alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1259.502 Application procedures. ( a ) All applicants for designation as Space Grant colleges and consortia shall apply for Space Grant fellowships.
( b ) Applicants for Space Grant program or project grants (under § 1259.200) and for national needs grants (under § 1259.300) may also apply for Space Grant fellowships.
( c ) There shall be a merit review selection for Space Grant fellowship awards.
[54 FR 19880, May 9, 1989, as amended at 82 FR 35442, July 31, 2017]
§ 161.315 Receipt of complete application. ( a ) When a complete application has been received, the FAA will notify the applicant by letter that the FAA intends to act on the application.
( b ) The FAA will publish notice of the proposed restriction in the Federal Register, inviting interested parties to file comments on the application within 30 days after publication of the Federal Register notice.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3760

To extinguish the reversionary interests and use restrictions relating to 

industrial use purposes for certain deeds in Nez Perce County, Idaho. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2004

Mr. OTTER (for himself and Mr. SIMPSON) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To extinguish the reversionary interests and use restrictions 

relating to industrial use purposes for certain deeds in 

Nez Perce County, Idaho.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Port of Lewiston De5 velopment Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS 

7 AND USE RESTRICTIONS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—With respect to each deed listed 

9 in subsection (b)—
2

•HR 3760 IH 

1 (1) the reversionary interests and use restric2 tions relating to industrial use purposes are extin3 guished; 

4 (2) the restriction that no activity shall be per5 mitted that will compete with services and facilities 

6 offered by public marinas is extinguished; 

7 (3) the human habitation or other building 

8 structure use restriction is extinguished in each area 

9 in which the elevation is above the standard project 

10 flood elevation; and 

11 (4) the use of fill material to raise low areas 

12 above the standard project flood elevation is author13 ized, except in any low area constituting wetland for 

14 which a permit under section 404 of the Federal 

15 Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is re16 quired. 

17 (b) AFFECTED DEEDS.—The deeds referred to in 

18 subsection (a) are as follows: 

19 (1) Auditor’s Instrument No. 399218 of Nez 

20 Perce County, Idaho—2.07 acres. 

21 (2) Auditor’s Instrument No. 487437 and 

22 399341 of Nez Perce County, Idaho—7.32 acres. 
3

•HR 3760 IH 

1 (c) NO EFFECT OF OTHER RIGHTS.—Nothing in this 

2 section affects the remaining rights and interests of the 

3 Corps of Engineers for authorized project purposes.

Æ
§ 151.57 Grant payments: General. ( a ) An application for a grant payment is made on FAA Form 5100-6, accompanied by— ( 1 ) A summary of project costs on Form FAA-1630;
( 2 ) A periodic cost estimate on Form FAA-1629 for each contract representing costs for which payment is requested; and
( 3 ) Any supporting information, including appraisals of property interests, that the FAA needs to determine the allowability of any costs for which payment is requested.
( b ) Contractor's certifications. Each application that involves work performed by a contractor must contain, in the contractor's certification in the periodic cost estimate, a statement that “there has been full compliance with all labor provisions included in the contract identified above and in all subcontracts made under that contract”, and, in the case of a substantial dispute as to the nature of the contractor's or a subcontractor's obligation under the labor provisions of the contract or a subcontract, and additional phrase “except insofar as a substantial dispute exists with respect to these provisions”.
( c ) If a contractor or subcontractor fails or refuses to comply with the labor provisions of the contract with the sponsor, further grant payments to the sponsor are suspended until the violations stop, until the Administrator determines the allowability of the project costs to which the violations related, or, to the extent that the violations consist of underpayments to labor, until the sponsor furnishes satisfactory assurances to the FAA that restitution has been or will be made to the affected employees.
( d ) If, upon final determination of the allowability of all project costs of a project, it is found that the total of grant payments to the sponsor was more than the total United States share of the allowable costs of the project, the sponsor shall promptly return the excess to the FAA.
[Doc. No. 1329, 27 FR 12351, Dec. 13, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 151-4, 29 FR 11336, Aug. 6, 1964; Amdt. 151-8, 30 FR 8040, June 23, 1965; Amdt. 151-17, 31 FR 16525, Dec. 28, 1966; Amdt. 151-32, 34 FR 9617, June 19, 1969]
#### State ex rel. F. D. Tompkins and Ira J. Smith, Relators, v. Mallory F. Horne, Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida, Respondent.

Application for alternative writ of mandamus.

W. K. Zewadski, for Application.

Application denied November 11th, 1912.'
§ 1261.108 Recovery from carriers, insurers, and other third parties. ( a ) *General.* NASA is not an insurer and does not underwrite all personal property losses that an employee may sustain. Employees are encouraged to carry private insurance to the maximum extent practicable to avoid large losses or losses which may not be recoverable from NASA. The procedures set forth in this section are designed to enable the claimant to obtain the maximum amount of compensation for personal property loss or damage. Failure of the claimant to comply with these procedures may reduce or preclude payment of the claim.
( b ) *Demand on carrier, contractor, warehouse owner/operator, or insurer.* When it appears that property has been damaged or lost under circumstances in which a carrier, warehouse owner/operator, contractor or insurer may be responsible, the claimant shall make a written demand on such party, either before or after submitting a claim against NASA. The Administrator or designee, if requested, will assist in making demand on the third party. No such demand need be made if, in the opinion of the Administrator or designee, it would be impracticable or any recovery would be insignificant, or if circumstances preclude the claimant from making timely demand.
( c ) *Action subsequent to demand.* A copy of the demand and of any related correspondence shall be submitted to the Administrator or designee. If the carrier, insurer, or other third party offers a settlement which is less than the amount of the demand, the claimant shall consult with the Administrator or designee before accepting the amount offered. The claimant shall also notify the Administrator or designee promptly of any other action by a third party, including settlement, partial settlement, or denial of liability.
( d ) *Application of recovery.* When the amount recovered from a carrier, insurer, or other third party is greater than or equal to the claimant's total loss as determined under this subpart, no compensation is allowable under this subpart. When the amount recovered is less than such total loss, the allowable amount is determined by deducting the recovery from the amount of total loss subject to the maximum set forth in § 1261.102.
( e ) *Transfer of rights.* The claimant shall assign to the United States, to the extent of any payment accepted on a claim, all rights, title, and interest in any claim he/she may have against any carrier, insurer, or other party arising out of the accident or incident on which the claim against the United States is based. The claimant shall also, upon request, furnish such evidence and other cooperation as may be required to enable the United States to enforce the claim. After payment on the claim by the United States, the claimant shall, upon receipt of any payment from a carrier, insurer, or other party, notify the Administrator or designee and pay the proceeds to the United States to the extent required under the provisions of paragraph (d).
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24890 Filed:08/14/23 Entered:08/15/23 17:05:14 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24890 Filed:08/14/23 Entered:08/15/23 17:05:14 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

January 21, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00010

- CV

IN RE CINCINNATI INS URANCE COMPANY

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Irene Rios , Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

O n January 7

, 20 20 , r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus , in which it requested a stay of the January 27, 2020 trial setting pending final resolution of the petition for writ of
mandamus

. After considering the petition and th e record

, this court concludes relator did no t satisfy its burden to show its entitle ment to the relief sought . Accordingly, the petition for writ
of mandamus is denied

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a). Relator ’ s request for a stay is denied as

moot. This court ’ s opinion will issue at a later date.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 21st day of January, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding ari ses out of Cause No. 1 8

- 10

- 36490

- MCV, styled Ronnie Villanueva v. Juan Fernandez, Roberto Verduzco, and The Cincinnati Insurance Co. , pending in the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas, the Honorable Maribel Flores presiding.
### TIME 1425 HRS 

### DATE 2/26/2015 

### RECORD OF CONVERSATION NAME(S) OF PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONFERENCE AND LOCATION Ray Johnson, FAAAirmen Training and Certification Branch, AFS-810 Ms. Paula Lawton, Withrotor Aviation, Inc. 

### SUBJECT Request forfurther information, Withrotor Aviation, Inc. (Withrotor) petition for exemption Docket FAA-2015-0123 

### DIGEST On February 26, 2015, I contacted Ms. Lawton for information needed to support Withrotor's request for exemption. Specifically, I requested the specific type and registration numbers ofthe aircraft that would be used underthe requested relief, as well as general clarification questions pertaining to the request. Ms. Lawton responded with the requested information on February 27, 2015 (via email) and again on March 2, 2015 (via letter; attached to this record).



### CONCLUSION, ACTION TAKEN, OR REQUIRED The information provided byWithrotor will be used bythe FAA during the consideration ofthe petition for exemption.
#### AMERICAN-WEST AFRICAN LINE v. UNITED STATES

[76 C.Cls. 235; 290 U.S. 628]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court October 9, 1933.
#### § 135.12 Previously trained crewmembers.

A certificate holder may use a crewmember who received the certificate holder's training in accordance with subparts E, G, and H of this part before March 19, 1997 without complying with initial training and qualification requirements of subparts N and O of part 121 of this chapter. The crewmember must comply with the applicable recurrent training requirements of part 121 of this chapter.

[Doc. No. 27993, 60 FR 65950, Dec. 20, 1995]
Exhibit 32.1


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


     In connection with the Report of HST Global, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ron Howell, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to 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.

                                   Date: August 20, 2010

                                   \s\ Ron Howell
                                   --------------
                                   Ron Howell
                                   Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
* Pursuant to 5THCIR. 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 5THCIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 9, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20938 Summary Calendar

KELLY, SUTTER, MOUNT & KENDRICK, P.C., doing business as Kelly, Sutter & Kendrick, P.C.; J DOUGLAS SUTTER, Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v. ROBERT ALPERT, Defendant - Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

USDC No. 4:05-CV-2213

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered default judgment against Appellant, Robert Alpert, after he failed to respond to a complaint filed against him. Alpert moved to set aside the default judgment solelyunder Rule 60(b)(4), claiming that he had not been validly served with process because the personwho received the summons and complaint, his housekeeper, did not live at his residence at the time of service. The district court held an evidentiaryhearinganddetermined that the testimony2

of Alpert and his housekeeper were not credible and that the housekeeper was residing at the house at the time of service. The court concluded that service of process was adequate. Alpert subsequently filed a motion for new trial and a second motion to set aside the default judgment, this time alleging excusable neglect, which were both denied by the district court. Alpert appeals to this Court. Whether there was sufficient service of process upon a defendant is an issue of law that this court reviews de novo. Maiz v. Virani, 311 F.3d 334, 338, 340 (5th Cir. 2002). “We review the district court's findings of fact underlying its disposition of a rule 60(b)(4) motion for clear error.” Goetz v. Synthesys Technologies, Inc., 415 F.3d 481, 483 (5th Cir. 2005). The issue of whether or not service was proper in this case turns on the factual determination of whether Alpert’s housekeeper was residing at his home at the time of service. After review of the record, we do not find that the court clearly erred in determining that Alpert’s housekeeper was a “person of suitable age and discretion then

residing” in Alpert’s home, thus satisfying the requirements for service of process under Rule 4(e)(2). In addition, for the reasons stated in the district court’s Memorandum and Opinion entered on October 25, 2006, we agree that Alpert has failed to make the requisite showing that the judgment should be set aside under either Rule 59(e) or 60(b)(1). AFFIRMED.
----

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 2005 — Infront WM AG v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-33/01) (1)

(Television broadcasting - Directive 89/552/EEC - Directive 97/36/EC - Article 3a - Events of major importance for society - Admissibility - Infringement of essential procedural requirements)

(2006/C 48/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Infront WM AG, formerly KirchMedia WM AG (Zug (Switzerland)) (represented initially by C. Lenz, A. Bardong, lawyers, and E. Batchelor, Solicitor, and subsequently by C. Lenz, E. Batchelor, R. Denton, Solicitors, F. Carlin, Barrister, and M. Clough QC)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Banks and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, and by J. Flynn QC)

Intervener(s) in support of the defendant(s): French Republic, represented by G. de Bergues, acting as Agent, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented initially by J. Collins and subsequently by R. Caudwell and finally by M. Berthell and by K. Parker QC, European Parliament, represented by C. Pennera and M. Moore, acting as Agents, and Council of the European Union, represented by A. Lopes Sabino and M. Bishop, acting as Agents,

Application for

annulment of the alleged decision of the Commission adopted under Article 3a of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60),

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 134 of 05. 05. 2001.

----
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CONTENT SQUARE ISRAEL LTD., fka Clicktale 

Ltd., 

Appellant

v.

DECIBEL INSIGHT, LTD., DECIBEL INSIGHT, 

INC., 

Cross-Appellants

______________________

2023-1014, 2023-1067

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-

00530.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

The parties submit a “Joint Stipulation to Voluntarily 

Dismiss Appeals Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b),” which 

the court treats as a joint motion to dismiss these appeals.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Case: 23-1014 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 02/23/2023
2 CONTENT SQUARE ISRAEL LTD. V. DECIBEL INSIGHT, LTD.

(1) The motion is granted. The appeals are dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

February 23, 2023

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 23, 2023

Case: 23-1014 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 02/23/2023
# C_2018352EN.01004601.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/46

---

Action brought on 14 August 2018 — IAK — Forum International v EUIPO — Schwalb (IAK)

(Case T-497/18)

(2018/C 352/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: IAK GmbH — Forum International (Kirchzarten, Germany) (represented by: G. Wilke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ulrich Schwalb (Cologne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark IAK — EU trade mark No 9 843 533

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2018 in Case R 1511/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision such that the application for a declaration of invalidity is dismissed in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision such that the application for a declaration of invalidity is dismissed in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### § 135.364 Maximum flying time outside the United States.

After August 13, 2008, no certificate holder may operate an airplane, other than an all-cargo airplane with more than two engines, on a planned route that exceeds 180 minutes flying time (at the one-engine-inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air) from an Adequate Airport outside the continental United States unless the operation is approved by the FAA in accordance with Appendix G of this part, Extended Operations (ETOPS).

[Doc. No. FAA-1999-6717, 73 FR 8798, Feb. 15, 2008]
Exhibit 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Form  S-8 Nos.  333-75121,  333-89411  and  333-45998)  pertaining  to  various
Multex.com,  Inc.  employee and director  stock option plans of our report dated
January 29, 2002,  with respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  and
schedule of Multex.com,  Inc.  included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2001.


                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
March 29, 2002
#### § 135.207 VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.

No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report of Lakeland Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2011 (the “Report”), I, Gary Pokrassa, 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.





September 8, 2011
/s/Gary PokrassaGary Pokrassa,Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit      21**

**SUBSIDIARIES      OF THE REGISTRANT**

| Subsidiary                                        |   | Jurisdiction                of Organization |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|                                              |   |                                        |
| Ridgewood                Near East Holdings LLC   |   | Delaware                                    |
|                                              |   |                                        |
| Ridgewood                US Hydro Corporation     |   | Delaware                                    |
|                                              |   |                                        |
| Ridgewood                UK LLC                   |   | Delaware                                    |
|                                              |   |                                        |
| Indeck                Maine Energy, LLC           |   | Illinois                                    |
|                                              |   |                                        |
| Ridgewood                Maine Hydro Partners, LP |   | Delaware                                    |
|                                              |   |                                        |
|                                              |   |                                        |
|                                              |   |                                        |
|                                              |   |                                        |

----