alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 61.405 What tests do I have to take to obtain a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating? To obtain a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating you must pass the following tests: ( a ) *Knowledge test.* Before you take a knowledge test, you must receive a logbook endorsement certifying you are prepared for the test from an authorized instructor who trained you or evaluated your home-study course on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed in § 61.407. You must pass knowledge tests on— ( 1 ) The fundamentals of instructing listed in § 61.407(a), unless you meet the requirements of § 61.407(c); and
( 2 ) The aeronautical knowledge areas for a sport pilot certificate applicable to the aircraft category and class for which flight instructor privileges are sought.
( b ) *Practical test.* ( 1 ) Before you take the practical test, you must— ( i ) Receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who provided you with flight training on the areas of operation specified in § 61.409 that apply to the category and class of aircraft privileges you seek. This endorsement certifies you meet the applicable aeronautical knowledge and experience requirements and are prepared for the practical test;
( ii ) If you are seeking privileges to provide instruction in an airplane or glider, receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor indicating that you are competent and possess instructional proficiency in stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery procedures after you have received flight training in those training areas in an airplane or glider, as appropriate, that is certificated for spins;
( 2 ) You must pass a practical test— ( i ) On the areas of operation listed in § 61.409 that are appropriate to the category and class of aircraft privileges you seek;
( ii ) In an aircraft representative of the category and class of aircraft for the privileges you seek;
( iii ) In which you demonstrate that you are able to teach stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery procedures if you are seeking privileges to provide instruction in an airplane or glider. If you have not failed a practical test based on deficiencies in your ability to demonstrate knowledge or skill in these areas and you provide the endorsement required by paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, an examiner may accept the endorsement instead of the demonstration required by this paragraph. If you are taking a test because you previously failed a test based on not meeting the requirements of this paragraph, you must pass a practical test on stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery instructional competency and proficiency in the applicable category and class of aircraft that is certificated for spins.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Louis Dachis, Appellant.

Argued January 11, 1937;

decided January 26, 1937 .

*Mordecai Konowitz*and *Harry G. Anderson*for appellant.

*Charles P. Sullivan, District Attorney (John H. W. Krogmann*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
#### § 385.2 Applicability.

This part describes the organization of the Department insofar as, pursuant to authority conferred on it by section 40113 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, the Department has adopted rules herein or elsewhere which make continuing assignments of authority with respect to any of its functions of making orders or other determinations, many of which are not required to be made on an evidentiary record upon notice and hearing or which are not the subject of contest, and Department personnel have been assigned to perform such functions. Delegations by the Secretary of Transportation to Secretarial Officers of functions under Subparts I, II, and IV of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII appear in 49 CFR part 1. This part also sets forth the procedures governing discretionary review by the appropriate Reviewing Official of action taken under such assignments. Nothing in this part shall be construed as precluding the Department from issuing, by appropriate order, temporary delegations of authority with respect to any functions described in this part or with respect to any other functions which can be lawfully delegated.

[Doc. No. T-1, 49 FR 50985, Dec. 31, 1984, as amended at 60 FR 66726, Dec. 26, 1995; Doc. No. OST-96-1268, 61 FR 19167, May 1, 1996; Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15942, Apr. 16, 2019]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Benjamin Lieberman, Appellant.

Submitted January 12, 1937;

decided January 26, 1937.

*Leo H. Klugherz, Harry Sokel*and *Richard Klugherz*for appellant.

*George V. Dorsey, District Attorney,*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities

# AGENCY:

National Endowment for the Arts, NFAH.

# ACTION:

Notification of Availability.

# SUMMARY:

The National Endowment for the Arts is requesting proposals leading to one (1) award of a Cooperative Agreement for an effort to document successful ArtsREACH and Creative Links grant projects for use as case studies by other community-based coalitions, and for public information.  Approximately 30 successful ArtsREACH projects and 15 Creative Links projects will be documentation and two publications will be prepared for printing and web site posting.  In addition, materials such as photographs, audio, and/or video tapes may be assembled and prepared for posting on the Agency Web site.  Those interested in receiving the solicitation package should reference Program Solicitation PS 00-05 in their written request and include two (2) self-addressed labels.  Verbal requests for the Solicitation will not be honored.  It is anticipated that the Program Solicitation will also be posted on the Endowment's Web site at http://www.arts.gov.

# DATES:

Program Solicitation PS 00-05 is scheduled for release approximately May 26, 2000 with proposals due on June 28, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

Requests for the Solicitation should be addressed to the National Endowment for the Arts, Grants & Contracts Office, Room 618, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20506.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Hummel, Grants & Contracts Office, National Endowment for the Arts, Room 618, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20506 (202/682-5482).

William I. Hummel,

Coordinator, Cooperative Agreements.

[FR Doc. 00-11854  Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of M Line Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jitu Banker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Dated:  March 9, 2011
/s/ Jitu BankerBy:  Jitu BankerIts:  Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to M Line Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by M Line Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### Schlemmer, Kevin (OST) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Kevin, Hartz, Jeffrey [Jeffrey.Hartz@aa.com] Thursday, July 15, 2010 3:29 PM Schlemmer, Kevin (OST); Devany, Dennis (OST) Emrich, Robert; Foss, Gary Request for Extension for Joplin High 

### '-.'--'-'-;-'f'.'I

. I, •• \,1",../,/

Itwas good to talk with you. As we discussed on the phone, we would like to request an extension to file a proposal for Essential Air Service atJoplin, MO until Friday July 23, 2010. We need this extra time in orderto do some additional analysis ofthe market in orderfor us to potentially put forward a bid. Iappreciate your consideration ofthis extension. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions orconcerns thatyou may have Jeffrey Hartz Manager - Strategic Planning American Eagle Airlines 

### 817-967-3698 817-931-9325

NOTICE:: This (:,mali and**;;~ny** aHdchmenls -:11'6 for H18 exc!usbJ0 dnd GOnftdsi'dia! use of the inh::nded fecipifJnt(Sl. if yeu are not an intended rccipionL**pk~dse** do not fc,,,d. cil,·,t(bute, ortaLe actien In re'iance upon thi:, rnclc,;nqe. If you l1ave fCGeive<i ttlis in C,lor pICE;S" nCJUfy mG imrr;c6ia.tely by ie-turn CrllillI and promptly delete this mcss,]!J(; and Its aTtachments from yOU! ctJrnpurcr ':>j:;:;rem,

1
#### The Rector, etc., of the Church of Saint Matthew and Saint Timothy in New York City, Respondent, *v.*Title Guarantee and Trust Company, Appellant.

(Argued October 6, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*Richard S. Holmes, W. H.L. Edwards, Flynn L. Andrew*and *Harold P. Winans*for appellant.

*Frederick J. Moses*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11794]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


HIV; Preventing Transmission Through Transplantation of Human 
Tissue Organs; U.S. Public Health Service Guidelines; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting.
    Name: Consultation to discuss the revision of the U.S. Public 
Health Service Guidelines for Preventing Transmission of Human 
Immunodeficiency Virus Through Transplantation of Human Tissue and 
Organs [MMWR/May 20, 1994/Vol.43/No.RR-8].
    Times and Dates: 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., June 26, 2000. 8:30 a.m.-4:30 
p.m., June 27, 2000.
    Place: Holiday Inn Select, 130 Clairmont Avenue, Decatur, Georgia 
30030.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. 
The meeting room accommodates approximately 100 people.
    Purpose: Attendees will discuss the potential revisions to the U.S. 
Public Health Service recommendations for guidelines for Preventing 
Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Through Transplantation of 
Human Tissue and Organs [MMWR/May 20, 1994/Vol. 43/ No.RR-8].
    Matters To Be Discussed: Agenda items will include recent research 
regarding the transplantation of human tissue and organs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Helen Witten, Division of HIV/
AIDS Prevention--Surveillance and Epidemiology, Office of the Director, 
National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, 
MS D-21, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, 404-639-4592 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a071f1d5e2a090e09440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bad7cfcd8efad9ded994ddd5cc">[email protected]</span></a> or, Dr. 
Kenneth A. Clark, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention--Surveillance and 
Epidemiology, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, 1600 
Clifton Road NE, MS E-46, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, 404-639-2085 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#78333b14190a13381b1c1b561f170e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="18535b74796a73587b7c7b367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: May 3, 2000.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 00-11794 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 65.125 Certificates: Privileges. ( a ) A certificated senior parachute rigger may— ( 1 ) Pack or maintain (except for major repair) any type of parachute for which he is rated; and
( 2 ) Supervise other persons in packing any type of parachute for which that person is rated in accordance with § 105.43(a) or § 105.45(b)(1) of this chapter.
( b ) A certificated master parachute rigger may— ( 1 ) Pack, maintain, or alter any type of parachute for which he is rated; and
( 2 ) Supervise other persons in packing, maintaining, or altering any type of parachute for which the certificated parachute rigger is rated in accordance with § 105.43(a) or § 105.45(b)(1) of this chapter.
( c ) A certificated parachute rigger need not comply with §§ 65.127 through 65.133 (relating to facilities, equipment, performance standards, records, recent experience, and seal) in packing, maintaining, or altering (if authorized) the main parachute of a dual parachute pack to be used for intentional jumping.
[Doc. No. 1179, 27 FR 7973, Aug. 10, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 65-20, 37 FR 13252, July 6, 1972; Amdt. 65-42, 66 FR 23553, May 9, 2001]
§ 298.30 Public disclosure of policy on consumer protection. ( a ) Every air taxi and commuter air carrier shall cause to be displayed continuously in a conspicuous public place at each desk, station and position in the United States that is in charge of a person employed exclusively by it, or by it jointly with another person, or by any agent employed by it to sell tickets to passengers, a sign located so as to be clearly visible and readable to the traveling public, containing a statement setting forth the air taxi and commuter air carrier's policy on baggage liability and denied boarding compensation.
( b ) An air taxi or commuter air carrier shall provide a written notice on or with a passenger's ticket concerning baggage liability as provided in § 254.5 of this chapter. These ticket notices are required only for passengers whose ticket includes a flight segment that uses large aircraft (more than 60 seats).
( c ) If the substantive terms of the counter sign and ticket notice required by this section differ, the terms contained in the required ticket notice govern.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7330

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BILLY WAYNE GREGORY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00263-RBH-5; 4:17-cv-00202-

RBH)

Submitted: April 17, 2018 Decided: April 19, 2018

Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Wayne Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Billy Wayne Gregory seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gregory has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gregory’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 25.427 Unsymmetrical loads. ( a ) In designing the airplane for lateral gust, yaw maneuver and roll maneuver conditions, account must be taken of unsymmetrical loads on the empennage arising from effects such as slipstream and aerodynamic interference with the wing, vertical fin and other aerodynamic surfaces.
( b ) The horizontal tail must be assumed to be subjected to unsymmetrical loading conditions determined as follows: ( 1 ) 100 percent of the maximum loading from the symmetrical maneuver conditions of § 25.331 and the vertical gust conditions of § 25.341(a) acting separately on the surface on one side of the plane of symmetry; and
( 2 ) 80 percent of these loadings acting on the other side.
( c ) For empennage arrangements where the horizontal tail surfaces have dihedral angles greater than plus or minus 10 degrees, or are supported by the vertical tail surfaces, the surfaces and the supporting structure must be designed for gust velocities specified in § 25.341(a) acting in any orientation at right angles to the flight path.
( d ) Unsymmetrical loading on the empennage arising from buffet conditions of § 25.305(e) must be taken into account.
[Doc. No. 27902, 61 FR 5222, Feb. 9, 1996]
#### Mixon *v.*The State.

Violating Prohibition Law.

(Decided February 8, 1916.

70 South. 949.)

Intoxicating Liquors; Offense; Attempt to Manufacture. — The evidence in this case examined and held to show only an attempt to manufacture prohibited liquors which is not an offense under Acts 1915, p. 3.

Appeal from Geneva County Court.

Heard before Hon. J. J. Campbell.

Will Mixon was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

*12C. D. Carmichael, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney-General, and J. P. Mudb, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

BROWN, J.

The defendant was tried under a complaint charging that he “manufactured, sold, kept for sale, gave away, or otherwise disposed of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors without a license and contrary to law.” There is no evidence in the case showing or tending to show, that he sold, kept for sale, or otherwise disposed of prohibited liquors; but the evidence shows without dispute that the defendant had constructed a crude still out of a lard can and a water pipe, and had placed therein beer made from cane syrup and water, and was attempting to make whisky, but that, in fact, he had not manufactured a single drop. The appellant admits that he had made an attempt to manufacture prohibited liquors; but this is not an offense under our statutes. — Acts 1915, pp. 3, 8.

The evidence in the case was not sufficient to authorize a conviction.

Reversed and remanded.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  In Re: A NITRA B ANKS M ASSEY , Debtor.

A NITRA B ANKS M ASSEY , a/k/a Anitra Sharmeen Banks, Plaintiff-Appellant.

No. 01-1426



#  R OBERT E. H YMAN , U. S. Trustee; G REGG R. N IVALA , U. S. Trustee; H ENRICO F EDERAL C REDIT U NION ,

Parties in Interest, and N ATIONAL A SSOCIATION OF C ONSUMER B ANKRUPTCY A TTORNEYS ,

Amicus Curiae. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-00-755-3, BK-00-33272) Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: October 17, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.COUNSELCharles H. Krumbein, Jason M. Krumbein, CHARLES H. KRUMBEIN & ASSOCIATES, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. John Rao, Elizabeth Renuart, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC., Boston, Massachusetts, for Amicus Curiae.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM:Anitra Banks Massey appeals from the district court order affirming the order of the bankruptcy court denying confirmation of her proposed Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan and continuing the case to allow Massey to file an amended plan. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. District courts have jurisdiction over appeals from final orders entered by bankruptcy courts. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (West Supp. 2001). The courts of appeals, in turn, have jurisdiction to hear appeals from "final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees entered under" 28 U.S.C.A. § 158(a). 28 U.S.C.A. § 158(d) (West 1993). "A final decision generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States , 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted). An order denying confirmation of a proposed Chapter 13 plan, without also dismissing the underlying petition or proceeding, is not final for purposes of appeal. Lewis v. United States, Farmers Home Admin. , 992 F.2d 767, 772-73 (8th Cir. 1993); In re Szekely , 936 F.2d 897, 899 (7th Cir. 1991); In re Simons , 908 F.2d 643, 644-45 (10thCir. 1990). Because the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirma2 I N R E : M ASSEYtion and continuing the case was not a final order under § 158(a), the district court was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 28 U.S.C.A. § 158(a). Moreover, because the courts of appeals have jurisdiction over appeals from final orders entered under § 158(a), and the district court order herein appealed was not a final order entered under § 158(a), this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 158(d); Lewis , 992 F.2d at 773; Szekely , 936 F.2d at 899; Simons , 908 F.2d at 644-45. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED 3 I N R E : M ASSEY