alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 119.33 General requirements. ( a ) A person may not operate as a direct air carrier unless that person— ( 1 ) Is a citizen of the United States;
( 2 ) Obtains an Air Carrier Certificate; and
( 3 ) Obtains operations specifications that prescribe the authorizations, limitations, and procedures under which each kind of operation must be conducted.
( b ) A person other than a direct air carrier may not conduct any commercial passenger or cargo aircraft operation for compensation or hire under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter unless that person— ( 1 ) Is a citizen of the United States;
( 2 ) Obtains an Operating Certificate; and
( 3 ) Obtains operations specifications that prescribe the authorizations, limitations, and procedures under which each kind of operation must be conducted.
( c ) Each applicant for a certificate under this part and each applicant for operations specifications authorizing a new kind of operation that is subject to § 121.163 or § 135.145 of this chapter shall conduct proving tests as authorized by the Administrator during the application process for authority to conduct operations under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter. All proving tests must be conducted in a manner acceptable to the Administrator. All proving tests must be conducted under the appropriate operating and maintenance requirements of part 121 or 135 of this chapter that would apply if the applicant were fully certificated. The Administrator will issue a letter of authorization to each person stating the various authorities under which the proving tests shall be conducted.
[Doc. No. 28154, 60 FR 65913, Dec. 20, 1995, as amended by Amdt. 119-2, 61 FR 30434, June 14, 1996]
#### § 1204.1100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart establishes policies pursuant to the requirements of National and Commercial Space Programs (51 U.S.C.) authorizing the NASA Administrator to establish such security requirements, restrictions, and safeguards as he deems necessary in the interest of national security, under 5 U.S.C. 301, and 18 U.S.C. 799, providing for the imposition of fines and imprisonment for violating NASA regulations for the protection and security of NASA assets or assets that are in NASA's custody. The provisions of this subpart apply to all NASA installations, including NASA Headquarters, NASA Centers, and component facilities. NASA installations refers to all NASA-owned, controlled, or leased property, with exclusive or concurrent Federal jurisdiction, including non-contiguous or unfenced areas and including areas otherwise open to the public at large. These provisions are also applicable to all persons who are in or on a NASA installation over which the United States exercises exclusive or concurrent legislative jurisdiction.

[80 FR 70152, Nov .13, 2015]
CONDITIONAL SALES — INSTALLMENT PLAN.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

July, 1896.]

Smith, Swing and Cox, JJ.

#### † Baker v. Speyer & Co.

Purchase oe Goods on the Installment Plan.

One purchasing goods on the installment plan, executing a mortgage thereon and subsequently defaults as to succeeding payments, and in consequence of such default, the seller takes possession of the goods under his mortgage, h« must restore a portion of the purchase money paid by the buyer.

*C. C. Benedict,*for Plaintiff in Error.

*Outcalt, Granger & Hunt, Contra.*

†

Affirmed by the Supreme Court; opinion 59 O. S., 11.

Smith J.

The case raises the question whether one purchases goods on the installment plan,' and simultaneously executes a mortgage thereon to the seller to secure the deferred payments of the purchase money, and makes substantial payments thereon, but afterwards makes default as to other of the payments, the seller, in accordance with the terms of the mortgage, may legally take possession of the mortgaged property without comply* ing with the provisions óf section 2 of the act passed May 4, 1885 (S. & B’s Revised Statute, 7913-73), by tendering to the purchaser the sum or sums of money so paid, after deducting therefrom a reasonable compensation for the use of such property, which shall in no case exceed fifty per cent, of the amount so paid; that is whether a transaction of this kind when a mortgage is given comes within the letter or spirit of this law.

We understand that the supreme court in the decision of the case of the *Singer Manufacturing Company*v. *Caldwell*(35 Law Bull., 375), affirming the decision of the circuit court of Jefferson county, upon the grounds stated in the opinion of that court (4 C. D., 680), has held that it does. The question was properly raised in this case by exception taken to the rulings of the court directing the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff below, Speyer and Company, and in refusing to charge the jury as requested by defendant’s counsel on that point.

The judgment will be reversed and a new trial awarded.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 08, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 08, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24I0166. HARRISON FLOYD v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 23SC188947
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3536

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 10, 2004

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 210 Main Street in Malden, Illinois, as the 

‘‘Army Staff Sgt. Lincoln Hollinsaid Malden Post Office’’.

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

HR 3536 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 210 Main Street in Malden, Illinois, shall be 

4 known and designated as the ‘‘Army Staff Sgt. Lincoln 

5 Hollinsaid Malden Post Office’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Army Staff Sgt. Lincoln Hollinsaid Malden Post 

11 Office’’.

Passed the House of Representatives March 9, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24103 Filed:05/02/23 Entered:05/02/23 13:21:15 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24103 Filed:05/02/23 Entered:05/02/23 13:21:15 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24103 Filed:05/02/23 Entered:05/02/23 13:21:15 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24103 Filed:05/02/23 Entered:05/02/23 13:21:15 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24103 Filed:05/02/23 Entered:05/02/23 13:21:15 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24103 Filed:05/02/23 Entered:05/02/23 13:21:15 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 6
Exhibit 32 (i)

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Form 10-Q of National Bankshares, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, I, James G. Rakes, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of National Bankshares, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)   such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, 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 such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of National Bankshares, Inc.

 

 

| /s/ JAMES G. RAKES                                                                               |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| James G. RakesPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)

August 5, 2009 |
#### G. E. Cooley, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed January 10, 1923.

Where upon an examination of the entire record it appears that the verdict' was fully supported by the evidence and that alleged errors in the admission of evidence and the refusal to give instructions requested by the defendant did not result in harmful prejudice of the defendant’s case the verdict will hot be disturbed.

A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Jackson County; C. L. Wilson, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

*Paul Carter,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Rivers H. Buford,*Attorney General, and *Marvin C. McIntosh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Ellis, J.

The plaintiff in error was indicted at the spring term of the circuit court for Calhoun County for assault upon Alphonso Charles Rodriguez with intent to commit murder. There was a change of venue to Jackson County. There was a conviction of aggravated assault and the defendant seeks to reverse the judgment on writ of error.

Cooley was a convict guard in charge of county convicts in Calhoun County. There" were two Mexican convicts. The guard killed one of them and immediately turned upon the other about thirty or forty feet away and shot him, the latter was named Rodriguez.

*47There are eleven assignments of error. Seven rest upon objections and exceptions to evidence and four upon the court’s refusal to give certain instructions requested by the defendant.

We have carefully examined the entire case as presented by the record and find that the verdict was fully supported by the evidence and that the errors complained of have resulted in no miscarriage of justice. Chapter 6223 Laws of Florida, Acts 1911; Section 2812 Revised General Statutes 1920.

The judgment is affirmed.

Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Browne and West, J. J., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002


I, Thomas P. Raimondi, Jr., Chairman, President
and Chief Executive Officer of MTI Technology Corporation (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
    the Company for the fiscal year ended April 5 2003 (the
    Report) fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
|
| | (2) the information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                            

Dated: July 11, 2003



| |     |                            
| | --- | ---------------------------
| | By: | /s/ THOMAS P. RAIMONDI, JR.

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| | Thomas P. Raimondi, Jr.
| | Chairman, President and
| | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to MTI Technology
and will be retained by MTI Technology and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
T he HONORABLE STEPHEN M. REASONER, Chief Judge, United State s 1 District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3633

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Alexander George, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 6, 1998 Filed: April 15, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In November 1996, Alexander George pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The district court sentenced him to thirteen months 1 in prison and three years supervised release, and ordered restitution in the amount of $20,792.09. When George later withdrew his attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, the di strict court afforded him a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and resentenced him to 12 months in prison. George appeals, and we affirm.-2-

Relying on United States v. Atlas , 94 F.3d 447, 451-52 (8th Cir. 1996), George arg ues that the district court erred in affording him only a one-level acceptance-of

r e sponsibility reduction. Because he failed to raise this issue in the district court, we review his sentence for plain error. We conclude there was no plain error becaus e George & s substantial rights were not affected by the one-level reduction. See United States v. Montanye , 996 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (plain error requires showing that the error affected substantial rights). Had the district court given him a two -level reduction, George & s guidelines sentencing range would have been reduce d from10-16 months to 8-14 months. A review of the two sentencing proceeding s satisfies us that this change would not have affected his sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 611.1285 Loan refinancing by borrowers. ( a ) *Disclosure of credit and loan information.* At the request of a borrower seeking refinancing with another System institution before you terminate, you must give credit and loan information about the borrower to such institution.
( b ) *No reassignment of territory.* If, at the termination date, we have not assigned your territory to another System institution, any System institution may lend in your territory, to the extent otherwise permitted by the Act and the regulations in this chapter.
#### HALLOWAY *v.*DAVIS.

Assumpsit for money had and received — contract rescinded.

Where money has been paid on a contract which has been rescinded, or put an end to, or which the defendant has refused to perform, it may he recovered back in an action* for money had and received.

Debt, for money had and received. Plea nil debet..

The plaintiff offered in evidence an article of agreement between the parties for the sale of land.

*TV. B.*Hubbard, for the defendant,

objected, that it appears by the papers, that the plaintiff declared on this contract in a special count, to which a demurrer was filed and the count adjudged bad. The plaintiff cannot, after a decision on the demurrer, resort to the common counts. 2. The article offered is of the same subject matter, in full force; and the only remedy the plaintiff has, is upon the *specialty.*

Wood, J.

The contract is competent evidence. If money has been paid on it, and it has been rescinded, or put an end to, or the defendant has refused to comply with it, on either being shown, the money may be recovered back in this form. 5 *O. B.*352. Whether the plaintiff will establish such a case we will not now undertake to say; but the evidence offered is a link in a chain of such evidence.

There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 79 (Monday, April 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10108]



[[Page 21737]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-248-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Tariff 
Filing

April 18, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 13, 2000 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets:

Effective February 1, 2000

First Revised Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 27
First Revised Thirty-first Revised Sheet No. 28A

Effective April 1, 2000

Substitute Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 27
Substitute Thirty-second Revised Sheet No. 28A

    Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to track 
rate changes attributable to transportation service purchased from CNG 
Transmission Corporation (CNG) under its Rate Schedule GSS the costs of 
which are included in the rates and charges payable under Transco's 
Rate Schedules GSS and LSS.
    Transco states that the filing is being made pursuant to tracking 
provisions under Section 3 of Transco's Rate Schedule GSS and Section 4 
of the Transco's Rate Schedule LSS.
    Transco states that included in Appendix B attached to the filing 
are the explanations and details regarding the computation of the 
revised Rate Schedule GSS and LSS rate changes.
    Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to each 
of its GSS and LSS customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-10108 Filed 4-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32 (ii)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

        In connection with the Form 10-Q of National Bankshares, Inc. for the
quarter ended March 31, 2005, I, J. Robert Buchanan, Treasurer (Principal
Financial Officer) of National Bankshares, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, 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 such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of National Bankshares, Inc.



/s/ J. ROBERT BUCHANAN
-----------------------
J. Robert Buchanan
Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### §§ 628.24-628.29 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED
BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1998 AND FROM THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,153
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,152
<ALLOWANCES>                                       620
<INVENTORY>                                      4,152
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,396
<PP&E>                                         232,731
<DEPRECIATION>                                 106,759
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 201,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,022
<BONDS>                                        139,703
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   201,672
<SALES>                                         62,774     
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,784
<CGS>                                           18,136
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,672
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,599
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    64
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,552
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (487)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (487)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (487)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .0
        

</TABLE>
#### WRIGHT v. WRIGHT.

No. 30658.

Oct. 13, 1942.

*129 P. 2d 1007.*

W. L. Ratliff, of Tishomingo, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. D. French, of Tishomingo, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

On the 10th day of June, 1941, the trial court entered an order extending the time in which to make and serve a case-made. This order expired on June 30, 1941, and no valid order of extension was made thereafter. The case-made was served on July 21, 1941. The appeal is dismissed under the rule announced in Jones v. Blanton, 130 Okla. 200, 266 P. 438, and Whitten v. Farm & Home Savings & Loan Ass’n of Missouri, 184 Okla. 132, 85 P. 2d 759, for failure to make and serve a case-made within the time allowed by the order of the trial court.

Appeal dismissed.

CORN, V. C. J., and OSBORN, BAY-LESS, GIBSON, HURST, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. WELCH, C. J., and RILEY and DAVISON, JJ., absent.
§ 1209.303 Functions of Board. ( a ) The Board is authorized to act for and exercise the authority of the Administrator in cases involving request by NASA contractors for extraordinary contractual adjustments under the Act. Such authority will be exercised in accordance with the standards and procedures established by the Administrator, subject to such limitations as the Administrator may prescribe.
( b ) The Board shall have the power to approve, authorize or direct any action, including the modification or release of any obligations, and to make determinations and findings which are necessary or appropriate for the conduct of its functions, and may adopt such rules of procedure as it considers desirable.
( c ) The concurring vote of a majority of the total Board membership shall constitute an action of the Board. Decisions of the Board shall be final but the Board may reconsider and modify, correct or reverse any Board decision previously made.