mr. Pacheco: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated October 20, 2015 and supplemental information provided on March 4, 2016, 

you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from § 105.17 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow you to 

conduct skydiving operations within a 3 mile radius of Dillingham Airfield (PHDH) without 

meeting the minimum cloud clearance requirements specified in the regulation. The proposed 

operations would be day time only, in scattered to broken sky conditions with ceilings above 

3,500 feet and positive visual ground references. 

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

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to you. 

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 8627 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that if it is difficult for occupants of an aircraft to see parachutists in clear visual 

meteorological conditions, then it would also be difficult for a pilot, loadmaster, and a ground 

“responsible person” to see an aircraft above and below the cloud deck when looking for 

aircraft up to 2 nautical miles away. 
2 

The FAA pointed out that although technology has made the sport of parachuting safer, 

technology has also made the sport more popular. The FAA also found that as the number of 

aircraft in the United States has increased, the number of individuals joining parachuting 

clubs and participating in parachuting has increased which has resulted in an increase in sky 

congestion. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial 

of Exemption No. 8627; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 8627 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny your petition for an exemption from 

14 CFR § 105.17. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Gary A. Norek 

Director, Airspace Services Air Traffic Organization 

Enclosure
230224 EXHIBIT B. EXHIBIT COVER SHEET VERSION FEBRUARY 24, 2023 1

EXHIBIT B1

PARTY EXHIBIT COVER SHEET

Name of Party

Does the Party intend to offer evidence?

Docket Entry No. for Party Exhibit List

Exhibit Identifier2 Docket Entry No. of Exhibit Is there a pending request to seal

this Exhibit?

Pursuant to Bankruptcy Local Rule 9037-1(a), parties and counsel are solely responsible for 

redacting the personal identifiers enumerated in Fed. R. Bank. P. 9037(a).

1 This Party Exhibit Cover Sheet must be attached to a party-in-interest’s Informative 

Motion as Exhibit B.

2 Each Exhibit should be named in sequential party-identified numbering (e.g., “FOMB 

Ex. 1” or “UCC Ex. A”). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23625-2 Filed:02/24/23 Entered:02/24/23 17:14:15 Desc:

Exhibit B - Exhibit Cover Sheet Page 1 of 1
#### THORNTON *v.*SPRAGUE.

Verdict — issues—immaterial *issue*— non *cepit.*

The finding of the jury should follow the issues and respond to all of them, that are material.

The omission to find an immaterial issue is of no consequence.

*Mon cepit*in replevin is immaterial under our statute.

The court may mould the verdict of a jury to form.

Error to the Common Pleas. Thornton replevied from Sprague a horse and bridle. Sprague pleaded 1. non cepit — 2. property in him and one J. W. Wing. Replication, property in the plaintiff. Verdict returned in these words ‘ the jury find for the defendant, the value of the property to be $55 — the right of property in the defendant, damage $40 — damage including the value of the property $95.’ The defendant moved the court to amend the verdict and to insert after the word defendant where it secondly occurs the words ‘ and *Josiah W.*Wing.’ The court finding that the claims of the parties and the evidence on the trial, was that the property was in Sprague and Wing jointly, ordered the verdict entered as follows, viz. ‘We the jury find that the defendant did *not detain*the property of the plaintiff — that the property was in the defendant *and Wing*and of the value of $55, and therefore find for the defendant to recover of the plaintiff his damages, etc. which they assess, including the value of the property at $95.’ Judgment was entered on this.

The errors assigned are,

1. The verdict non detinet is immaterial, not finding the issue.

2. The jury could not lawfully assess the damages.

3. The court had no right to put. the verdict in form.

Bell, for the plaintiff in error.

Hamilton, contra.

Wood, J.

The finding should follow the issues and respond to all that are material, and a failure is fatal: (5 *O. R.*108.) But this first issue of *non cepit*is immaterial under our law and has been so adjudged. The issue being of no moment the finding upon it secures no legal consequence — the first objection therefore fails.

The statute (29 *O. L.*129) expressly requires of the jury in replevin to assess the damages — including the value if they find for the defendant. The objection has no weight under *our*law, whatever it might have under that of some other state.

*646The remaining question calls upon us to determine whether the court taking the verdict has power to reduce it *to form?*This Court has expressly decided this point in several cases: (2 *O. R.*32; 3 *O. R.*384; *5 O. R.*238, 260.) The act of the court appears to us nothing but reducing the verdict to form, and to be justified. The finding on the second issue is sufficient to warrant the judgment.
**Exhibit      32**

**Certification      Pursuant to**

**18      U.S.C. 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 result of operations                of the                registrant.  |

| July                  29, 2005                                                            |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                      |   |
|                                                                                      |   |
| /s/                  Jeffrey R. Immelt                                                    |   |
| Jeffrey                  R. ImmeltChief                  Executive Officer                |   |
|                                                                            |   |
| /s/                  James A. Parke                                                       |   |
| James                  A. ParkeVice                  Chairman and Chief Financial Officer |   |
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3288

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 31, 2003

Received 

AN ACT

To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to make 

technical corrections with respect to the definition of 

qualifying State.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 3288 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS RELATING TO THE 

2 DEFINITION OF QUALIFYING STATE UNDER 

3 TITLE XXI OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. 

4 Effective as if included in the enactment of Public 

5 Law 108–74, section 2105(g)(2) of the Social Security 

6 Act, as added by section 1(b) of such Act, is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘185’’ the first place it appears 

8 and inserting ‘‘184’’; 

9 (2) by inserting ‘‘August 1, 1994, or’’ before 

10 ‘‘July 1, 1995’’; and 

11 (3) by inserting before the period at the end the 

12 following: ‘‘, or, in the case of a State that had a 

13 statewide waiver in effect under section 1115 with 

14 respect to title XIX that was first implemented on 

15 October 1, 1993, had an income eligibility standard 

16 under such waiver for children that was at least 185 

17 percent of the poverty line and on and after July 1, 

18 1998, has an income eligibility standard for children 

19 under section 1902(a)(10)(A) or a statewide waiver 

20 in effect under section 1115 with respect to title 

21 XIX that is at least 185 percent of the poverty 

22 line’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 20, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
§ 722.4 Minimum appraisal standards. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 64575 , Aug. 7, 2024.
For federally related transactions, all appraisals shall, at a minimum: ( a ) Conform to generally accepted appraisal standards as evidenced by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation, 1029 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20005;
( b ) Be written and contain sufficient information and analysis to support the institution's decision to engage in the transaction;
( c ) Be subject to appropriate review for compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
( d ) Analyze and report appropriate deductions and discounts for proposed construction or renovation, partially leased buildings, non-market lease terms, and tract developments with unsold units;
( e ) Be based upon the definition of market value as set forth in § 722.2; and
( f ) Be performed by State licensed or certified appraisers in accordance with requirements set forth in this subpart.
[60 FR 51894, Oct. 4, 1995, as amended at 85 FR 23917, Apr. 30, 2020]
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3349

To authorize salary adjustments for Justices and judges of the United States 

for fiscal year 2004. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 20, 2003

Mr. SENSENBRENNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To authorize salary adjustments for Justices and judges of 

the United States for fiscal year 2004.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS 

4 FOR FEDERAL JUSTICES AND JUDGES. 

5 Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97–92, Jus6 tices and judges of the United States are authorized dur7 ing fiscal year 2004 to receive a salary adjustment in ac8 cordance with section 461 of title 28, United States Code.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND FROM THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,454
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,845
<ALLOWANCES>                                       670
<INVENTORY>                                      4,647
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,340
<PP&E>                                         240,940
<DEPRECIATION>                                 111,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 204,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,909
<BONDS>                                        143,889
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   204,907
<SALES>                                        131,182
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,502
<CGS>                                           37,356
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,181
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   210
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,460
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,460
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,460
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, William J. McEntee, Jr., certify that: 

 

1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Interep National Radio Sales, Inc.; 

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

 

3.  Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 

 

4.  The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a)  Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b)  (Intentionally omitted) 

 

c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3582

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to prohibit 

federally subsidized discrimination in supplemental educational services, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2003

Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. FROST, Ms. 

NORTON, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. 

PAYNE, Ms. LEE, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. 

MCCOLLUM, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. 

KUCINICH, Ms. MAJETTE, Mr. HINOJOSA, and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

the Workforce 

A BILL

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to prohibit federally subsidized discrimination 

in supplemental educational services, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Every Child is Created 

5 Equal Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 3582 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED DIS2 CRIMINATION IN SUPPLEMENTAL EDU3 CATIONAL SERVICES. 

4 (a) SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES.—Sub5 section (e) of section 1116 of the Elementary and Sec6 ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316) is amend7 ed—

8 (1) in paragraph (3)—

9 (A) in subparagraph (D), by striking 

10 ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon at the end; 

11 (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the 

12 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

13 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

14 subparagraph: 

15 ‘‘(F) specifically state that, as a recipient 

16 of Federal funds, the provider is subject to sec17 tion 9534.’’. 

18 (2) in paragraph (5)(C), by inserting before the 

19 period the following: ‘‘as a recipient of Federal 

20 funds’’; and 

21 (3) in paragraph (9), by inserting before the pe22 riod the following: ‘‘or permit discrimination based 

23 on religion with respect to employment or provision 

24 of services’’. 
3

•HR 3582 IH 

1 (b) CIVIL RIGHTS.—Subsection (a) of section 9534 

2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

3 (20 U.S.C. 7914) is amended to read as follows: 

4 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Discrimination on the basis of 

5 race, color, religion, sex (except as otherwise permitted 

6 under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972), 

7 national origin, or disability in any program funded under 

8 this Act is prohibited.’’. 

9 SEC. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES PRO10 VIDERS TO SERVE ALL ELIGIBLE STUDENTS. 

11 Paragraph (1) of section 1116(e) of the Elementary 

12 and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

13 6316(e)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘eligible children’’ 

14 the following: ‘‘(including students with disabilities and 

15 limited English proficient students)’’.

Æ
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 18

- 00016

- CV

Cherie Allen

v.

Lender ’ s Commercial Finance, LLC §

§

§

§ From the 342nd District Court

of Tarrant County (342

- 291007

- 17)

March 15 , 2018

Opinion by Justice Gabriel



### JUDGMENT

This court has consi dered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabri el
#### FRAZIER *v.*JOHNSTON.

Negotiable notes — demand of payer — notice to endorsee.

The act of 1820 does not dispense with notice to an endorser of a negotiable note, though as to some paper, it may prescribe what shall be *due*diligence in making a demand of the maker.

Assumpsit against the defendant as endorser of a promissory note of King and McLure, payable in six months from the 14th February, 1829. It is averred in the declaration, that on the 14th August, 1829, the plaintiff demanded payment of the drawers, and gave the defendant notice. Plea the general issue.

On the trial, the note was read in evidence, and proof made of a demand of the makers, five days after the note fell due. No notice was given to the defendant, but the makers were prosecuted in Virginia to judgment and execution. The defendant is a young and single man; his parents were living in the same town with the plaintiff.

*J.*Peck, for the plaintiff,

asked the Court to instruct the jury that under the Ohio statute no notice was necessary to an endorser; 22 *O. L.*322.

*W. B.*Hubbard, contra.

Wright, J.

We think the statute does not dispense with notice to an endorser. The act referred to, on certain kinds of paper, may possibly enlarge the *time*for a demand of the drawer, and dispense with a prosecution of the drawer to insolvency. So far, the act may settle what shall be due diligence; but the act is silent as *132to the notice ? because, as we suppose, it was not intended to alter the law merchant in that particular. The defendant is entitled to a verdict.

Verdict accordingly, and judgment for the defendant.
230203 ORD RE PV PROPS SUPP DS OBJ VERSION FEBRUARY 3, 2023 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO et al.,

Debtors.1

PROMESA

Title III

Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY,

Debtor.

PROMESA

Title III

Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS

ORDER STRIKING DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OBJECTION FILED BY PV PROPERTIES, INC.

The Court has received and reviewed the Objection to the Disclosure Statement 

(Docket Entry No. 23455 in Case No. 17-3283, the “Objection”), filed by Victor Luis Gonzalez

on behalf of PV Properties, Inc.

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax 

Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3284-LTS) (Last Four 

Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation 

Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3566-LTS) (Last 

Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority 

(“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax 

ID: 3747); and (vi) Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (“PBA”) (Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-BK-5523-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3801) (Title III case 

numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software limitations).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23473 Filed:02/03/23 Entered:02/03/23 12:41:33 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
230203 ORD RE PV PROPS SUPP DS OBJ VERSION FEBRUARY 3, 2023 2

The Objection is defective because it was not filed by counsel to PV Properties, 

Inc. Business entities may not appear in this proceeding without counsel, as they are not natural 

persons. Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202-03 

(1993) (explaining that corporations and other artificial entities can only appear in federal court 

through licensed counsel). Accordingly, the Objection is hereby stricken.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2023

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

United States District Judge

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23473 Filed:02/03/23 Entered:02/03/23 12:41:33 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2