alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 27.87 Height-velocity envelope. ( a ) If there is any combination of height and forward velocity (including hover) under which a safe landing cannot be made under the applicable power failure condition in paragraph (b) of this section, a limiting height-velocity envelope must be established (including all pertinent information) for that condition, throughout the ranges of— ( 1 ) Altitude, from standard sea level conditions to the maximum altitude capability of the rotorcraft, or 7000 feet density altitude, whichever is less; and
( 2 ) Weight, from the maximum weight at sea level to the weight selected by the applicant for each altitude covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For helicopters, the weight at altitudes above sea level may not be less than the maximum weight or the highest weight allowing hovering out-of-ground effect, whichever is lower.
( b ) The applicable power failure conditions are— ( 1 ) For single-engine helicopters, full autorotation;
( 2 ) For multiengine helicopters, OEI (where engine isolation features ensure continued operation of the remaining engines), and the remaining engine(s) within approved limits and at the minimum installed specification power available for the most critical combination of approved ambient temperature and pressure altitude resulting in 7000 feet density altitude or the maximum altitude capability of the helicopter, whichever is less, and
( 3 ) For other rotorcraft, conditions appropriate to the type.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423, 1424), sec. 6(c), Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-14, 43 FR 2324, Jan. 16, 1978; Amdt. 27-21, 49 FR 44433, Nov. 6, 1984; Amdt. 27-44, 73 FR 10999, Feb. 29, 2008; Amdt. 27-51, 88 FR 8737, Feb. 10, 2023]
#### § 292.1 Applicability.

This part applies to direct air carriers providing scheduled transportation of cargo in foreign air transportation.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

Actuate Corporation:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (Nos. 333-113545, 333-104101, 333-84582, 333-62600, 333-56906, 333-33720, 333-73015, and 333-59959) on Form S-8 and in the registration statements (Nos. 333-67220 and 333-34410) on Form S-3 of Actuate Corporation of ourreport dated March 14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Actuate Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity andcomprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007,which reports appear in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Actuate Corporation. 

 

Our report dated March 14, 2008 refers to accounting changes upon the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation (FIN) No. 48,*Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109*, at the beginning of fiscal year 2007, and the adoption of Statement of Accounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share-Based Payment*, at the beginningof fiscal year 2006. 

 

Our report dated March 14, 2008, on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, expresses our opinion that Actuate Corporation did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007 because of the effect of a materialweakness on the achievement of objectives of the control criteria and contains an explanatory paragraph that states that a material weakness has been identified related to the controls over the review of the income tax provision. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Mountain View, California 

March 14, 2008
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of American Plumbing &
Mechanical, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Paul Leleux, Controller 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 represents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.



Date: May 15, 2003                                  /s/  Paul Leleux
                                                    --------------------------
                                                    Paul Leleux,
                                                    Controller
[Civ. No. 1462.

Third Appellate District.

December 23, 1916.]

#### MONO IRRIGATION COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Appellants.

Eminent Domain—Surveyed School Lands Within Federal Reservation.—Judgment affirmed on the authority of *Pacifc Power Company*v. *State of California, ante,*p. 175.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mono County. W. S. Wells, Judge.

The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in *Pacific Power Company*v. *State of California, ante,*p. 175.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and John T. Nourse, Deputy Attorney-General, for Appellants.

W. O. Parker, and J. D. Murphy, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

In the opinion rendered by this court November 24, 1916, the above-entitled cause and two others, Nos. 1460 and 1461, *ante,*p. 184, involving the same plaintiff and defendants, were considered and treated together.

It was mistakenly assumed that this ease, like the other two, related to unsurveyed land. It appears, however, that the land for which condemnation was sought herein was surveyed prior to the creation of the said forest reserve. This case ought, therefore, to have been grouped with Pacific Power Company (a Corporation), Plaintiff and Respondent, *v.*The State of California, John Doe, and Richard Roe, *806Defendants and Appellants, *ante,*p. 175, decided at the same time.

For the reasons stated in the said latter opinion, the judgment rendered herein is set aside and the judgment rendered in the superior court is affirmed. The petition for rehearing is denied.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on January 22, 1917.
#### Benjamin Freeman *versus*Benjamin Ward *et al.,*Administrators.

Presenting a claim to the commissioners of insolvency on the estate of a deceased person, for allowance, is a *prosecuting*of such claim, within the meaning of *St,*1833, *c,*189, giving a remedy where the party is prevented, through accident or mistake, from “ prosecuting ” his claim to the commissioners.

Freeman having a claim against the estate of Benjamin Ward, deceased, intestate, which had been represented to be insolvent, presented it to the administrators, and likewise to the commissioners of insolvency on the estate for allowance, but it was disallowed by the commissioners. Freeman had no notice that it was objected to and disallowed, until it was too late to commence a suit at common law, pursuant to *St.*1784, c. 2, and he therefore presented a petition to the judge of probate, under *St.*1833, c. 189, representing that through mistake and accident he had been “ prevented from prose*cuting*his claim to the commissioners of insolvency,” and that the estate was solvent, and praying that the judge would authorize the administrators to pay the claim, and, in case of their refusal, would authorize the petitioner to commence and prosecute a suit at common law. The judge decreed that the petition be dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction, and from this decision the petitioner appealed to this Court.

Miller, for the appellant.

Eddy, for the appellees.

But it was *resolved,*that *presenting*the claim to the commissioners was *prosecuting*it, and consequently that the case did not come within the statute of 1833.. And the Court said, that the appellant had a remedy under *St.*1816, c. 62, (Revised Slat. c. 68, § 13.)

*Decree of the judge of probad affirmed.*
§ 1261.507 Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. ( a ) Unless otherwise prohibited by law, NASA may request that moneys which are due and payable to a debtor from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund be administratively offset in reasonable amounts in order to collect in one full payment or a minimal number of payments debts owed to the United States by the debtor. Such requests shall be made to the appropriate officials of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in accordance with the OPM regulations (see 5 CFR 831.1801, *et seq.*).
( b ) When making a request for administrative offset under paragraph (a) of this section, NASA shall include a written certification that: ( 1 ) The debtor owes the United States a debt, including the amount of the debt;
( 2 ) NASA has complied with the applicable statutes, regulations, and procedures of the Office of Personnel Management; and
( 3 ) NASA has complied with the requirements of this subpart 1261.5 which implements 4 CFR 102.3, including any required hearing or review.
( c ) Once NASA has decided to request administrative offset under this section, the request should be made as soon as practical after completion of the applicable procedures in order that the Office of Personnel Management may identify and “flag” the debtor's account in anticipation of the time when the debtor requests or becomes eligible to receive payments from the Fund. This will satisfy any requirement that offset be initiated prior to expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. At such time as the debtor makes a claim for payments from the Fund, if at least a year has elapsed since the offset request was originally made, the debtor should be permitted to offer a satisfactory repayment plan in lieu of offset upon establishing that changed financial circumstances would render the offset unjust.
( d ) If NASA collects part or all of the debt by other means before deductions are made or completed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the designated official should act promptly to modify or terminate the agency's request to OPM for offset.
( e ) OPM is not required or authorized by 4 CFR 102.4 to review the merits of NASA's determination with respect to: ( 1 ) The amount and validity of the debt;
( 2 ) Waiver under an applicable statute; or
( 3 ) Provide or not provide a live, telephonic, or video-teleconference hearing.
[52 FR 19487, May 26, 1987, as amended at 82 FR 29387, June 29, 2017]
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 302.719 Explanation and data supporting the contract.

Each contract filed pursuant to this subpart shall be accompanied by economic data and such other information in support of the contract upon which the filing air carrier intends that the Department rely, including, in cases where pertinent, estimates of the annual volume of contract mail (weight and ton-miles) under the proposed contract, the nature of such mail (letter mail, parcel post, third class, etc.), together with a statement as to the extent to which this traffic is new or diverted from existing classes of air and surface mail services and the priority assigned to this class of mail.
§ 27.777 Cockpit controls. Cockpit controls must be— ( a ) Located to provide convenient operation and to prevent confusion and inadvertent operation; and
( b ) Located and arranged with respect to the pilots' seats so that there is full and unrestricted movement of each control without interference from the cockpit structure or the pilot's clothing when pilots from 5′2′′ to 6′0′′ in height are seated.
§ 25.301 Loads. ( a ) Strength requirements are specified in terms of limit loads (the maximum loads to be expected in service) and ultimate loads (limit loads multiplied by prescribed factors of safety). Unless otherwise provided, prescribed loads are limit loads.
( b ) Unless otherwise provided, the specified air, ground, and water loads must be placed in equilibrium with inertia forces, considering each item of mass in the airplane. These loads must be distributed to conservatively approximate or closely represent actual conditions. Methods used to determine load intensities and distribution must be validated by flight load measurement unless the methods used for determining those loading conditions are shown to be reliable.
( c ) If deflections under load would significantly change the distribution of external or internal loads, this redistribution must be taken into account.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5672, Apr. 8, 1970]
#### § 27.969 Fuel tank expansion space.

Each fuel tank or each group of fuel tanks with interconnected vent systems must have an expansion space of not less than 2 percent of the tank capacity. It must be impossible to fill the fuel tank expansion space inadvertently with the rotorcraft in the normal ground attitude.

[Amdt. 27-23, 53 FR 34213, Sept. 2, 1988]
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 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David J. Moore, Chairman and 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:



March 16,
2005

| |  | /s/DAVID J. MOOREChairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1701

MARIE VAUGHN-WALKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, in his official capacity

as Secretary of the Department of Veterans

Affairs,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-02-51-4)

Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 29, 2003

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marie Vaughn-Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Anita K. Henry, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Marie Vaughn-Walker appeals the district court’s order

granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this employment

discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Vaughn-Walker v. Principi, No. CA-02-51-4

(E.D. Va. May 6, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4553 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4553

    To hold individuals convicted of Federal offenses during public 
   gatherings resulting in riots financially liable for the cost of 
               Federal policing, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 9, 2020

  Mr. Cotton (for himself and Mrs. Loeffler) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To hold individuals convicted of Federal offenses during public 
   gatherings resulting in riots financially liable for the cost of 
               Federal policing, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Support Peaceful Protest Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

    In this Act, the term ``covered Federal offense'', with respect to 
an individual, means a Federal offense related to the conduct of the 
individual at and during the course of a public gathering--
            (1) in connection with which a riot (as defined in section 
        2102 of title 18, United States Code) occurs; and
            (2) with respect to which a Federal law enforcement officer 
        was engaged in policing activity.

SEC. 3. ORDER OF RESTITUTION.

    In the case of an individual convicted of a covered Federal 
offense, the court shall, in addition to the penalty for such 
conviction, order the individual to pay an order of restitution to the 
appropriate Federal law enforcement agency in an amount that is equal 
to the cost of the policing activity engaged in by the Federal law 
enforcement agency, as determined by the court.

SEC. 4. INELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

    In the case of an individual convicted of a covered Federal 
offense, following the date of such conviction, such individual shall 
not be eligible for any unemployment benefits which are financed in 
whole or in part with Federal funds during the COVID-19 public health 
emergency (as such term is defined in section 2102 of the CARES Act (15 
U.S.C. 9021)), including any Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation 
under section 2104 of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9023).
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4222 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4222

 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to require Federal 
 agencies to submit to the Comptroller General of the United States a 
  report on rules that are revoked, suspended, replaced, amended, or 
                      otherwise made ineffective.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 20, 2020

  Mr. Scott of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read 
     twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to require Federal 
 agencies to submit to the Comptroller General of the United States a 
  report on rules that are revoked, suspended, replaced, amended, or 
                      otherwise made ineffective.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``GAO Database Modernization Act''.

SEC. 2. RULES NO LONGER IN EFFECT.

    Section 801(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(D) For any rule submitted under subparagraph (A), if the 
        Federal agency promulgating the rule, in whole or in part, 
        revokes, suspends, replaces, amends, or otherwise makes the 
        rule ineffective, or the rule is made ineffective for any other 
        reason, the Federal agency shall submit to the Comptroller 
        General a report containing--
                    ``(i) the title of the rule;
                    ``(ii) the Federal Register citation for the rule, 
                if any;
                    ``(iii) the date on which rule was submitted to the 
                Comptroller General; and
                    ``(iv) a description of the provisions of the rule 
                that are being revoked, suspended, replaced, amended, 
                or otherwise made ineffective.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Dominick Williams, Respondent, against Harrison & Meyer, Inc., et al., Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

(Argued September 30, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*539
      *Frank L. Ward*for appellants.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Leon Freedman*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4525 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4525

 To ensure that health care providers do not incur additional Federal 
income tax liability due to receipt of assistance through the Provider 
               Relief Fund during the COVID-19 pandemic.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            August 12, 2020

Mrs. Blackburn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure that health care providers do not incur additional Federal 
income tax liability due to receipt of assistance through the Provider 
               Relief Fund during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

SECTION 1. TAX TREATMENT OF PROVIDER RELIEF FUND PAYMENTS TO HEALTH 
              CARE PROVIDERS.

    (a) Taxability.--Notwithstanding any other law, for purposes of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986--
            (1) the amount of any CARES Act Provider Relief Fund 
        payment shall be excluded from the gross income of the 
        recipient of such payment; and
            (2) no deduction shall be denied or reduced, no tax 
        attribute shall be reduced, and no basis increase shall be 
        denied, by reason of the exclusion from gross income provided 
        by this subsection.
    (b) CARES Act Provider Relief Fund Payment.--For purposes of this 
section, the term ``CARES Act Provider Relief Fund payment'' means any 
grant or similar assistance provided by the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services under the provider relief fund established through the 
Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund under the Coronavirus 
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136), including 
any additional amounts appropriated to such fund under the Paycheck 
Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Public Law 116-139) 
or any other provision of law enacted after the date of enactment of 
such Act.
                                 <all>
```