alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 218.5 Application for disclaimer of jurisdiction.

The parties to a lease with crew as described in § 218.3(b) may apply to the Department for an order disclaiming jurisdiction over the matter. The application shall be filed jointly by both parties to the lease, and shall generally conform to the procedural requirements of part 302, subpart A, of this chapter. It shall be served upon any air carrier providing services over all or any part of the route upon which air transportation services will be provided pursuant to the agreement. The application should set forth in detail all evidence and other factors relied upon to demonstrate that true operational control and safety responsibility for the air transportation services to be provided are in the hands of the lessee rather than the lessor. A copy of the agreement and all amendments thereof, as well as a summary interpretation of its pertinent provisions, shall be included with the applications. Any interested person may file an answer to the application within 7 days after service hereof. Until the Department has acted upon the application, no operations in foreign transportation shall be performed pursuant to the agreement.

[ER-716, 36 FR 23148, Dec. 4, 1971, as amended by DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019]
PART II. Human Exposure and Environmental Release 

Section B: Industrial Sites Controlled by Others 

CONFIDENTIAL
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-41011

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LILLIAN BRYANT PERRY,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(4:96-CR-13-6)

- - - - - - - - - -

September 17, 1997

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Court-appointed counsel for Lillian Bryant Perry has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th

Cir. R. 42.2. Perry’s motion for appointment of new counsel is

DENIED.
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v PEREZ

Case No. 90-144 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

March 28, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Angelica D. Zayas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Howard Horowitz, Esquire, for appellee.

Before NADLER, LEVINE, RAMIREZ, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

NADLER, J.

The genesis of this Appeal is an incident having occurred October 29, 1988, on State Road 836. The Appellee, while driving in the emergency lane, hit a parked Florida Highway Patrol car which in turn collided with a stopped vehicle. Several persons were injured.

By information, the State Attorney charged, among other things, six *40separate counts of driving under the influence causing bodily injury. The lower court, in dismissing all but one count, determined that there was only one charge of DUI. For purposes of appeal and by agreement, the last DUI count as well, was dismissed.

We hold that where several persons are injured, a defendant may be charged with more than one count of DUI, *Onesky v State,*544 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Furthermore, we believe it was the legislature’s intent to provide separate offenses and penalties where different victims are involved, thus not violating appellee’s double jeopardy rights. Fla. Stat. 4316.193(3)(c)(2) (1987), provides that one who inflicts “serious bodily injury to *another”*while committing the offense of DUI is guilty of a third degree felony (emphasis added). “Another” indicates that the legislature intended to form a separate basis for each prosecution.

Accordingly, this matter is reversed with direction to the lower court to reinstate all counts herein and to proceed accordingly.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LEVINE and RAMIREZ, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7844

JOHNNIE L. JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:08-cv-02071-GRA)

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 31, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnnie L. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Johnnie L. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Section 302Certifications for the Signatures**

 

I,Anthony J. Gould Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and Chief AccountingOfficer, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Western Sierra Bancorp(the “Registrant”);

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,  to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors:

 

a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date:November 4, 2004

 
|   | /s/ Anthony J. Gould                   |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Chief Financial and Accounting Officer |   |
|        |                                        |        |  |  |

 

----
### Uranium-bearing minerals in placer deposits of the Red River valley, Idaho County, Idaho

By: Frank C. ArmstrongPaul L. Weis

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1046C

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Exhibit 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Pursuant to 17 CFR 240.24-b, confidential information has been omitted in places marked “[***]” 
 and has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a 
 Confidential Treatment Application filed with the Commission 
 Amendment
of Statement of Work # (“SOW2”) 
 Between Elektrobit, Inc. (“EB”) and TerreStar,
Inc. (“TSN”), dated as of the 10th

 day of July, 2009 
 This Amendment is entered into under the Master Development and Licensing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated August 10 2007, as amended, between EB and TSN. 
 The undersigned parties agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	EB and TSN entered into a SOW2 on April 15, 2009. 

  

	 	2.	The SOW2 had not-to-exceed amount for the services and expenses [***] USD 

  


	 	3.	The parties would like to increase the SOW2 not-to-exceed amount by [***] USD, in order to accommodate the TSN product change requests, increased material, licensing
and build costs, work related to accessories, and to meet certain requirements for entering the type approval and certification process. The breakdown of these items is found in Appendix 1. 

  

	 	4.	Therefore, EB and TSN hereby agree to replace the amount [***] USD in Section 10 with [***] USD. 

  

	 	5.	No other terms of the SOW2 are changed or amended and all terms contained in the SOW2 remain in full force and effect. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties here to have caused this amendment to be executed by their respective duly authorizes representatives as of the last date
written below (the “Effective Date”) 
  

									
	TerreStar Networks Inc.	 		 	Elektrobit Inc.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Jeffrey W. Epstein
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Jani Lyrintzis

	Name:	 	Jeffrey W. Epstein	 		 	Name:	 	Jani Lyrintzis
	Title:	 	President	 		 	Title:	 	VP & GM
	Date:	 	August 27, 2009	 		 	Date:	 	August 27, 2009








 Appendix 1: 
 Material costs 
  

			
	 [***]
	  	[***]
	 [***]
	  	[***]
	 [***]
	  	[***]
	Total	  	[***]

 NRE costs 
  

			
	 [***]
	  	[***]
	 [***]
	  	[***]
	 [***]
	  	[***]
	 [***]
	  	[***]
	 [***]
	  	[***]
	 [***]
	  	[***]
	 [***]
	  	[***]
	Total	  	[***]
		
	 Grand total
	  	[***]
PUBLIC LAW 114–128—FEB. 29, 2016 130 STAT. 287 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 890: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 114–417 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

Feb. 9, considered and passed House. 

Feb. 22, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–128 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To revise the boundaries of certain John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System units in Florida. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER 

RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The maps subtitled ‘‘Cape Romano Unit P15, 

Tigertail Unit FL–63P’’ and ‘‘Keewaydin Island Unit P16’’ included 

in the set of maps entitled ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources System’’ 

referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) and relating to certain John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System units in Florida are hereby replaced 

by other maps relating to the units subtitled ‘‘Cape Romano Unit 

P15/P15P’’, ‘‘Keewaydin Island Unit P16/P16P, Tigertail Unit FL– 

63P’’, and ‘‘Keewaydin Island Unit P16/P16P’’, respectively, and 

dated April 10, 2015. 

(b) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior shall keep 

the replacement maps referred to in subsection (a) on file and 

available for inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of the 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)). 

Approved February 29, 2016. 

16 USC 3503 

note. 

Feb. 29, 2016 

[H.R. 890] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
#### Gatti Paper Stock Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Erie Railroad Company, Respondent.

(Submitted September 30, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*536
      *Simon H. Rifkind*and *Sidney R. Nussenfeld*for appellant.

*A. S. Edmonds*and *Theodore Kiendl*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4485 

To modify the definition of critical technologies for purposes of reviews by 

the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 6, 2020 

Mr. TILLIS (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To modify the definition of critical technologies for purposes 

of reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in 

the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR 

4 PURPOSES OF REVIEWS BY THE COMMITTEE 

5 ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED 

6 STATES. 

7 Section 721(a)(6)(A)(vi) of the Defense Production 

8 Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4565(a)(6)(A)(vi)) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4485 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘technologies controlled’’ and in2 serting the following: ‘‘technologies— 

3 ‘‘(I) controlled’’; 

4 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert5 ing ‘‘; or’’; and 

6 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(II) identified by the chair8 person and one other member of the 

9 Committee as essential to the national 

10 security of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### OMAHA BAUM IRON STORE v. UNITED STATES

[80 C. Cls. 67; 296 U. S. 576]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court October 14, 1935.
§ 431.9 Issuance of a reusable launch vehicle mission license. ( a ) The FAA issues either a mission-specific or operator license authorizing RLV missions to an applicant who has obtained all approvals and determinations required under this chapter for the license.
( b ) An RLV mission license authorizes a licensee to launch and reenter, or otherwise land, an RLV and payload, if any, in accordance with the representations contained in the licensee's application, subject to the licensee's compliance with terms and conditions contained in license orders accompanying the license, including financial responsibility requirements.
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption
"Experts-Independent Auditors" and to the use of our report dated May 13, 2003
in the Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (File No. 333-105025)
and related Prospectus of Claymore Securities Defined Portfolios, Series 149.

                                                      /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
                                                          GRANT THORNTON LLP

Chicago, Illinois
May 13, 2003
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 136596 Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
J ustices



### v SC: 136596 COA: 283126 Jackson CC: 05-001139-FC BRIAN KEITH COURTNEY SR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 9, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing ent itlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1020 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2008

Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

March 25, 2002



Management Report on Internal Control Over Servicing of Securitized Automobile
Financing Receivables

Management of the Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. is responsible for establishing
and maintaining effective internal control over servicing of securitized
automobile financing receivables, which is designed to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the proper servicing of securitized automobile financing
receivables. The internal control system contains self-monitoring mechanisms,
and actions are taken to correct deficiencies as they are identified.

There are inherent limitations in any internal control, including the
possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of controls.
Accordingly, even effective internal control can provide only reasonable
assurance with respect to servicing of securitized automobile financing
receivables. Further, because of changes in conditions, the effectiveness of
internal control may vary over time.

Management of the Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. assessed its internal control
over servicing of securitized automobile financing receivables as of December
31, 2001 in relation to criteria for effective internal control established in
"Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this assessment, management
believes that, as of December 31, 2001, the Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.
maintained effective internal control over servicing of securitized automobile
financing receivables.



                                             /s/ Jeffrey S. Browning
                                             ----------------------
                                             Jeffrey S. Browning
                                             Vice President
                                             Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.
§ 27.309 Design limitations. The following values and limitations must be established to show compliance with the structural requirements of this subpart: ( a ) The design maximum weight.
( b ) The main rotor r.p.m. ranges power on and power off.
( c ) The maximum forward speeds for each main rotor r.p.m. within the ranges determined under paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) The maximum rearward and sideward flight speeds.
( e ) The center of gravity limits corresponding to the limitations determined under paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
( f ) The rotational speed ratios between each powerplant and each connected rotating component.
( g ) The positive and negative limit maneuvering load factors.
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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 amended annual report of Consolidated Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Barry W. Tackett, Principal 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, to the best of my 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Barry W. Tackett
Barry W. Tackett, Principal Financial Officer

Date: November 21, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement 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.
<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, 2003 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: September 21, 2004

/s/  RON MOSKOVITZ
---------------------------------------------------------
Ron Moskovitz,
Chief Financial Officer,
Amdocs Management Limited