alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Home
- Historical Documents

# Historical Documents

The *Foreign Relations of the United States* (FRUS) series presents the                    official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions                    and significant diplomatic activity.

Search within the volumes or browse                    volume titles by administration:

Abraham Lincoln Administration                                 1861–1865

Andrew Johnson Administration  1865–1869

Ulysses S. Grant Administration                                 1869–1877

Rutherford B. Hayes Administration                                 1877–1881

James A. Garfield Administration  1881

Chester A. Arthur Administration                                 1881–1885

Grover Cleveland Administration                                 1885–1889

Benjamin Harrison Administration                                 1889–1893

Grover Cleveland Administration                                 1893–1897

William McKinley Administration                                 1897–1901

Theodore Roosevelt Administration                                 1901–1909

William H. Taft Administration                                 1909–1913

Woodrow Wilson Administration  1913–1921

Warren G. Harding Administration                                 1921–1923

Calvin Coolidge Administration                                 1923–1929

Herbert C. Hoover Administration                                 1929–1933

Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration                                 1933–1945

Harry S. Truman Administration                                 1945–1952

Dwight D. Eisenhower Administration                                 1953–1960

John F. Kennedy Administration                                 1961–1963

Lyndon B. Johnson Administration                                1964–1968

Richard M. Nixon Administration                                1969–1974

Gerald R. Ford Administration 1974–1976

Jimmy Carter Administration 1977–1980

Ronald Reagan Administration 1981–1988

George H.W. Bush Administration                                1989–1992

William J. Clinton Administration                                1993–2000

## Historical Documents

          - About the *Foreign Relations* Series
          - Status of the *Foreign Relations* Series
          - History of the *Foreign Relations* Series
          - *Foreign Relations* Ebooks
          - Other Electronic Resources
          - Guide to Sources on Vietnam, 1969-1975
          - Citing the *Foreign Relations* series
#### § 1212.100 Scope and purpose.

This part 1212 implements the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a). It establishes procedures for individuals to access their Privacy Act records and to request amendment of information in records concerning them. It also provides procedures for administrative appeals and other remedies. This part applies to systems of records located at or under the cognizance of NASA Headquarters, NASA Field Centers, and NASA Component Installations, as defined in part 1201 of this chapter.

[57 FR 4928, Feb. 11, 1992, as amended at 77 FR 60621, Oct. 4, 2012]
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the Registration Statements of Global Crossing Limited (Form S-8 No.’s 333-121079, 333-125281, 333-133520, and 333-157705, and Form S-3 No. 333-159051) of our reports dated February 23, 2011, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of Global Crossing Limited and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Global Crossing Limited, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Iselin, New Jersey 

February 23, 2011
February 5, 2013

 

Mr. Robert Freitas

Director of Maintenance

5 Concord Farms

555 Virginia Road

Concord, MA 01742

Dear Mr. Freitas:

This is in response to your November 28, 2012 letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA2012-1271) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of AirDialog 

LLC, dba Linear Air, for an exemption from § 43.3(g) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). This petition, if granted, would allow AirDialog LLC pilots, who have 

been properly trained to perform preventive maintenance, in the form of updating Air Traffic 

Control (ATC) navigational software databases on its aircraft used in operations under 14 

CFR part 135. 

On November 29, 2012, the FAA published a final rule, Pilot Loading of Aeronautical 

Database Updates (77 FR 71089). The rule became effective January 28, 2013. A copy of this 

rule change is enclosed for your information. The rule describes equipment and conditions in 

which aeronautical databases may be updated by pilots as a non-maintenance function.

As the relief you seek is now provided in revised § 43.3(g), we will take no further action on 

your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda D. Courtney

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
exv10w2



 





Exhibit 10.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In connection with the Annual Report of ASM International N.V. (the
“Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Robert L. de Bakker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:


     (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 results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Robert L. de Bakker


Robert L. de Bakker

Chief Financial Officer

April 17, 2003
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

                            CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION

                                       OF

                  HARTMAN REIT OPERATING PARTNERSHIP II GP, LLC

        1.      The name of the limited liability company is Hartman REIT
Operating Partnership II GP, LLC.

        2.      The address of its registered office in the State of Delaware is
Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, County of New Castle.
The name of the limited liability company's registered agent for service of
process in the State of Delaware at such address is The Corporation Trust
Company.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of
Formation of Hartman REIT Operating Partnership II GP, LLC this 7th day of
November 2002.

                                             /s/ Allen R. Hartman
                                             ------------------------
                                             Allen R. Hartman
                                             Authorized Person
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 **Certification of the Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

I, James R. Gordon, the Executive Vice President and Principal Financial Officer of The South Financial Group, Inc. (“TSFG”) certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 of TSFG (the "Report"): 

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TSFG. 

 

/s/  James R. Gordon   

James R. Gordon 

Executive Vice President and Principal Financial Officer 

The South Financial Group, Inc.

May 8, 2007

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The South Financial Group, Inc. and will be retained by The South Financial Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 137.75 Change of address.

Each holder of an agricultural aircraft operator certificate shall notify the FAA in writing in advance of any change in the address of his home base of operations.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 11, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60091 

Summary Calendar

LEEVAC SHIPYARDS;

LOUISIANA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CORP

Petitioners,

versus

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, US DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR; GABRIEL OAKS

Respondents.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Benefits Review Board 

(05-0350) 

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leevac Shipyards and its insurance carrier, Louisiana Workers’

Compensation Corporation, petition this court for review of an

administrative decision by the benefits review board and the

administrative law judge granting disability benefits to the

claimant. The claimant filed for benefits under the Longshore and

Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et
2

seq. The ALJ found that claimant’s back injury and headaches were

causally related to an accident that he suffered at work on

February 11, 2001, and awarded medical expenses and continuing

temporary total disability benefits. The benefits review board

affirmed the ALJ’s order. We also affirm. 

The ALJ’s factual findings must be supported by substantial

evidence. SGS Control Services v. Director, Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, 86 F.3d 438 (5th

Cir. 1996). “Substantial evidence” is evidence that a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Noble

Drilling v. Drake, 795 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1986). 

The ALJ’s finding of causation is supported by substantial

evidence, even without reference to the Section 20(a) presumption.

Both the claimant and his wife testified that his headaches were

different, and more severe, after his work accident. Their

testimony was corroborated by his treating physician, Dr. Goldware,

who testified that the herniated disc at C5-6 was caused by the

claimant’s work accident and was not aggravated by a subsequent

automobile accident. Accordingly, the order of the ALJ is 

AFFIRMED.
Attachment 21Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:24634-21   Filed:06/22/23   Entered:06/22/23 18:57:29    Desc: 

Attachment 21   Page 1 of 1
~~D SJ; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

v~\ A.)-~\\' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

---= 

;;"

~

-8 ~%

:IJ ~,,~~ W ~

0 ~

\. & PREVENTION. PESTICIDES AND

"'J".d "v"~ TOXIC SUBSTANCES

-'i. PRo1~

MEMORANDUM

DATE: June 19,2013

SUBJECT: Transmission of additional background materials on avian histopathology for the

June 25-28,2013 meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and review scientific

issues associated with the validation of the Proposed EDSP Tier 2 Ecotoxicity

Tests

TO: Laura E. Bailey, M.S., Executive Secretary

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201 M)

Sharlene R. Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Staff

Office of Science Coordination and Policy (720 I M)

FROM: Mary Manibusan, Director 6/19/13 ~W\ <'/~/l~

Exposure Assessment, Coordination and PolIcy Division

Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7203M)

This memo signifies transmission of two additional background documents on avian

histopathology that will assist the members of the panel in their review of scientific issues

associated with the Japanese Quail Two-Generation Toxicity Test (JQTT). These documents

address histopathology of Japanese quail in the two-generation toxicity test will facilitate the

consideration of the procedures described in the proposed test guideline and the results obtained

in the interlaboratory evaluation with vinclozolin. These documents do not contain any

information protected under the statute as Confidential Business Information (CBI) or

information protected from disclosure to foreign and multi-national pesticide producers under

FIFRA Section 10(g).
1

\

I

Contains

FIFRA I

10(9) or

Name of Document Author(s) Date CBI

Brigid V.

Histopathology Evaluation of Reproductive and Troan, 10

Selected Visceral and Brain Tissue from Molly H. December No

the Avian 2-Generation Test in Vinclozolin Exposed Kr Bo7lte, R 2012

.IS en .

Adult Japanese QuaIl Hobbie

,

Experimental DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDANCE FOR SUCCESSFUL Pathology 11 July N NECROPSY OF JAPANESE QUAIL Laboratories, 2011 0

Inc.

" t .' ;

I, \ ' j \

, ; '. "" 1\ : \ ,/ -.,'.. i ,Ii. .

:.'1- f.., II;!

fiti;

'!(' ,:; :';1;

, : '.,! , i

"i ""' j" , C 1 J ,i 

"

.

--
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND>      
<RESTATED> 
<CIK>                                0000797917
<NAME>                               RAYTECH CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000
<CURRENCY>                           U.S. DOLLARS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                       DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                      1
   
<CASH>                               6,200
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                        32,681
<ALLOWANCES>                         761
<INVENTORY>                          30,107
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     77,511
<PP&E>                               150,888
<DEPRECIATION>                       86,634
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       166,825
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                68,552
<BONDS>                              0
<COMMON>                             5,553
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<OTHER-SE>                           52,656
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         166,825
<SALES>                              126,540
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     126,540
<CGS>                                95,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        95,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   2,001
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      14,127
<INCOME-TAX>                         3,690
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  9,511
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                         9,511
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        2.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                        2.67



    

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NT Holding Corp. on Form 10-QSB for
the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, James Loo, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, 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 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 21, 2006



/S/ James Loo
-------------
James Loo
Chief Financial Officer
230615 EXHIBIT C. WITNESS COVER SHEET VERSION JUNE 15, 2023 1

EXHIBIT C1

PARTY WITNESS COVER SHEET

Name of Party 

Are you the proponent of a witness?

If you are the proponent of the witness, does the 

witness require interpretation services? 

Do you intend to cross-examine a witness?

Total Number of Witnesses to Examine

Name of Witness Docket Entry No. of the 

Witness Declaration

Scope of Cross-Examination

*The Court does not provide interpreters for witness testimony. 

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

Motion as Exhibit C.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24582-3 Filed:06/15/23 Entered:06/15/23 11:14:26 Desc:

Exhibit C - Witness Cover Sheet Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
October 12, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_______________



### m 01-10891

_______________ 

### R UBY 

### R. C ALAD 

### ,

Plaintiff-AppellantCross-Appellee,



### W ALTER 

### P ATRICK 

### T HORN 

### ,

Plaintiff-Cross-Appellee,

VERSUS



### CIGNA H EALTHCARE OF 

### T EXAS 

### , I NCORPORATED 

### ,

D OING B USINESS AS H EALTHSOURCE , D OING B USINESS AS C IGNA C ORPORATION ,



### Defendant-Appellee,



### A ETNA 

### U.S. H EALTHCARE 

### ; A ETNA 

### U.S. H EALTHCARE OF 

### N ORTH 

### T EXAS 

### , I NC 

### .,Defendants-AppelleesCross-Appellants.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *_______________



### m 01-10905

_______________ 

### J UAN 

### D AVILA 

### , Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS



### A ETNA 

### U.S. H EALTHCARE 

### , I NC 

### .; A ETNA 

### U.S. H EALTHCARE OF 

### N ORTH 

### T EXAS 

### , I NC 

### ., Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dist. Ct. 

### m 3:00-CV-2368-D (5th Cir. Nos. 01-10891, 01-10905) Dist. Ct. 

### m 3:00-CV-2693-H (5th Cir. 

### m 01-10891)

_________________________

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before S MITH

and B ENAVIDES , Circuit Judges. *

P ER C URIAM :

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this panel’s o pinion. S ee Roark v. Humana, Inc.
, 30 7 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2002), r eversed sub nom

. Aetna H

ealth Inc. v. Davila
, ___ U.S.
___, 124 S. Ct. 2488 (2004). We requested and have received letters fr om the parties advising of their respectiv e positions regarding the appropriate action to be taken by t his court on remand. The parties appear to agree that this litigation is at an end. Plaint iffs Calad and Davila have nonsuited their actions in state court.
Accordingly, the appeals are DISMISSED. All costs are taxed against the plaintiffs.

* Judge Parker was a member of this panel but resigned from the court after the initial opinion was issued. This matter is now decided by a quorum. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
-----------------------------------                 ----------------------------
Name                                                Jurisdiction of Organization
-----------------------------------                 ----------------------------

3016117 Nova Scotia ULC                                          Nova Scotia

Birmingham Crane & Hoist, Inc.                                    Alabama

Butters Engineering Services Limited                              Scotland

EPH Material Handling, LLC                                        Pennsylvania

Harnischfeger Distribution & Service, LLC                         Wisconsin

Morris Material Handling Mexico S.A. de C.V.                      Mexico

HPH Material Handling, LLC                                        Wisconsin

Hydramach ULC                                                     Nova Scotia

Invercoe Engineering Limited                                      Scotland

Kaverit Steel and Crane ULC                                       Nova Scotia

Linear Motors Limited                                             U.K.

Lowfile Limited                                                   U.K.

Material Handling Equipment Nevada Corporation                    Nevada

Merwin, LLC                                                       Delaware

MHE Technologies, Inc.                                            Delaware

MHE Canada ULC                                                    Canada

MMH (Holdings) Limited                                            U.K.

MMH International Limited                                         U.K.

Mondel ULC                                                        Nova Scotia

Morris Blooma Pte Ltd.                                            Singapore

Morris Material Handling, Inc.                                    Delaware

Morris Material Handling, LLC                                     Delaware

Morris Material Handling Limited                                  U.K.

Morris Material Handling Equipment Limited                        U.K.

Morris Mechanical Handling (Pty.) Limited                         South Africa

MPH Crane, Inc.                                                   Ohio

P&H Middle East Ltd.                                              Cayman Islands

PHME Service, Inc.                                                Delaware

PHMH Holding Company                                              Delaware

RedCrown, ULC                                                     U.K.

Royce Limited                                                     U.K.

SPH Crane & Hoist, Inc.                                           Delaware

U.K. Crane Services Limited                                       U.K.

The Vaughan Crane Company Limited                                 U.K.
#### Vickery *et al. v.*Rester.

In an action on a promissory note, brought jointly under the statute, against the maker and endorsers, the plaintiff may discontinue as to the first endorser, and take judgment by default against the second endorser and the maker.

In judgment by default on a promissory note, it seems the note must be produced; but in order to show that it was not produced, that fact must be spread upon the record, or it is not of itself a part of the record. ,

IN error from the circuit court for the county of Yazoo.

Hezekiah Rester instituted suit in March, 1838, against Mag-nus T. Rogers, as maker of a promissory note, and Alexander Elliot and Aaron Vickery, first and second endorsers, for $1000. The action was joint against the maker and endorsers, in pursuance of the statute. The *plaintiff*discontinued as to the first endorser, and took judgment by default against the second endorser and the maker.

The note upon which the action was founded, was not filed among the papers.

Tbe following bill of particulars was filed with thé papers:

Defendants to Plaintifis *Dr.*

To amount of note sued on in this action, $1000

Paid charges of protest on same, 3

$1003

Forrester & Fitch for plaintiff in error.

Rucks & Yerger, *contra.*

Opinion of the court by

Mr. Justice Turner.

Two questions are presented in this case:

1st. As to the dismissal of the suit as to one of the defendants in the court below.

This point has been so often ruled in this court, that it is not necessary again to discuss it. There is no error in this part of the case.

*2942d. That judgment was taken without filing the note sued on.

The long established practice of our courts, is in favor of the principle assumed by the plaintiff in error.. Although there is a judgment by default in an action on a note or bond, unless sued on as a lost instrument, the courts will not permit a judgment to be taken. The note should be produced and filed, not only for the purpose of seeing whether there are credits endorsed, but for the sake of propriety, and for the benefit of the defendant.

But the point does not arise in this case, as it does not appear by the record that the note was *not*produced. Oyer is not re. quired in such case as this; and there is no bill of exceptions, by which means it might have been placed on the record. For aught we know, the note may be on file in the court below.

Judgment must be aifirmed.