alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 161.403 Criteria for reevaluation. ( a ) A request for reevaluation must be submitted by an aircraft operator.
( b ) An aircraft operator must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FAA that there has been a change in the noise environment of the affected airport and that a review and reevaluation pursuant to the criteria in § 161.305 is therefore justified. ( 1 ) A change in the noise environment sufficient to justify reevaluation is either a DNL change of 1.5 dB or greater (from the restriction's anticipated target noise level result) over noncompatible land uses, or a change of 17 percent or greater in the noncompatible land uses, within an airport noise study area. For approved restrictions, calculation of change shall be based on the divergence of actual noise impact of the restriction from the estimated noise impact of the restriction predicted in the analysis required in § 161.305(e)(2)(i)(A)( 1 )( ii ). The change in the noise environment or in the noncompatible land uses may be either an increase or decrease in noise or in noncompatible land uses. An aircraft operator may submit to the FAA reasons why a change that does not fall within either of these parameters justifies reevaluation, and the FAA will consider such arguments on a case-by-case basis.
( 2 ) A change in the noise environment justifies reevaluation if the change is likely to result in the restriction not meeting one or more of the conditions for approval set forth in § 161.305 of this part for approval. The aircraft operator must demonstrate that such a result is likely to occur.
( c ) A reevaluation may not occur less than 2 years after the date of the FAA approval. The FAA will normally apply the same 2-year requirement to agreements under subpart B of this part that affect Stage 3 aircraft operations. An aircraft operator may submit to the FAA reasons why an agreement under subpart B of this part should be reevaluated in less than 2 years, and the FAA will consider such arguments on a case-by-case basis.
( d ) An aircraft operator must demonstrate that it has made a good faith attempt to resolve locally any dispute over a restriction with the affected parties, including the airport operator, before requesting reevaluation by the FAA. Such demonstration and certification shall document all attempts of local dispute resolution.
[Doc. No. 26432, 56 FR 48698, Sept. 25, 1991; 56 FR 51258, Oct. 10, 1991]
§ 133.49 Markings and placards. The following markings and placards must be displayed conspicuously and must be such that they cannot be easily erased, disfigured, or obscured: ( a ) A placard (displayed in the cockpit or cabin) stating the class of rotorcraft-load combination for which the rotorcraft has been approved and the occupancy limitation prescribed in § 133.35(a).
( b ) A placard, marking, or instruction (displayed next to the external-load attaching means) stating the maximum external load prescribed as an operating limitation in § 133.45(b).
[Docket 1529, Amdt. 133-9A, 81 FR 85138, Nov. 25, 2016]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

1 See Scott v. Commissioner, 182 F.3d 915 (5th Cir. 1999). IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 07-60573 Summary Calendar

_____________________ SAM E. SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States Tax Court

(2537-05L) Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Petitioner-Appellant Sam E. Scott has managed to stall, delay, avoid, and otherwise keep from paying his 1991 income tax deficiency that was determined on its merits by the United States Tax Court in June, 1998 and affirmed by this court in June, 1999. 1 Scott is again before us on appeal from the United States Tax Court, this time seeking reversal of that Court’s Memorandum Opinion filed April 17, 2007, holding that the Commissioner’s pursuit of collection by filing notices of federal tax liens was not an abuse of United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 23, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk2

discretion. We affirm. We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law; and our review satisfies us completely that the United States Tax Court correctly determined that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in any way, shape, or form in endeavoring to collect taxes, interest, etc. previously determined to be due and owing by Scott. Specifically, the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in the filing of the above-said notices of federal tax liens. For essentially the reasons set forth in the aforesaid Memorandum Opini on, the judgment appealed from is, in all respects, AFFIRMED.
Fw: OR DEQ Comments on the Pesticide General Permit

Jennifer Chan to: Jack Faulk 01/27/2010 08:43 AM

----- Forwarded by Jennifer Chan/DC/USEPA/US on 01/27/2010 08:43 AM -----

From: "MOORE Beth" <MOORE.Beth@deq.state.or.us>

To: Jennifer Chan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Virginia Garelick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jordan Page/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "FULTS Janet E" <Janet.E.Fults@state.or.us>, "LIEBE Annette" <LIEBE.Annette@deq.state.or.us>

Date: 01/26/2010 04:34 PM Subject: OR DEQ Comments on the Pesticide General Permit

Attached are some comments put together for EPA’s consideration on the pesticide general permit
(January 14, 2010 version). Thank you for the opportunity to review.

Beth Moore

General Permits Coordinator DEQ WQ-Surface Water Management
Phone: (503) 229-6402
Fax: (503) 229-6037
1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

IN RE:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

As representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

 Debtor

PROMESA

TITLE III

NO: 17 BK 3283-LTS

MOTION REGARDING STIPULATION MODIFYING AUTOMATIC STAY 

BETWEEN COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO AND POPULAR AUTO

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW, Popular Auto LLC through the undersigned counsel and 

respectfully states and prays as follows:

1. On April 25, 2018, a Stipulation between Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

and Popular Auto LLC was filed requesting the Lift of Stay be modified so that movant 

may proceed with the civil forfeiture case captioned Popular Auto v. Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, Case No. KAC2017-0409 pending before the Puerto Rico First Instance 

Court (Docket 2957).

2. Movant’s claim under the referred case was filed pursuant to the Uniform 

Forfeiture Act of 2011, 34 LPRA §1724 et seq.

3. The Stipulation requests that the lift of stay be modified solely to the limited 

extent necessary to allow the Forfeiture Action to proceed to judgment in the ordinary 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2987 Filed:05/01/18 Entered:05/01/18 14:27:31 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

course, in accordance with the Uniform Forfeiture Act and should judgment be entered in 

Movant’s favor to allow Movant to pursue such remedy against the Commonwealth 

provided for under Section 19 of the Uniform Forfeiture Act.

4. Although the agreement was entered freely among the parties it is 

respectfully requested that this Honorable Court enter an Order granting the parties 

request so that Movant may proceed with its case in state court without being in contempt 

under the Bankruptcy Code.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

 At San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 1

st day of May, 2018.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I HEREBY CERTIFY: That on this same date, we electronically filed the foregoing 

motion with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF Filing system which will send a 

notification of such to the parties of record and to all interested subscribed users and by 

certified mail to Nancy Morales Cruz, Esq., attorney for the Department of Justice in the 

KAC2017-0489 case, to her address, Departamento de Justicia, División de 

Confiscaciones, PO Box 9020192, San Juan, PR 00902-0192.

S/ Ricardo R. Pérez Pietri 

Ricardo R. Pérez Pietri

USDC-PR No: 126513

Attorney for Popular Auto, LLC

Practical Legal Solutions, PSC

PO Box 190743

San Juan, PR 00919-0743

Tel. (787) 792-7013

Fax (787) 792-8520

e-mail: rperez@ppdrlaw.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2987 Filed:05/01/18 Entered:05/01/18 14:27:31 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 221

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 221.300 Discontinuation of electronic tariff system.

In the event that the electronic tariff system is discontinued, or the source of the data is changed, or a filer discontinues its business, all electronic data records prior to such date shall be provided immediately to the Department, free of charge, on a machine-readable tape or other mutually acceptable electronic medium.
##### 



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




---



##### 



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 Midland Capital Holdings
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I Paul Zogas, President and Chief Executive and Financial 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; 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: September 28, 2004
    
    /s/ Paul Zogas
Paul ZogasPresident, Chief Executive and Financial Officer
#### § 25.1531 Maneuvering flight load factors.

Load factor limitations, not exceeding the positive limit load factors determined from the maneuvering diagram in § 25.333(b), must be established.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.3    
  


TANNING TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION CHANGE IN CONTROL PLAN

NOTICE OF PARTICIPATION  


        This Notice of Participation Agreement ("Notice of Participation") is entered into this 21st day of March 2003 by and between Tanning Technology
Corporation, a Delaware Corporation ("Tanning") and Larry Tanning ("Participant"). The Notice of Participation is subject to and governed by the terms and conditions set forth in the Change in Control
Plan ("Plan") adopted by the Tanning Board of Directors on March 18, 2003. 


COMPENSATION UPON TERMINATION  


        Upon a termination of your employment as set forth in Article IV, Section 1, of the Plan, you shall be entitled to the following benefits: 



Severance Payment: In lieu of the severance benefits identified in Article IV, Section 1(a), of the Plan, and subject to the terms and
conditions of Article IV, Section 1(a), the severance payments identified in Section 4 of your Employment, Confidentiality, and Non-Competition Agreement dated
July 22, 1999. 


Continuation of Medical Coverage under COBRA: If you elect to participate in COBRA benefits continuation, the Company shall pay or shall reimburse you
(to the extent you have previously made payments), to the extent COBRA benefits are available, your monthly premiums for your elected level of group medical insurance for up to 12 months of
continued coverage of your then-currently elected level of benefit. 




Agreed
and accepted: 



	
Tanning Technology Corporation	
 	

Participant
	

By:	
 	

Gregory A. Conley	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ Larry G. Tanning
	 	 	
	 	 	 	

	 	 	Signature	 	 	 	Signature
	

 	
 	

Gregory A. Conley	
 	

 	
 	

Larry Tanning
	
	 	

	 	 	Printed Name	 	 	 	Printed Name
	

 	
 	

President, CEO & COO	
 	

 	
 	

April 10, 2003
	
	 	

	 	 	Title	 	 	 	Date
	

 	
 	

April 16, 2003	
 	

 	
 	

 
	
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Date	 	 	 	 














QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.3
#### MacANDREWS & FORBES COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. M-338.

Decided February 5, 1934]

*788*Messrs. Adrian O. Humphreys*and *Newton K. Fox*for the plaintiff.

*Mr. George H.*Foster, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Franle J. Wideman,*for the defendant.

*789Green, *Judge,*

delivered the opinion of the co.urt:

Plaintiff brings this suit to recover $89,119.88 which was overpaid on its taxes for the year 1918 and credited on its taxes for the years 1916 and 1917.

The plaintiff claims that the taxes for 1916 and 1917 were barred at the time the credit was made, and under sections 607 and 609 of the Revenue Act of 1928 the credits were *790void. This suit is brought upon an account stated alleged to have been created by the certificate of overassessment for the year 1918 which was delivered to plaintiff within six years from the time when suit was brought.

The contention of plaintiff that the collection of the taxes for 1916 and 1917 was barred is not well founded, being based on the theory that the three-year period of limitation provided in the Revenue Act of 1916 for making assessments applied. This is an error. The Revenue Act of 1921, which provided in section 250(d) that the assessment might be made within five years after the filing of the return, is the provision that controls, notwithstanding the assessment was made prior to the passage of that act. See *Magee*v. *United*States, 282 U.S. 432, 433. The assessments having been made within the period provided by the act of 1921, section 611 of the act of 1928 applies for the reason that claims in abatement for each year had been filed and the collection of the taxes thereby delayed, and under this section the credits were not void and not refundable. See *Graham & Foster*v. Goodcell, 282 U.S. 409.

As before stated, the plaintiff’s suit is commenced upon what is claimed to be an account stated resulting from the issuance of a certificate of overassessment for the 1918 taxes referred to in the findings of fact. But this certificate of overassessment instead of showing anything to be due the plaintiff showed that the account between plaintiff and defendant was completely balanced by abatement and credits on the taxes for 1916 and 1917 and that nothing was due the plaintiff. Under the rules laid down in *Leisenring*v. *United States, ante,*p. 171, *R. H. Stearns Co.*v. *United*States, 291 U.S. 54, and *Samuel Daube*v. *United*States, this day decided by this court, *ante,*p. 754, no recovery can be had upon an account so stated.

For the reasons above stated plaintiff’s action must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Whaley, *Judge;*Williams, *Judge;*LittletoN, *Judge;*and Booth, *Ghief Justice,*concur.
§ 23.2150 Stall characteristics, stall warning, and spins. ( a ) The airplane must have controllable stall characteristics in straight flight, turning flight, and accelerated turning flight with a clear and distinctive stall warning that provides sufficient margin to prevent inadvertent stalling.
( b ) Single-engine airplanes, not certified for aerobatics, must not have a tendency to inadvertently depart controlled flight.
( c ) Levels 1 and 2 multiengine airplanes, not certified for aerobatics, must not have a tendency to inadvertently depart controlled flight from thrust asymmetry after a critical loss of thrust.
( d ) Airplanes certified for aerobatics that include spins must have controllable stall characteristics and the ability to recover within one and one-half additional turns after initiation of the first control action from any point in a spin, not exceeding six turns or any greater number of turns for which certification is requested, while remaining within the operating limitations of the airplane.
( e ) Spin characteristics in airplanes certified for aerobatics that includes spins must recover without exceeding limitations and may not result in unrecoverable spins— ( 1 ) With any typical use of the flight or engine power controls; or
( 2 ) Due to pilot disorientation or incapacitation.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO,

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO et al.,

Debtors.1

PROMESA

Title III

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

Motion submitting Part of Exhibit II of BDO Puerto Rico, PSC’s (now known as, Old Puerto 

Rico, PSC) Response to 570th Omnibus Objection

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

COMES NOW BDO Puerto Rico PSC (now known as, Old Puerto Rico, PSC) 

represented by the undersigned attorney and respectfully sets forth and prays:

1. Exhibit no. II of the appearing party’s Response to the 570th Omnibus objection contains 830 pages. 

Due to the data storage limits set by the CM/ECF system when filing an exhibit, Creditor BDO Puerto 

Rico PSC (hereinafter “OLD”) must file Exhibit II in parts. ECF no. 24317.

2. Therefore, Creditor OLD will file several notices with Exhibit II divided into parts of approximately 

70 to 95 pages each. With this motion, Creditor includes pages 212-294 and 295-382 of Exhibit II. 

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective title III case number and the last four (4) 

digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax 

Financing Corporation (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) 

Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric 

Power Authority (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747). (Title III case 

numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software limitations).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24324 Filed:05/25/23 Entered:05/25/23 14:54:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

WHEREFORE, Creditor hereby submits the attached partial Exhibit II for its Response 

to the 570th Omnibus Objection filed today at ECF no. 24317.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: In accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(b), Fed. R. 

Bankr. P. 7004(b), and the Court’s Sixteenth Amended Notice, Case Management and 

Administrative Procedures Order (Dkt. No. 20190-1) (the “CMP Order”), I hereby certify that a 

true and exact copy of the foregoing was sent by electronic mail upon all the parties listed in the 

Master Service List and by U.S. mail upon all the Standard Parties listed in the CMP Order.

 In Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, on May 25, 2023. 

Juan R. Rivera Font, LLC

27 González Giusti 

Ave.

Suite 602

Guaynabo, PR 00968

Tel: 787-250-8040

s/Juan R. Rivera Font

Juan R. Rivera-Font, Esq.

USDC-PR 221703

 juan@riverafont.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24324 Filed:05/25/23 Entered:05/25/23 14:54:23 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
§ 17.17 Initial protest procedures. ( a ) If, as part of its initial protest filing, the protester requests a suspension of procurement activities or contractor performance in whole or in part, in accordance with § 17.15(d), the Product Team shall submit a response to the request to the ODRA by no later than the close of business on the date of the initial scheduling conference or on such other date as is established by the ODRA. Copies of the response shall be furnished to the protester and any intervenor(s) so as to be received within the same timeframe. The protester and any intervenor(s) shall have the opportunity of providing additional comments on the response within two (2) business days of receiving it. Based on its review of such submissions, the ODRA, in its discretion, may— ( 1 ) Decline the suspension request; or
( 2 ) Recommend such suspension to the Administrator or the Administrator's designee. The ODRA also may impose a temporary suspension of no more than ten (10) business days, where it is recommending that the Administrator impose a suspension.
( b ) Within five (5) business days of the filing of a protest, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the ODRA shall convene an initial status conference for purposes of: ( 1 ) Reviewing the ODRA's ADR and adjudication procedures and establishing a preliminary schedule;
( 2 ) Identifying legal or other preliminary or potentially dispositive issues and answering the parties' questions regarding the ODRA process;
( 3 ) Dealing with issues related to protected information and the issuance of any needed protective order;
( 4 ) Encouraging the parties to consider using ADR;
( 5 ) Appointing a DRO as a potential ADR neutral to assist the parties in considering ADR options and developing an ADR agreement; and
( 6 ) For any other reason deemed appropriate by the DRO or by the ODRA.
( c ) The Product Team and protester will have five (5) business days from the date of the initial status conference to decide whether they will attempt to use an ADR process in the case. With the agreement of the ODRA, ADR may be used concurrently with the adjudication of a protest. See § 17.37(e).
( d ) If the Product Team and protester elect to use ADR proceedings to resolve the protest, they will agree upon the neutral to conduct the ADR proceedings (either an ODRA DRO or a compensated neutral of their own choosing) pursuant to § 17.37, and shall execute and file with the ODRA a written ADR agreement. Agreement of any intervenor(s) to the use of ADR or the resolution of a dispute through ADR shall not be required.
( e ) If the Product Team or protester indicate that ADR proceedings will not be used, or if ADR is not successful in resolving the entire protest, the ODRA Director upon being informed of the situation, will schedule an adjudication of the protest.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 8 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 American Rare Earths and Materials, Corp. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Philip Clark, Chief Financial Officer, and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








Date: November 12, 2010

By:  /s/ Philip Clark, CA, CPA, CFAChief Financial Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer