alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 415.5 Policy and safety approvals.

To obtain a launch license, an applicant must obtain policy and safety approvals from the FAA. Requirements for obtaining these approvals are contained in subparts B, C and F of this part. Only a launch license applicant may apply for the approvals, and may apply for either approval separately and in advance of submitting a complete license application, using the application procedures contained in part 413 of this subchapter.
#### McKISSACK v. THE STATE.

(Decided April 8, 1915.)

Appeal from Walker Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. J. Curtis.

Leith & Gunn, and Gray & Wiggins, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution..
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Michael John Zarate, * From the 35 th District Court

of Brown County

Trial Court No. CR23534

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 259

- CR * September 30 , 2019

The Sta te of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey , C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J.,

Stretcher , J. , and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment )

( Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 1721

[ January 11, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Jeffrey Levenson , Judge; L.T. Case No. 12

- 11800CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R.

Napodano, Assistant Att orney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR

, F ORST and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 1214.703 Chain of command. ( a ) The NASA *Commander* is a trained NASA astronaut who has been designated to serve as commander on a NASA mission and who shall have the authority described in § 1214.702 of this part. Under normal flight conditions (other than emergencies or when otherwise designated) the NASA Commander is responsible to the Mission Flight Director.
( b ) Before each flight, the other flight crewmembers will be designated in the order in which they will assume the authority of the NASA Commander under this subpart in the event that the NASA Commander is not able to carry out his/her duties.
( c ) The determinations, if any, that a crewmember in the chain of command is not able to carry out his or her command duties and is, therefore, to be relieved of command, and that another crewmember in the chain of command is to succeed to the authority of the NASA Commander, will be made by the NASA Administrator or his/her designee.
#### KANSAS OR KAW TRIBE OF INDIANS v. UNITED STATES

[80 C. Cls. 264; 296 U. S. 577]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court October 14, 1935.
Ex-31.1 Sarbanes-Oxley Certification

I, Gary K. Bettin, a Senior Vice President of Bank of America, N.A., certify
      that:

1.    I have reviewed the annual reports on Form 10-K for the calendar year 2003
      and all monthly current reports on Form 8-K containing a copy of the
      monthly statement to certificateholders (the "Distribution Date
      Statements") delivered pursuant to Section 4.03(b) of the Pooling and
      Servicing Agreements listed on Exhibit I hereto (each, an "Agreement")
      filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by such annual
      reports of the trusts (each, a "Trust") formed pursuant to such
      Agreements;

2.    Based on my knowledge, with respects to each Trust, the information in
      these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of
      a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by such
      annual report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
      to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under each Agreement for
      inclusion in the related Trust's Distribution Date Statements is included
      in these reports;

4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
      under each Agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
      review required under each Agreement, and except as disclosed in the
      reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under each Agreement;

5.    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
      servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards, based upon the
      report provided by an independent public accountant after conducting a
      review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for
      Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure as set forth in the Agreement that
      is included in these reports; and

6.    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Deutsche
      Bank National Trust Company of California.

Date: March 30, 2004

/s/ Gary K. Bettin
----------------------------------
Signature

Senior Vice President
Title

<PAGE>

EXHIBIT I

PARTIES                           DATE OF POOLING                 SERIES
                                    AGREEMENT

Bank of America Mortgage          April 1, 1998                   1998-1
Securities, Inc., Bank
of America, N.A. and Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company
of California

Bank of America Mortgage          May 1, 1998                     1998-2
Securities, Inc., Bank
of America, N.A. and Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company
of California
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

               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 on Form 20-F of Amdocs Limited (the
"Company") for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Ron
Moskovitz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of his knowledge and belief:

     (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.

Dated: December 30, 2004

/s/  RON MOSKOVITZ
---------------------------------------------------------
Ron Moskovitz,
Chief Financial Officer,
Amdocs Management Limited
#### In the Matter of David Mayberg, Respondent, against Harris H. Murdock et al., Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

(Submitted November 16,1936;

decided November 24, 1936.)

Motion to amend the remittitur denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 272 N. Y. 571.)
632 A.2d 767

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Eileen O’BRIEN.

Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 45,

September Term, 1993.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 9, 1993.

ORDER

The Court having considered the joint Consent by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and Eileen O’Brien, Respondent, in which Respondent agrees to be placed on inactive status by the Court, it is this 9th day of November, 1993,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Eileen O’Brien be, and is hereby, placed on inactive status by *511consent from the practice of law in the State of Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Eileen O’Brien, from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland Rule BV13, shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Clients’ Security Trust Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State.
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 Annual Report of Micro Interconnect Technology Inc.
 (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003
 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
 (the "Report"), I, Kevin R. Keating, Chief Executive Officer and
 Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting 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.


/s/ Kevin R. Keating
------------------------
Kevin R. Keating
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)
March 29, 2004
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.716 Effect of conference agreements.

No agreements or understandings reached in rate conferences as to facts or issues shall in any respect be binding on the Department or any participant. Any party to mail rate proceedings will have the same rights to file an answer and take other procedural steps as though no rate conference had been held. The fact, however, that a rate conference was held and certain agreements or understandings may have been reached on certain facts and issues renders it proper to provide that, upon the filing of an answer by any party to the rate proceeding, all issues going to the establishment of a rate shall be open, except insofar as limited in prehearing conference in accordance with § 302.22.
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 28.3
Report of Independent Accountants

March 15, 2000

To the Board of Directors of
Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.


We have examined management's assertion that, as of December 31, 1999, Chase
Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. maintained an effective system of internal control over
servicing of securitized automobile financing receivables, included in the
accompanying Management Report on Internal Control Over Servicing of Securitized
Automobile Financing Receivables.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
obtaining an understanding of the internal control over servicing of securitized
automobile financing receivables, testing and evaluating the design and
operating effectiveness of the internal control, and such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any
evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods
are subject to the risk that the internal control may become inadequate because
of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or
procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that, as of December 31, 1999, Chase
Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. maintained an effective system of internal control over
servicing of securitized automobile financing receivables, is fairly stated, in
all material respects, based upon the criteria for effective internal control
described in "Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee
of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
#### George W. Ward, *Appellant,*v German-American Lumber Company, a Corporation, *Appellee.*

Per Curiam

— The appellant sought to have the appellee enjoined from cutting and removing timber alleged to belong to appellant. It was shown that the conveyance of the timber under which the appellant claims was made subsequent to the appellee’s rights in the timber, and that the appellant .took the conveyance with actual notice of the appellee’s rights. See Ward *et al.*v. German-American Lumber Co., filed this day. Under -these circumstances the decree dismissing the bill, of complaint is affirmed.
#### § 297.6 Foreign cooperative shippers association as agent.

A foreign cooperative shippers association may act as agent of a shipper, or of a direct air carrier that has authorized such agency, if it expressly reserves the option to do so when the shipment is accepted. A cooperative shippers association shall not act as an agent of any direct air carrier with respect to shipments accepted in its capacity as an indirect air carrier.

[ER-1235, 46 FR 38496, July 28, 1981]
§ 450.137 Far-field overpressure blast effects analysis. ( a ) *General.* A flight safety analysis must include a far-field overpressure blast effect analysis that demonstrates compliance with safety criteria in § 450.101, either— ( 1 ) Prior to the day of the operation, accounting for all foreseeable conditions within the flight commit criteria; or
( 2 ) During the countdown using the best available input data, including flight commit criteria and flight abort rules.
( b ) *Analysis constraints.* The analysis must account for— ( 1 ) The explosive capability of the vehicle and hazardous debris at impact and at altitude;
( 2 ) The potential influence of meteorological conditions and terrain characteristics; and
( 3 ) The potential for broken windows due to peak incident overpressures below 1.0 psi and related casualties based on the characteristics of exposed windows and the population's susceptibility to injury, with considerations including, at a minimum, shelter types, window types, and the time of day of the proposed operation.
( c ) *Application requirements.* An applicant must submit a description of the far-field overpressure analysis, including all assumptions and justifications for the assumptions, analysis methods, input data, and results. At a minimum, the application must include: ( 1 ) A description of the population centers, terrain, building types, and window characteristics used as input to the far-field overpressure analysis;
( 2 ) A description of the methods used to compute the foreseeable explosive yield probability pairs, and the complete set of yield-probability pairs, used as input to the far-field overpressure analysis;
( 3 ) A description of the methods used to compute peak incident overpressures as a function of distance from the explosion and prevailing meteorological conditions, including sample calculations for a representative range of the foreseeable meteorological conditions, yields, and population center locations;
( 4 ) A description of the methods used to compute the probability of window breakage, including tabular data and graphs for the probability of breakage as a function of the peak incident overpressure for a representative range of window types, building types, and yields accounted for;
( 5 ) A description of the methods used to compute the probability of casualty for a representative individual, including tabular data and graphs for the probability of casualty, as a function of location relative to the window and the peak incident overpressure for a representative range of window types, building types, and yields accounted for;
( 6 ) Tabular data and graphs showing the hypothetical location of any member of the public that could be exposed to a probability of casualty of 1 × 10− 5 or greater for neighboring operations personnel, and 1 × 10− 6 or greater for other members of the public, given foreseeable conditions;
( 7 ) The maximum expected casualties that could result from far-field overpressure hazards given foreseeable conditions; and
( 8 ) A description of the meteorological measurements used as input to any real-time far-field overpressure analysis.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000744 27-JUL-2015 07:46 AM
**CL** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 3 - 0 0 96 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. HARLAN G. VASKA,

Defendant and App e llant .

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including June 18 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court May 14 2024

05/14/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0096
[No. 49426-1-I.

Division One.

December 9, 2002.]

#### Lynda Breckenridge, et al., *Respondents,*v. Valley General Hospital, et al., *Defendants,*Thomas Nowak, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 99-2-07326-4, Anita L. Farris, J., entered September 20, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Agid, J., concurred in by Coleman and Schindler, JJ.
#### [511] The People, *ex rel.*Tappan, *vs.*Green.

A certiorari to remove a justice’s judgment will not be quashed, although not served within ten days after its allowance, provided it be served within *thirty days after the rendition of the judgment.*
#### § 36.803 Noise evaluation and calculation.

The noise measurement data required under § 36.801 and obtained under appendix H of this part must be corrected to the reference conditions contained in part A of appendix H of this part, and evaluated under the procedures of part C of appendix H of this part, or an FAA-approved equivalent procedure. The noise measurement data required under § 36.801 and obtained under appendix J of this part must be corrected to the reference conditions contained in part A of appendix J of this part, and evaluated under the procedures of part C of appendix J of this part, or an FAA-approved equivalent procedure.

[Doc. No. 26910, 57 FR 42854, Sept. 16, 1992]
#### In the Matter of Madeline E. Stone et al., Appellants, v John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 645]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered July 16, 1998, which denied petitioners’ application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to require respondents, officials of the New York State Department of Labor (DOL), to permit the National Employment Law Project, Inc. (NELP) to be present, as petitioners’ designated representative, at worksite inspections and at conferences held to investigate petitioners’ complaints filed with DOL pursuant to the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (Labor Law § 27-a [PESHA]), and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners, public assistance recipients required to work for public employers as part of a Work Experience Program (WEP) pursuant to Social Services Law § 336-c, seek to compel DOL to allow their chosen representative, NELP, to be present for all phases of DOL’s processing of petitioners’ complaints of alleged safety and health violations at their respective workplaces pursuant to PESHA, made applicable to WEP workers by Social Services Law § 330 (5). We agree with the IAS Court that DOL’s refusal to permit NELP to be present for the workplace inspections DOL conducted to investigate the complaints was consistent with the express terms of PESHA, which provides that employees shall be represented on such inspections by an “authorized employee representative” (Labor Law § 27-a [5] [b]), a term defined for purposes of the statute to mean only employees and union representatives (Labor Law § 27-a [1] [c]). Such restriction of the right to attend the inspections to persons who are otherwise entitled to be present at the workplace is rationally related to the legitimate governmental objective of limiting the potential for disruption of the workplace by the intrusion of outsiders, and thus is neither arbitrary and capricious *(see, Matter of Hylton v Nyden,*39 NY2d 61; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 231; *Matter of Lippman v Public Empl. Relations Bd.,*263 AD2d 891), nor offensive to the Equal Protection Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions *(see, Empire State Assn. of Adult Homes v Perales,*142 AD2d 322, 324, *lv denied*74 NY2d 614, *appeal dismissed 74*NY2d 714, citing *Trump v Chu,*65 NY2d 20, 25, *appeal dismissed*474 US 9Í5). We have considered petitioners’ other contentions and find them to be without *104merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.
#### § 161.111 Availability of data and comments on a restriction implemented pursuant to an agreement.

The airport operator shall retain all relevant supporting data and all comments relating to a restriction implemented pursuant to an agreement for as long as the restriction is in effect. The airport operator shall make these materials available for inspection upon request by the FAA. The information shall be made available for inspection by any person during the pendency of any petition for reevaluation found justified by the FAA.
#### SEAVEY v DADE COUNTY, et al.

Case No. 90-034-AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

February 1, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

John G. Fletcher, Esquire, for appellants.

Robert A. Ginsburg, Dade County Attorney and Joni Armstrong Coffey, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee, Dade County.

Kevin D. Orr, Esquire and Silvia B. Pinera-Vazquez, Esquire, Steams Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., for appellee, South Florida Growers Association, Inc.

Before HENDERSON, ROBINSON, KAHN, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM

We reverse Dade County’s Zoning Resolution Z-269-89 permitting undersized lots for residential use on property zoned AU (agricultural). *2The nine acre tract in question is restricted by the County’s land use plan to no more than one residential unit per five acres unless . . the immediate area surrounding the subject parcel on three or more sides is predominately parcelized in a similar manner, and if a division of the subject parcel would not precipitate additional land division in the area.”

Although Section 163.3194 (Fla. Statutes 1987) does not authorize the County to ignore the provisions of its own comprehensive plan, the County interpreted the words “immediate area surrounding the subject parcel” to mean “all lots within one quarter mile of the parcel”. Had that been the intent of the drafters, we assume the plan provisions would have included those words.

Further, the County’s tortuous interpretation would make it virtually impossible to avoid precipitating “. . . additional land division in the area.”

The immediate (abutting) property surrounding the parcel on three or more sides is not in fact predominately parcelized in a manner similar to that sought here, and the resolution was therefore improperly adopted. See *Machado v Musgrove,*519 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

We note and reject the County’s position that the Appellants do not have standing to prosecute this appeal.