alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 121.697 Disposition of load manifest, flight release, and flight plans: Supplemental operations. ( a ) The pilot in command of an airplane shall carry in the airplane to its destination the original or a signed copy of the— ( 1 ) Load manifest;
( 2 ) Flight release;
( 3 ) Airworthiness release;
( 4 ) Pilot route certification; and
( 5 ) Flight plan.
( b ) If a flight originates at the certificate holder's principal base of operations, it shall retain at that base a signed copy of each document listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, if a flight originates at a place other than the certificate holder's principal base of operations, the pilot in command (or another person not aboard the airplane who is authorized by the certificate holder) shall, before or immediately after departure of the flight, mail signed copies of the documents listed in paragraph (a) of this section, to the principal base of operations.
( d ) If a flight originates at a place other than the certificate holder's principal base of operations, and there is at that place a person to manage the flight departure for the certificate holder who does not himself or herself depart on the airplane, signed copies of the documents listed in paragraph (a) of this section may be retained at that place for not more than 30 days before being sent to the certificate holder's principal base of operations. However, the documents for a particular flight need not be further retained at that place or be sent to the principal base of operations, if the originals or other copies of them have been previously returned to the principal base of operations.
( e ) The certificate holder conducting supplemental operations shall: ( 1 ) Identify in its operations manual the person having custody of the copies of documents retained in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section; and
( 2 ) Retain at its principal base of operations either an original or a copy of the records required by this section for at least three months.
[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19226, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-123, 40 FR 44541, Sept. 29, 1975; Amdt. 121-143, 43 FR 22642, May 25, 1978; Amdt. 121-178, 47 FR 13316, Mar. 29, 1982; Amdt. 121-253, 61 FR 2616, Jan. 26, 1996]
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    I, Anthony Jurak, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer (principal executive officer) of Lifequest World Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: a)    the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended May 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and b)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: September 15, 2008 /s/ Anthony Jurak____
Anthony Jurak 
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer,
Acting Chief Accounting Officer  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### § 1203.300 General.

In general, the types of NASA-generated information and material requiring protection in the interest of national security lie in the areas of applied research, technology or operations.
II 

Calendar No. 397

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3185

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2003

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 38 Spring Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, 

as the ‘‘Hugh Gregg Post Office Building’’.

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

HR 3185 PCS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 38 Spring Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Hugh Gregg Post 

5 Office Building’’. 

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 ‘‘Hugh Gregg Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk. 

Calendar No. 397

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3185

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 38 Spring Street in Nashua, 

New Hampshire, as the ‘‘Hugh Gregg Post Office Building’’. 

NOVEMBER 18, 2003

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
# C_2005217EN.01003502.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/35

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 28 June 2005

in Case T-158/03 Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Directive 91/414/EEC - Plant protection products - Active substances - Metalaxyl - Authorisation procedure - Summary dossier and complete dossier - Time-limits - Principle of proportionality - Misuse of powers)

(2005/C 217/79)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case T-158/03: Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA, established in Mollet del Vallés (Spain), represented initially by C. Fernández Vicién, J. Sabater Marotias and P. González-Espejo, and subsequently by C. Fernández Vicién, J. Sabater Marotias and I. Moreno Tapia Rivas, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: S. Pardo Quintillán and B. Doherty, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/308/EC of 2 May 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of metalaxyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant-protection products containing this active substance (OJ 2003 L 113, p. 8) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 June 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3731 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3731

 To require the Secretary of Defense to reimburse members of the Armed 
     Forces who participated in the Department of Defense Rest and 
Recuperation Leave program for travel expenses incurred by or on behalf 
  of such members before the program was expanded to include domestic 
                                travel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2004

   Mr. Ramstad (for himself, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moran of Kansas, and Mr. 
   Pomeroy) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Defense to reimburse members of the Armed 
     Forces who participated in the Department of Defense Rest and 
Recuperation Leave program for travel expenses incurred by or on behalf 
  of such members before the program was expanded to include domestic 
                                travel.

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

SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL COSTS INCURRED BY MEMBERS OF THE 
              ARMED FORCES UNDER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REST AND 
              RECUPERATION LEAVE PROGRAM.

    The Secretary of Defense shall reimburse each member of the Armed 
Forces who participated in the Department of Defense Rest and 
Recuperation Leave program during the period beginning on September 15, 
2003, and ending on December 18, 2003, for travel expenses incurred by 
the member, or by family members on behalf of the member, to travel to 
or from a designated embarkation point for the program before the 
program was expanded to include a domestic travel component.
                                 <all>
```
Customer Service Hotline: 1

- 800

- 438

- 2474 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

- 2029

April 9, 2013

The Honorable Robert M. Summers, Secretary

Maryland Department of the Environment

1800 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21230

Dear Secretary Summers :

On January 10, 2013

, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a

revision to the State of Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Maryland

Department of the Environment (MDE)

. The SIP revision submittal includes new

Regulation .27

- 1 under the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.19

– Volatile

Organic Compounds from Specific Processes in order to adopt the recommended level of control

requirements of EPA’s Control Techniqu e Guideline (CTG) for miscellaneous metal and plastic

parts which include controls for pleasure craft coating operations . EPA has determined that the

submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of

Propos ed Rulemaking (NPR).

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Mr. Gregory Becoat,

at (215) 814

- 2036, the principal contact for this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

/s/

Diana Esher, Director

Air Protection Division

cc: George (Tad) Aburn, Jr., Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration

Diane Franks, Program Manager, Air Quality Planning
#### The J. J. McCaskill Company, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Mizell Live Stock Company, a Corporation, Defendant in Error.

Writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court for Walton County.

Wm. W. Flournoy, for Plaintiff in Error.

C. L. Wilson, for Defendant in Error.

Writ of error dismissed on motion of counsel for defendant in error on May 27th, 1913.
Exhibit 32(a)

                            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 PREMIER EXHIBITIONS, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 21, 2005(the "Report"), I,
Arnie Geller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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.


/s/ Arnie Geller
-------------------------
Arnie Geller
Chief Executive Officer
January 21, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,641,530
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  571,004
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,566,477
<PP&E>                                       1,937,334
<DEPRECIATION>                                 564,486
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,726,388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,913,341
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,619
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,811,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,726,388
<SALES>                                      4,619,051
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,619,051
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,186,247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (65,844)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,498,648
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,185,388
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,313,260
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,313,260
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08



</TABLE>
·' 

# . J ., I 

# •

This document contains some pages that are of poor quality at the time of imaging.
.**...~··"** ' '"0"" -·**··~-.-**

·.,.,... !

## 1H IS IS 

## Youa.s .-- WAS SE:IVT TO US 1 tJ 

### £.e.eoR...
... GLAD 1D 1-lE:L.P •.. :0

0 

## p 

# .
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-884V

Filed: April 22, 2014

Not for Publication

*************************************

LYNN KOETJE, *

*

 Petitioner, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on

 * stipulation of fact

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Scott W. Rooney, Farmington Hills, MI, for petitioner.

Jennifer L. Reynaud, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On April 21, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case.

In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner asserts that she did not 

incur any out-of-pocket expenses in pursuit of her petition. Petitioner submitted her request for 

attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent. During informal discussions, respondent raised 

objections to certain items in petitioner’s application but found the total amount of fees and costs 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

requested to be reasonable. Petitioner now requests reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs 

in the amount of $11,916.56. Respondent does not object to this amount. The undersigned finds 

this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $11,916.56, representing 

reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a check made 

payable jointly to petitioner and Nemes, Rooney & McKindles P.C. in the amount of $11,916.56.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
### SEPTEMBER 19, 2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC 

### MOUNTAIN AVIATION FAA DOCKETNo. [TO BE ASSIGNED]**(Civ~l** Penalty Action) DMS FAA-2012-0875 

### ORDER DENYING MOTION ZUIZ

Respondent Mountain Aviation, Inc. ("Respondent") has filed a Motion to Dismiss For Insufficiency ("Motion to Dismiss" or "Motion") under Rule 218( f)( 1) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. §13.218(f)(1). Rule 218 is in Subpart G ofPart 13, 14 C.F.R. §13.201 etseq 1 A motion to dismiss for insufficiency, which is filed in lieu ofan Answer,must, in order to**succeed~** demonstrate that the Complaint has failed to showhowthe facts asserted therein support the allegations made. Complainanthas answered in opposition. The matters Respondent raises in support ofits Motion medt little discussion. They fail to demonstrate in any way that the Complaint fails to assert facts which suppoJ;t the charges set out. The arguments in Respondent's Motion amount to a briefin opposition to Complainant's allegations. The pleadings show only that the issues arejoined.

1 Respondent cites .14 C.F.R. §13.49 as grounds for the Motion. (The full title ofits Motion is "Respondent's Motionto Dismiss for Insufficiency Pursuant to Rule 13.49"). ·The Complaint, however, was filed under Subpart G, thereby invoking the procedures ofthat subpart. A motion under.Subpart G alleging insufficiency in a complaint must be filed under §13.218. As such, and finding no prejudice to Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant"), I treat Respondent's Motion as ifit were filed under §13.218.2
In view ofthe foregoing, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. As provided inRule 13.218(±)(1), Respondent shi:lll serve an answer to the Complaint with ten days ofthe date ofservice ofthis order. SO ORDERED.

# ftMC-~ Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment- Service List
.

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL &·ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1



### Kent S. Jackson, 

### Respondent's Counsel Jackson 

### & Wade, LLC 2168 Midland Drive Shawnee, KS 66218 TEL: 913-338-1700 FAJ<: 913-338-1755 

### ONE COPY

Kyle E. Lomazow, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofRegionalCounsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 ·Federal Aviation Administration

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847 FAJ<: 425-227-1007 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2011-0875 (Civil ;penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building----:Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
# AGENCY:

 Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). 

# ACTION:

 Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs reducing limits. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

 January 20, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Naomi Freeman, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.ustreas.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, call (202) 482-3715. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 

Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.

The current limits for certain categories are being reduced for carryforward used. 

                    A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see                    **Federal Register**                     notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 50497, published on September 17, 1999.                 

Troy H. Cribb, 

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

Commissioner of Customs, 

*Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20229.*

Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on September 13, 1999, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Mauritius and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2000 and extends through December 31, 2000. 

Effective on January 20, 2000, you are directed to reduce the current limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:

The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). 

Sincerely,

                        Troy H. Cribb,                    

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. 

[FR Doc. 00-1045 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DR-F
#### § 1230.118 Applications and proposals lacking definite plans for involvement of human subjects.

Certain types of applications for grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts are submitted to Federal departments or agencies with the knowledge that subjects may be involved within the period of support, but definite plans would not normally be set forth in the application or proposal. These include activities such as institutional type grants when selection of specific projects is the institution's responsibility; research training grants in which the activities involving subjects remain to be selected; and projects in which human subjects' involvement will depend upon completion of instruments, prior animal studies, or purification of compounds. Except for research waived under § 1230.101(i) or exempted under § 1230.104, no human subjects may be involved in any project supported by these awards until the project has been reviewed and approved by the IRB, as provided in this policy, and certification submitted, by the institution, to the Federal department or agency component supporting the research.