alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali C 464A/17 t

| | ISSN 1977-0987 |
| --- | --- |
| Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali
  tal-Unjoni Ewropea | C 464A |
| | |
| Edizzjoni bil-Malti | Informazzjoni u Avviżi | Volum 6417 ta' Novembru 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0987

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali

tal-Unjoni Ewropea

C 464A

Edizzjoni bil-Malti

Informazzjoni u Avviżi

Volum 6417 ta' Novembru 2021

---

| Werrej | Paġna |
| --- | --- |
| | Rettifika |
| 2021/C 464 A/01 | Rettifika għad-Direttorat Ġenerali għar-Riċerka u l-Innovazzjoni — Pubblikazzjoni ta’ post vakanti għall-kariga ta’ Konsulent Prinċipali — President tal-Bord tal-Kunsill Ewropew tal-Innovazzjoni (Aġent Temporanju — Grad AD 14) — COM/2021/10408 ( ĠU C 432 A, 26.10.2021 ) | 1 |

Werrej

Paġna

Rettifika

2021/C 464 A/01

Rettifika għad-Direttorat Ġenerali għar-Riċerka u l-Innovazzjoni — Pubblikazzjoni ta’ post vakanti għall-kariga ta’ Konsulent Prinċipali — President tal-Bord tal-Kunsill Ewropew tal-Innovazzjoni (Aġent Temporanju — Grad AD 14) — COM/2021/10408 ( ĠU C 432 A, 26.10.2021 )

( ĠU C 432 A, 26.10.2021 )

1

---

| MT | |
| --- | --- |

MT

---

Rettifika

| 17.11.2021 | MT | Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea | CA 464/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2021

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

CA 464/1

---

Rettifika għad-Direttorat Ġenerali għar-Riċerka u l-Innovazzjoni — Pubblikazzjoni ta’ post vakanti għall-kariga ta’ Konsulent Prinċipali — President tal-Bord tal-Kunsill Ewropew tal-Innovazzjoni

(Aġent Temporanju — Grad AD 14)

COM/2021/10408

(
  Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea C 432 A tas-26 ta’ Ottubru 2021
  )

(2021/C 464 A/01)

Fil-paġna 5, taħt “Data tal-għeluq”, l-ewwel paragrafu,

| minflok: | “Id-data tal-għeluq għar-reġistrazzjoni hija s-26 ta’ Novembru 2021, 12.00 nofsinhar ħin ta’ Brussell, u wara din id-data ma jkunx iktar possibbli li tirreġistra.”, |
| --- | --- |

minflok:

“Id-data tal-għeluq għar-reġistrazzjoni hija s-26 ta’ Novembru 2021, 12.00 nofsinhar ħin ta’ Brussell, u wara din id-data ma jkunx iktar possibbli li tirreġistra.”,

| aqra: | “Id-data tal-għeluq għar-reġistrazzjoni hija s-17 ta’ Diċembru 2021, 12.00 nofsinhar ħin ta’ Brussell, u wara din id-data ma jkunx iktar possibbli li tirreġistra.”. |
| --- | --- |

aqra:

aqra:

“Id-data tal-għeluq għar-reġistrazzjoni hija s-17 ta’ Diċembru 2021, 12.00 nofsinhar ħin ta’ Brussell, u wara din id-data ma jkunx iktar possibbli li tirreġistra.”.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with Amendment No.2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
period ended April 3, 2004, of MTI Technology Corporation (the Company) as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Thomas P. Raimondi, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 (15 U.S.C.
Section 78m(a) or Section 780(d)); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this
certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below. Date: July 30, 2004
    /s/ THOMAS P. RAIMONDI, JR.Thomas P. Raimondi, Jr.Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)




I, Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Chief Executive 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 June 30, 2005 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/ Mack I. Whittle, Jr.
-------------------------------
Mack I. Whittle, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
The South Financial Group, Inc.
August 9, 2005


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.
H. R. 3733

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 410 Huston

Street in Altamont, Kansas, as the ‘‘Myron V. George Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

410 Huston Street in Altamont, Kansas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Myron V. George Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Myron

V. George Post Office’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### R. H. STEARNS CO. v. UNITED STATES

[77 C.Cls. 264; 291 U.S. 54]

*844Mr. Justice Cardozo

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court.
§ 107.7 Inspection, testing, and demonstration of compliance. ( a ) A remote pilot in command, owner, or person manipulating the flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system must— ( 1 ) Have in that person's physical possession and readily accessible the remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification when exercising the privileges of that remote pilot certificate.
( 2 ) Present his or her remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification that contains the information listed at § 107.67(b)(1) through (3) for inspection upon a request from— ( i ) The Administrator;
( ii ) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board;
( iii ) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
( iv ) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.
( 3 ) Make available, upon request, to the Administrator any document, record, or report required to be kept under the regulations of this chapter.
( b ) The remote pilot in command, visual observer, owner, operator, or person manipulating the flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system must, upon request, allow the Administrator to make any test or inspection of the small unmanned aircraft system, the remote pilot in command, the person manipulating the flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system, and, if applicable, the visual observer to determine compliance with this part.
( c ) Any person holding an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance under subpart D of this part must, upon request, make available to the Administrator: ( 1 ) The declaration of compliance required under subpart D of this part; and
( 2 ) Any other document, record, or report required to be kept under the regulations of this chapter.
( d ) Any person holding an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance under subpart D of this part must, upon request, allow the Administrator to inspect its facilities, technical data, and any manufactured small UAS and witness any tests necessary to determine compliance with that subpart.
[Amdt. No. 107-8, 86 FR 4381, Jan. 15, 2021]
APPEALS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

February, 1893.]

#### Campbell v. Eames et al.

Defendant not Entitled to Appeae, When—

Where plaintiff in his'first cause of action asks for a foreclosure of a mortgage given to secure a note, and in his second cause of action asks for a personal judgment against the defendant on the note : *Held,*that such defendant being entitled to have demanded a trial by jury, is not entitled to an appeal.

Heard on Motion by plaintiff to dismiss appeal.

*Thos. F. Shay, Richard E. Werner*and *L. M. Hadden,*for plaintiff.

*Wm. E. Bundy,*for defendants.

Smith, J.

The amended and supplemental petition in this case, on which trial was had in the court of common pleas, contained three causes of action. By the second, the plaintiff sought for a personal judgment against Fames on a note executed by the latter to Campbell for $500. The first was for a foreclosure of a mortgage given by Fames and wife to plaintiff to secure said note, and the third set up a judgment obtained by plaintiff against Eames, in another action, which it was claimed was a lien on the mortgaged premises. Henry Klein, L- H. Pummill and others were made parties defendant, as asserting liens on the same premises.

Fames and wife filed no answer, but Klein and Pummill filed answers and cross-petitions setting up their liens on the real estate mortgaged, and contesting the validity of the'mortgage of Campbell and claiming priority over the same. The question as to the consideration of the Campbell note was tried to a jury, on an issue out of chancery, which found in favor of Campbell, and the court by its decree found that his mortgage lien was a good one and had priority over the liens of Klein and Pummill. From this decree Klein, Pummill and Fames, severally and separately appealed.

We are of the opinion that Fames was not entitled to appeal. As to him, a personal judgment having been sought on one cause of action, and a decree of foreclosure of the mortgage given to secure the debt in another cause of action, and on the authority of *Ladd*v. *James,*10 O. S., 438, and other cases, it must be held that Fames, being entitled to demand a trial by jury, he could not appeal.

The rules as to the other parties appealing is different. Campbell had no claim against them, on which he asked for a personal judgment against them. The controversy between them was of an equitable nature, viz: Whether the mortgage of Campbell was a subsisting lien on the property.” *Bazell*v. *Belcher & Doral,*31 O. S., 572. As to. this neither of those parties was entitled to a trial by jury and could therefore appeal.

The motion as to Klein & Pummill will be overruled.
#### HEMSLEY et al. v. HOUGH.

No. 31656.

March 27, 1945.

*157 P. 2d 182.*

*299Jack W. Page and Gerald Spencer, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Howell, Deupree & DeBois and Richard R. Linn, all of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Emma G. Hough, hereinafter called plaintiff, commenced this action against Florence L. Hemsley et al. to cancel a rental or lease agreement made with members of the Negro race in a restricted area consisting of one block and to enjoin the violation of the restrictive agreement entered into by a majority of the lot owners and for attorney fees. Trial to the court resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants Florence L. Hemsley and Ernest C. Noffsinger appeal.

The record discloses that the block involved 40 lots; that the restrictive agreement was required to be signed by nine-tenths of the lot owners, or 36 in number of the owners of the lots in said block, to become effective.

This action is in all respects similar to Hemsley v. Sage, 194 Okla. 669, 154 P. 2d 577, and the opinion therein has to a large extent, determined the issues involved in the case at bar.

However, in the case at bar there is presented the proposition, (1) that the evidence shows that the restrictive contract was not executed by nine-tenths of the owners of the lots in the block. Lots 39 and 40 are not included among the signers and it is agreed that lots 31 and 32 are to be excluded. This leaves in question lots 3 and 4. It is the .contention of the defendants that the former owners of lots 3 and 4, A. R. Sizemore and his wife, never executed the contractual restrictive agreement. Defendants offered witnesses who it is claimed would testify that A. R. Size-more and his wife did not appear before the notary public and did not duly acknowledge the execution of the instrument. The court excluded the offered testimony, and we think properly so. There was no attack upon the contract by the defendants in the pleadings. Assuming, without deciding, that the instrument had to be acknowledged by each signer thereof in order to validate the same as to lots 3 and 4, defendants were required, in order to attack the allegation of the due execution of said instrument, to plead and verify the answer to that effect. 12 O.S. 1941 § 288.

The second and final proposition is an attack upon the constitutionality of the contract. It is agreed that if Lyons v. Wallen, 191 Okla. 567, 133 P. 2d 555, is permitted to stand, this *300proposition is without substantial merit. It was followed in Hemsley v. Sage, supra, and as pointed out in Lyons v. Wallen, supra, it was similarly held prior to the determination by this court of Allen v. Oklahoma City, 175 Okla. 421, 52 P. 2d 1054. As. stated in Lyons v. Wallen, supra, the holding in Allen v. Oklahoma City in no way affected the validity of the restrictive contractual agreements such as are involved in the case at bar.

We adhere to the opinions above referred to relating to this proposition.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24519 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 16:52:20 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24519 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 16:52:20 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24519 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 16:52:20 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24519 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 16:52:20 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24519 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 16:52:20 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24519 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 16:52:20 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 6
**Exhibit 23.3****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS**     LaRoche Petroleum Consultants, Ltd. consents to the references to our firm in the form andcontext in which they appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quicksilver Resources Inc. (the“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2007. We further consent to the use of informationcontained in our report, as of December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, setting forth the estimates ofrevenues from the Company’s oil and gas reserves in such Annual Report on Form 10-K. We furtherconsent to the incorporation by reference of such Annual Report on Form 10-K into RegistrationStatement Nos. 333-69496, 333-89204, 333-92196 and 333-130597 on Form S-3 and RegistrationStatement Nos. 333-91526, 333-94387, 333-113617, 333-116180 and 333-134430 on Form S-8 of theCompany.**LaROCHE PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS, LTD.**         By: /s/ Joe A. Young             Joe A. Young      Senior Partner
§ 145.165 Hazardous materials training. ( a ) Each repair station that meets the definition of a hazmat employer under 49 CFR 171.8 must have a hazardous materials training program that meets the training requirements of 49 CFR part 172 subpart H.
( b ) A repair station employee may not perform or directly supervise a job function listed in § 121.1001 or § 135.501 for, or on behalf of the part 121 or 135 operator including loading of items for transport on an aircraft operated by a part 121 or part 135 certificate holder unless that person has received training in accordance with the part 121 or part 135 operator's FAA approved hazardous materials training program.
[Doc. No. FAA-2003-15085, 70 FR 58831, Oct. 7, 2005]
Exhibit 21.1



The following is a list of Avalons subsidiaries except for unnamed subsidiaries which considered in the aggregate as a single
subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary.



|                                                |  |                       
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Subsidiary Name                                 |  | State of Incorporation
|      American Landfill Management, Inc.       |  | Ohio                  
|      American Waste Management Services, Inc. |  | Ohio                  
|      Avalon Golf and Country Club, Inc.       |  | Ohio                  
|      Avalon Lakes Golf, Inc.                  |  | Ohio                  
|      Avalon Travel, Inc.                      |  | Ohio                  
|      TBG, Inc.                                |  | Ohio                  



Parent/subsidiary relationships are
indicated by indentations. In each case, 100% of the voting securities of each of the subsidiaries is owned by the indicated parent of such subsidiary.
§ 1250.105 Compliance information. ( a ) *Cooperation and assistance.* Each responsible NASA official shall to the fullest extent practicable seek the cooperation of recipients in obtaining compliance with this part and shall provide assistance and guidance to recipients to help them comply voluntarily with this part.
( b ) *Compliance reports.* Each recipient shall keep such records and submit to the Principal Compliance Officer or his designee timely, complete and accurate compliance reports at such times, and in such form and containing such information, as the Principal Compliance Officer or his designee may determine to be necessary to enable him to ascertain whether the recipient has complied or is complying with this part. In the case in which a primary recipient extends Federal financial assistance to any other recipient, such other recipient shall also submit such compliance reports to the primary recipient as may be necessary to enable the primary recipient to carry out its obligations under this part.
( c ) *Access to sources of information.* Each recipient shall permit access by the Principal Compliance Officer or his designee during normal business hours to such of its books, records, accounts and other sources of information, and its facilities as may be pertinent to ascertain compliance with this part. Where any information required of a recipient is in the exclusive possession of any other agency, institution or person and that agency, institution or person shall fail or refuse to furnish this information, the recipient shall so certify in its report and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information.
( d ) *Information to beneficiaries and participants.* Each recipient shall make available to participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons such information regarding the provisions of this part and its applicability to the program for which the recipient receives Federal financial assistance, and make such information available to them in such manner, as the Principal Compliance Officer finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protection against discrimination assured them by the Act and this part.
[30 FR 301, Jan. 9, 1965, as amended at 68 FR 51350, Aug. 26, 2003]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 10, 2013

NO. 03

- 12

- 00182

- CR

Anthony O ’ Neal, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the district court’s

judgment: IT IS ORDER ED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment

of the district court is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and

unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certified

below for observance.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T LAURA REYES - ORTI Z, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71652 A ge nc yN o. A 073- 993- 010 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L aur aR e y e s - O rt i z , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of G ua t e m a l a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e ope n de port a t i on 

# FI LED MA R 10 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71652 2 p r o c e e d in g s c o n du c te din ab s e n tia . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n . L ara-T orres v . A s h c r o ft , 3 8 3 F .3 d9 6 8 , 9 7 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , am e nde d by40 4 F . 3d 11 05 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e a g e n c yd idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g R e y e s - O rtiz ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n b a s e do n la c ko f n o tic e w h e r e th e r e c o r de s tab lis h e s th a t s h e w a s p e r s o n a lly s e rv e dw ith an O r d e rto S h o w C au s e ( “O S C ” ) an dN o tic e o f H e ar in g , w r itte n in both E ngl i s h and S pani s h. T he r e w a s no s t a tut oryr e qui r e m e nttha tthe O S C be o r a llytr an s la te d . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 b ( a ) ( 2 ) , ( 3 ) ( 1 9 9 5 ) ; s e e al s o M at te rof H erna ndez , 2 1 I . & N . D e c . 2 2 4 , 2 2 6 - 2 7 ( B I A 1 9 9 6 ) . R e y e s - O rt i z ’ s r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons ar e una va i l i ng. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
LTS Doc#:24702-1 Filed:06/30/23 Entered:06/30/23 1

Envelope Page 1 of 1
- 1 - 

Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

November 19, 2014 

via email and regulations.gov

Brett Kruger

Acting Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application of Delta Air Lines and Aeromexico

For IAH-MTY Codesharing 

Dockets DOT-OST-2014-0190, DOT-OST-1997-3289, and DOT-OST-2000-7708 

Dear Mr. Kruger: 

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all of the carriers on the service list to the above 

referenced application and there are no objections. In these circumstances, we urge that the 

application be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Brian Hedberg, DOT

 Bob Finamore, DOT

 info@airlineinfo.com