alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 151.86 Lighting and electrical work: General. ( a ) The installing of lighting facilities and related electrical work, as provided in § 151.87, is eligible for inclusion in a project only if the Administrator determines, for the particular airport involved, that they are needed to ensure— ( 1 ) Its safe and efficient use by aircraft under § 151.13; or
( 2 ) Its continued operation and adequate maintenance, and it has a large enough volume (actual or potential) of night operations.
( b ) Before the Administrator makes a grant offer to the sponsor of a project that includes installing lighting facilities and related electrical work under paragraph (a) of this section, the sponsor must— ( 1 ) Provide in the project for removing, relocating, or adequately marking and lighting, each obstruction in the approach and turning zones, as provided in § 151.91(a);
( 2 ) Acknowledge its awareness of the cost of operating and maintaining airport lighting; and
( 3 ) Agree to operate the airport lighting installed— ( i ) Throughout each night of the year; or
( ii ) According to a satisfactory plan of operation, submitted under paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) The sponsor of a project that includes installing airport lighting and related electrical work, under paragraph (a) of this section, may— ( 1 ) Submit to the Administrator a proposed plan of operation of the airport lighting installed for periods less than throughout each night of the year;
( 2 ) Specify, in the proposed plan, the times when the airport lighting installed will be operated; and
( 3 ) Satisfy the Administrator that the proposed plan provides for safety in air commerce, and justifies the investment of Program funds.
( d ) Paragraph (b)(3) of this section also applies to each sponsor of a project that includes installing airport lighting and related electrical work if that sponsor has not entered into a grant agreement for the project before September 5, 1968.
( e ) If it agrees to comply with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the sponsor of a project that includes installing airport lighting facilities and related electrical work that has entered into a grant agreement for that project before September 5, 1968, may— ( 1 ) Surrender its air navigation certificate authorizing operation of a “true light” issued before that date; or
( 2 ) Terminate its application for authority to operate a “true light” made before that date.
(Secs. 307, 606, 72 Stat. 749, 779; 49 U.S.C. 1120, 1348, 1426)
[Amdt. 151-24, 33 FR 12545, Sept. 5, 1968]
§ 152.5 Exemptions. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, any interested person may petition the Regional Director concerned for a temporary or permanent exemption from any requirement of this part.
( b ) The Regional Director concerned does not issue an exemption from any rule of this part if the grant of exemption would be inconsistent with a specific provision of, or the purpose of, the AADA, or any other applicable Federal law.
( c ) Each petition filed under this section must— ( 1 ) Unless otherwise authorized by the Regional Director concerned, be submitted not less than 60 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption;
( 2 ) Be submitted in duplicate to the FAA Regional Office or Airports District Office having jurisdiction over the area in which the airport is located;
( 3 ) Contain the text or substance of the rule from which the exemption is sought;
( 4 ) Explain the nature and extent of the relief sought; and
( 5 ) Contain any information, views, or arguments in support of the exemption.
( d ) The Regional Director concerned either grants or denies the exemption and notifies the petitioner of the decision. The FAA publishes a summary of the grant or denial of petition for exemption in the Federal Register. The summary includes— ( 1 ) The docket number of the petition;
( 2 ) The name of the petitioner;
( 3 ) A citation of each rule from which relief is requested;
( 4 ) A brief description of the general nature of the relief requested; and
( 5 ) The disposition of the petition.
( e ) Official FAA records, including grants and denials of exemptions, relating to petitions for exemption are maintained in current docket form in the Office of the Regional Counsel for the region concerned.
( f ) Any interested person may— ( 1 ) Examine any docketed material at the Office of the Regional Counsel, at any time after the docket is established, except material that is ordered withheld from the public under section 1104 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1504); and
( 2 ) Obtain a photostatic or similar copy of docketed material upon paying the same fee as that prescribed in 49 CFR part 7.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of UltraStrip Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Stephen
R. Johnson, Chief Executive 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 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.


                                                       /s/  Stephen R. Johnson
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Stephen R. Johnson,
                                                       Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August 22, 2005

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.
###### Editorial Note on Part 21

#### Editorial Notes:

1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

#### § 21.37 Flight test pilot.

Each applicant for a normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport category aircraft type certificate must provide a person holding an appropriate pilot certificate to make the flight tests required by this part.

[Doc. No. 5085, 29 FR 14564, Oct. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 21-59, 52 FR 1835, Jan. 15, 1987]
#### Ed WHITE, Jr., *v.*Clyde McREYNOLDS, Verlia McREYNOLDS, Edwin BRAUKER

5-6000

484 S.W. 2d 871

Opinion delivered October 2, 1972

*Kirsch, Cathey, Brown ir Goodwin, for appellant.*

*Branch, Adair ir Thompson,*for appellees.

*138John A. Fogleman, Justice.

In appellant’s suit to enjoin appellees from maintaining a wall which obstructed the flow of water from the premises on which White’s dwelling house was located onto their adjoining property on the east, the chancellor made the following findings:

> 1. The wall erected by appellee Brauker did not, in any way, obstruct the flow of water from the White property;

> 2. the banks of a ditch on White’s property, which he asserted was a natural drain, were altered by him by digging so that they would be perpendicular and protected from erosion by concrete slabs, as a result of which the carrying capacity of the ditch was nearly doubled;

> 3. appellant failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the ditch was a natural drain;

> 4. all the water running from White’s property onto the McReynolds property was surface water;

> 5. the McReynolds were within their legal rights in building a wall to ward off the surface water.

Appellant states that the sole question at issue is whether, prior to the erection of the wall across the mouth of the ditch, there had been a natural watercourse draining from his property to the McReynolds property. He asserts that if a natural drain or watercourse existed, he was entitled to the relief he sought. The sole point for reversal is that the trial court’s finding that the ditch was not a natural watercourse was against the preponderance of the evidence. There is no real disagreement about the law applicable to the case. After a careful review of the evidence abstracted, we are unable to say that the chancellor’s findings are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. We did not have the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses as they testified, as did the chancellor, who also had the advantage of seeing the numerous exhibits consisting of plats, photographs and motion pictures as they were in*139troduced and as the witnesses referred to and explained them during the course of the testimony. Only one of these was reproduced in the briefs and it was a photograph attached to the reply brief. An examination of this photograph seems to give as much support to the theory that the ditch was man-made for the collection of surface water as it does to appellant’s theory that it was a natural drain or watercourse.

Appellant not only had the burden of sustaining his theory in the trial court by a preponderance of the evidence but also of demonstrating that the fact findings of the chancellor were clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. *City of Little Rock*v. *Sunray DX,*244 Ark. 528, 425 S.W. 2d 722. Since wé are unable to say that appellant has met his burden here, we must affirm the decree of the chancery court.
§ 23.2300 Flight control systems. ( a ) The applicant must design airplane flight control systems to: ( 1 ) Operate easily, smoothly, and positively enough to allow proper performance of their functions.
( 2 ) Protect against likely hazards.
( b ) The applicant must design trim systems, if installed, to: ( 1 ) Protect against inadvertent, incorrect, or abrupt trim operation.
( 2 ) Provide a means to indicate— ( i ) The direction of trim control movement relative to airplane motion;
( ii ) The trim position with respect to the trim range;
( iii ) The neutral position for lateral and directional trim; and
( iv ) The range for takeoff for all applicant requested center of gravity ranges and configurations.
1 WILLIAM V. O'CONNOR, JR. (CA SBN 216650) WOConnor@mofo.com 2 JOANNA L. SIMON Joam1aSimon@mofo.com 3

. MORRISON 

### & FOERSTER LLP · 12531 High BluffDrive 4 San Diego, California 92130-2040 Telephone: 858.720.5100 5 Facsimile: 858.720.5125 6 Attorneys for AlaskaAirlines Inc. 

### J.JG i b 

### f: 

## 50

7 

### 8 9 UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 10 

### 11 In the Matter of: FAA Case No. 2011NM020013 12 Alaska Airlines Inc. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF JOANNA L. SIMON 13 14 15 16 

### 17 18 

### 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 

### 27 28 TO THE COURT, THE PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE T.&_KE NOTICE THAT Joanna L. Simon, ofthe lawfirm Morrison & Foerster LLP, hereby enters her appearance as counsel for Alaska Airlines Inc. 1. Joanna L. Simon is licensed to practice law in the State ofCalifornia and is a member in good standing ofthe California State BarAssociation.

Dated: August 9, 2013 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

# By:~~**\!:)~** L. Simon Attomeys for Defendant ALASKA AIRLINES INC.

Notic. ofAppearance ofJoanna L. Simon 1 (No. IINM020013) sd-6231481 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 The undersigned certifies under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of 3 California that on this date I caused to be served in the matter indicated acopy ofthe within and 4 foregoing document upon the following persons: 

### 5 6 

### 7 8 9 

### 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Certi (No. Federal Aviation Administration Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC- 430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591

Robert Spitzer Robert.Spitzer@faa.gov FAA Office ofRegional Counsel 1601 Lind Avenue, SW Renton, W A 98057

Dated: August 9, 2013**~ate** ofService )! INM020013) ViaNationwide Legal, Inc.

ViaE-Mail
§ 16.223 Evidence. ( a ) *General.* A party may submit direct and rebuttal evidence in accordance with this section.
( b ) *Requirement for written testimony and evidence.* Except in the case of evidence obtained by subpoena, or in the case of a special ruling by the hearing officer to admit oral testimony, a party's direct and rebuttal evidence shall be submitted in written form in advance of the oral hearing pursuant to the schedule established in the hearing officer's prehearing conference report. Written direct and rebuttal fact testimony shall be certified by the witness as true and correct. Subject to the same exception (for evidence obtained by subpoena or subject to a special ruling by the hearing officer), oral examination of a party's own witness is limited to certification of the accuracy of written evidence, including correction and updating, if necessary, and reexamination following cross-examination by other parties.
( c ) *Subpoenaed testimony.* Testimony of witnesses appearing under subpoena may be obtained orally.
( d ) *Cross-examination.* A party may conduct cross-examination that may be required for disclosure of the facts, subject to control by the hearing officer for fairness, expedition and exclusion of extraneous matters.
( e ) *Hearsay evidence.* Hearsay evidence is admissible in proceedings governed by this part. The fact that evidence is hearsay goes to the weight of evidence and does not affect its admissibility.
( f ) *Admission of evidence.* The hearing officer admits evidence introduced by a party in support of its case in accordance with this section, but may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence.
( g ) *Expert or opinion witnesses.* An employee of the FAA or DOT may not be called as an expert or opinion witness for any party other than the agency except as provided in Department of Transportation regulations at 49 CFR part 9.
#### MOTLEY v. WALLACE, Adm’r.

No. 31712.

Feb. 27, 1945.

*155 P. 2d 356.*

F. J. Lucas, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

B. C. Franklin and Hudson & Hudson, all of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

RILEY, J.

This is an action by plaintiff in error against James I. Wallace, administrator of the estate of Lete Kolvin Stevens, deceased, to recover $3,-274.27 for medicines furnished and medical services alleged to have been rendered to deceased from 1916 to 1929. Plaintiff attached to his petition a verified statement of his alleged account. The answer denied under oath the correctness of said account. Lete Kolvin Stevens died in March, 1930; Wallace was appointed administrator with the will annexed, about May, 1930. Plaintiff alleged that notice to creditors was not given until November, 1942, and that he presented his claim to said administrator February 24, 1943, within four months after such notice to creditors. Defendant alleged that effective notice to creditors was given and published by him about June, 1930, and pleaded plaintiff’s failure to present his claim within four months thereafter.

A jury was waived and the causé was tried to the court. There was some evidence going to the question of which, if either, of the two alleged notices to creditors was valid. Finding and judgment was for defendant. There was no specific finding on the question of when notice was given to creditors. The evidence is in sharp conflict on the question of whether plaintiff ever furnished the medicines or rendered the medical services. At the close of all the evidence, the plaintiff moved for judgment in his favor. Defendant demurred to plaintiff’s evidence. The court overruled plaintiff’s motion for judgment in his favor and also overruled defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence, and then made the finding as a part of the judgment: “That the al*188legations of plaintiff’s petition are not supported by the evidence.”

On appeal, plaintiff contends that the court erred in holding that the notice to creditors contended for by defendant was valid and that it was error to hold that plaintiff did not present his claim in time. The trial court made no such finding. In overruling defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence, the court, in effect, held that plaintiff’s claim was presented to the administrator in time.

The -finding and judgment are based upon the evidence on the merits. The evidence being in conflict, the finding of the court has the same force and effect as the verdict of a jury and is not to be disturbed upon appeal if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support such finding. Smith Oil Co. v. Travis Refg. Co., 150 Okla. 279, 1 P. 2d 746; Williams v. Swan, 144 Okla. 9, 291 P. 103; Briggs v. Wright, 162 Okla. 183, 18 P. 2d 530; Simmons v. Maxey, 106 Okla. 252, 233 P. 669.

The record discloses competent evidence tending to support the findings of the trial court.

Affirmed.

GIBSON, C.J., HURST, V.C.J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, CORN, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.
PUBLIC LAW 114–112—DEC. 18, 2015 129 STAT. 2241 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1461: 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 114–109 (Comm. on Finance). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015): 

Sept. 10, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 8, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–112 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To provide for the extension of the enforcement instruction on supervision requirements for outpatient therapeutic services in critical access and small rural hospitals through 2015. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ENFORCEMENT INSTRUCTION ON SUPERVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTPATIENT THERAPEUTIC SERVICES IN CRITICAL ACCESS AND SMALL 

RURAL HOSPITALS THROUGH 2015. 

Section 1 of Public Law 113–198 is amended— 

(1) in the section heading, by inserting ‘‘AND 2015’’ after 

‘‘2014’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘calendar year 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘calendar 

years 2014 and 2015’’. 

Approved December 18, 2015. 

128 Stat. 2057. 

Dec. 18, 2015 

[S. 1461] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1 with PUBLAWLAW
§ 1245.115 Action by the Administrator. ( a ) After receiving the transmittal from the Board, the Administrator shall determine, in accordance with the policy of § 1245.103, whether or not to grant any petition for waiver of rights to the petitioner.
( b ) In the event of denial of the petition by the Administrator, a written notice of such denial will be promptly transmitted by the Board to the petitioner. The written notice will be accompanied with a statement of the grounds for denial.
( c ) If the waiver is granted by the Administrator, the petitioner shall be sent for execution, an instrument of waiver confirmatory of the conditions and reservations of the waiver grant. The petitioner shall promptly return the executed copy of the instrument of waiver to the Chairperson.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24502 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 14:27:24 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24502 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 14:27:24 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24502 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 14:27:24 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24502 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 14:27:24 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 4
#### § 1261.100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes regulations governing the settlement of claims against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for damage to, or loss of, personal property incident to service with NASA.
# AGENCY: 

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION: 

Resource Advisory Council meeting locations and times. 

# SUMMARY: 

                        In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C., the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) council meeting of the Upper Snake River District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will be held as indicated below. The agenda for this two-day meeting will include a training session for members on the first day, and discussions on Standards and Guides Monitoring and Phosphate Leasing on the second day. All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written or oral comments to the council.                         Start Printed Page 2638                        Each formal council meeting will have a time allocated for hearing public comments. The public comment period for the council meetings is listed below. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, and the time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need further information about the meetings, or need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations should contact David Howell at the Upper Snake River District Office, 1405 Hollipark Dr., Idaho Falls, ID 83401, or telephone (208) 524-7559.                     

# DATES AND TIMES: 

The next meeting will be held February 24-25, 2000 at the Best Western Hotel, 800 North Overland Avenue in Burley, Idaho. The meeting will start at 1 p.m. on February 24 for the RAC Training Session. The meeting will continue on February 25 at 8:30 a.m., with public comments scheduled from 8:40-9:10 a.m. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Howell, Upper Snake River District, 1405 Hollipark Dr., Idaho Falls, ID 83401, (208) 524-7559. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The purpose of the Resource Advisory Council is to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with the management of the of the public lands. 

Dated: January 5, 2000. 

James E. May, 

District Manager. 

[FR Doc. 00-1105 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
Lambert Tr Road

daoA RC 

North

Fork

36 31

reek

otton C C

01 06

Shepherd Ah-Nei Special 

Recreation Management Area

Alternatives B, C and D

T

4

N

R27E

Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument RMP / EIS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

T

3

N

R28E

Map 92

Area 2

Area 1

Legend

0 0.15 0.3

Ma

0

p

.6

 scale 1:43

0

,

.9

000

1.2 1.5

Miles

Map generated by the Billings Field Office in July 2011

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau

of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. 

This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was 

developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.

Shepherd Ah-Nei SRMA

Roads

Streams

Bureau of Land Management

Division of State Lands

Private

Public Lands Survey System

Wyoming

Location Map

Montana

Billings 

Field 

Office

Ü
Puamo Izjxicowwmzziig Rgsovnczs §UII{OR}TY

RBSCILUTION NO. 200 ’

‘WHEREAS, thqiB‘o8.rd -=uu;¢1-11¢ tho Executivq D‘1raoto1-,'

th;'ough‘Re»so1uti_on No.'175, adcptpdvlugust 51‘, 194-4,:'tof‘ .

chtcxf into aicontz-avot ~1r.L'th 0. q\;?1i£ied’1_6t1p.r~y or adtuariai

fbzythe purpose ..of nnking naoeaaary investigations in connectibn 1rlth~thé.eata‘b_lil1'nhent of the ’propoud P!§'z‘:a'_i_’on’ Byatam

for the Authdrity; az_1d. ' - » ' _ . ' ' f '

~ _ WHEREAS,-_'the kec\rti1_re"Dircct_or qnte':~.ed;',ini:ov a" can--_.

tract with Gsbrge B.'Buck, Consulting Actuary of B0)! York '

Cit'y}'who has rendered a ropurt and prepared rule! e.nd':,t:gulations fer, 2. 'p1-1,-ypqsed Penéibn System to bp &dbpt<_3d by thq

Authority. é _‘ -, _- .1 -_ _ _ _

1 Q 7 ' rmsmu as IT nsognn, um the proposed.-P01111681 - ‘System an doacribbd in tho report and in the rules and r05'u_-

lations filed this -<_1;y with cm Soc:-otlary and mrkod mmit

is hcitcby O.pp1'OVQd and adopted 'bo_ ‘bu cffooitiyo Juli _1,'

I-194,5. " " ' . -

Adoptcd June 25, 1945,

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24530-1 Filed:06/12/23 Entered:06/12/23 17:45:09 Desc:

Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 1