alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 382.64 What are the requirements for large accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft? ( a ) As a carrier, you must ensure that all new single-aisle aircraft that you operate with an FAA-certificated maximum seating capacity of 125 seats or more in which lavatories are provided, shall include at least one lavatory of sufficient size to: ( 1 ) Permit a qualified individual with a disability equivalent in size to a 95th percentile male to approach, enter, maneuver within as necessary to use all lavatory facilities, and leave, by means of the aircraft's on-board wheelchair, in a closed space that affords privacy equivalent to that afforded to ambulatory users; and
( 2 ) Permit an assistant equivalent in size to a 95th percentile male to assist a qualified individual with a disability, including assisting in transfers between the toilet and the aircraft's on-board wheelchair, within a closed space that affords privacy equivalent to that afforded to ambulatory users.
( b ) You are not required to retrofit cabin interiors of existing single-aisle aircraft to comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) As a carrier, you must comply with the requirements of this section with respect to new aircraft that you operate that were originally ordered after October 3, 2033, or delivered after October 2, 2035, or are part of a new type-certificated design filed with the FAA or a foreign carrier's safety authority after October 2, 2024.
[Docket No. DOT-OST-2021-0137, 88 FR 50035, Aug. 1, 2023]
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of WT Holdings Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ricky Tsoi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Ricky Tsoi         
|                      |  |  |  | Ricky Tsoi             
|                      |  |  |  | Chief 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.
§ 431.2 Licenses issued under this part. ( a ) *Definitions.* For the purposes of this subpart, the definitions of § 401.5 of this chapter apply.
( b ) *Compliance with part 450 of this chapter .* Operations under this part must comply with launch and reentry collision avoidance requirements in § 450.169 of this chapter and critical asset protection requirements in § 450.101(a)(4) and (b)(4) of this chapter.
[Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 431-7, 85 FR 79717, Dec. 10, 2020]
#### § 375.41 Agricultural and industrial operations within the United States.

Foreign civil aircraft shall not be used for such commercial air operations as crop dusting, pest control, pipeline patrol, mapping, surveying, banner towing, skywriting or similar agricultural or industrial operations within the United States, including its territorial waters and overlying airspace, unless a permit has been issued by the Department and the operation is conducted in accordance with all applicable State and local laws and regulations as well as the applicable provisions of this part.
128 STAT. 1182 PUBLIC LAW 113–117—JUNE 9, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4032: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113–413, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Apr. 28, considered and passed House. 

May 22, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–117 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To exempt from Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers by the 

North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority, 

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 ‘‘North Texas Invasive Species 

Barrier Act of 2014’’. 

SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH LACEY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1981. 

Section 5 of Public Law 112–237 (126 Stat. 1629) is amended 

by inserting after ‘‘zebra mussels’’ the following: ‘‘and other fish, 

wildlife, and plants present in Lake Texoma that are prohibited 

under section 3 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3372) or under section 

42 of title 18, United States Code’’. 

Approved June 9, 2014. 

North Texas 

Invasive Species 

Barrier Act of 

2014. 

June 9, 2014 

[H.R. 4032] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
SERVED: JANUARY 15, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

STARJET, INC. 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-1115 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2014WP230019) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

( 

~-----------Y'--__...._...---..._ Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative La\\' Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

... -~1 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

ONE COPY 

Pekka Karu, President/Director of Operations 

Starjet, Inc., Respondent 

26 Washington Blvd., 2nd Floor 

Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 

TEL: 310-301-9325 

FAX: 310-301-1556 

Lisa J. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

P. 0. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7110 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1115 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
#### § 135.97 Aircraft and facilities for recent flight experience.

Each certificate holder shall provide aircraft and facilities to enable each of its pilots to maintain and demonstrate the pilot's ability to conduct all operations for which the pilot is authorized.
#### Ethel S. Wakeman, Appellant, *v.*The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company et al., Respondents.

(Argued October 13, 1936;

decided November 24, 1936.)

*626
      *Thomas J. O’ Neill*and *Edward F. Cavanagh, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Kenneth O. Mott-Smith, Clive C. Handy*and *John M. Gibbons*for respondents.

Judgment of the Appellate Division reversed and that of the Trial Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division, on the ground that the evidence presented a question of fact for the jury. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ.; Crouch, J., taking no part.
F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

W E N D Y T H O M

A S ; S E R V I C E E M P L O Y E E S I

N T E R N A T I O N A L U N I ON , L O C A L 7 21; Plaintiffs-Appellants/

Cross-Appellees ,

v
. C O U N T Y O F R I V E R S I D E ; L A R R Y G R O T E F E N D , individually ; D E

N N I S E R I C K S C H E R

T E L L , individually ; R I C K H A LL , individually ; B R I A N M C A R T HUR , individually ; H EA T H E R W O O D S , individually ; M A R G I E G E M E N D E , individually ; Defendants-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants

. Nos. 12-55470 12-55812
D.C. No. 5:10-CV-01846- VAP-DTB

ORDER

F iled J a nuary 8, 2015
B e fore: Alex K oz inski and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit J udg es, and J ed S. Rakoff, Senior District J u d g e
. *

* T h e Ho n o rab le J ed S. Rak o f f , Sen io r District J u d g e f or th e U

. S

. District Co urt f

o r th e S o u t

h ern District o f New Yo rk , sitti n g b y d esig n atio n
.T H O M A S V

. C O U

N T Y O F R I V E R S I D E 2
ORDER The Opinion filed o n Aug ust 1 8, 2014, and p u b l i s h ed at 763 F .3d 1167, is hereby amended as follows:
On pag e 9 o f t h e slip opinion, replace “moot. 1 ” with “moot as to the County of Riverside, Grotefend, Sch e r tell, Hall, a nd W o ods. 1 W ith reg ards to Gemende and McArthur, we remand for the district court to d etermine whether they a re entitled to attorney s’ fees in lig ht of the lack of evidence that they had any supervisory

authority over Thomas.”
W i th this amendment, the panel has voted to deny t h e petition for p anel rehearing

. J udg es K oz inski a nd Clifton v ote to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and J udg e Rakoff so recommends. The full c o u r t has been advised of the p e tition for rehearing en banc and no judg e of the c ourt h a s requested a vote on en banc rehearing

. S e e Fe d

. R. App. P. 35(f).
The petition f

or pa n el rehearing and the petition for rehearing e n banc are d enied. No further petitions for panel rehearing or rehearing

en banc will be entertained.
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0332 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0332

**95/332/EC: Commission Decision of 26 July 1995 amending Decision 94/269/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from Colombia **

*
Official Journal L 192 , 15/08/1995 P. 0042 - 0043 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 26 July 1995 amending Decision 94/269/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from Colombia (Text with EEA relevance) (95/332/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 (1), laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products, as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 11 (5) thereof,

Whereas the list of establishments approved by Colombia for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the Community has been drawn up in Decision 94/269/EC (2), as last amended by Commission Decision 94/469/EC (3); whereas this list may be amended following the communication of a new list by the competent authority in Colombia;

Whereas the competent authority in Colombia has communicated a new list adding 2 establishments and amending the data of 1 establishment;

Whereas it is necessary to amend the list of approved establishments accordingly;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision have been drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down by Commission Decision 90/13/EEC (4),

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex B of Decision 94/269/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 July 1995.

For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission

ANNEX

'ANNEX B LIST OF APPROVED ESTABLISHMENTS >TABLE>
§ 61.37 Knowledge tests: Cheating or other unauthorized conduct. ( a ) An applicant for a knowledge test may not: ( 1 ) Copy or intentionally remove any knowledge test;
( 2 ) Give to another applicant or receive from another applicant any part or copy of a knowledge test;
( 3 ) Give assistance on, or receive assistance on, a knowledge test during the period that test is being given;
( 4 ) Take any part of a knowledge test on behalf of another person;
( 5 ) Be represented by, or represent, another person for a knowledge test;
( 6 ) Use any material or aid during the period that the test is being given, unless specifically authorized to do so by the Administrator; and
( 7 ) Intentionally cause, assist, or participate in any act prohibited by this paragraph.
( b ) An applicant who the Administrator finds has committed an act prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited, for 1 year after the date of committing that act, from: ( 1 ) Applying for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this chapter; and
( 2 ) Applying for and taking any test under this chapter.
( c ) Any certificate or rating held by an applicant may be suspended or revoked if the Administrator finds that person has committed an act prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 1263.105 Considerations in determining whether production or disclosure should be made. The General Counsel or designate shall direct employees to honor all valid demands. In deciding whether a particular demand is valid, the General Counsel or designate may consider: ( a ) Whether such disclosure or appearance is appropriate under the rules of procedure governing the legal proceeding in which the demand arose.
( b ) Whether disclosure is appropriate under the relevant substantive law concerning privilege.
( c ) Whether disclosure might improperly reveal trade secrets, or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.
( d ) Whether disclosure might reveal classified information.
( e ) Whether disclosure would violate a specific applicable constitutional provision, federal statute or regulation, or executive order.
( f ) Whether appearance of the requested employee would seriously implicate an interest of the Agency such as conservation of employee time for conducting official business, avoidance of expending appropriated monies for non-federal purposes, or avoidance of involving the agency in controversial issues not related to its mission.
§ 435.9 Issuance of a reentry license. ( a ) The FAA issues a reentry license to an applicant who has obtained all approvals and determinations required under this chapter for a reentry license.
( b ) A reentry license authorizes a licensee to reenter a reentry vehicle and payload, if any, in accordance with the representations contained in the reentry licensee's application, subject to the licensee's compliance with terms and conditions contained in license orders accompanying the reentry license, including financial responsibility requirements.
TAWA MONTGOMERY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 1 4

- 1 045

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed February 20, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Robert Groeb , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Gail E. Anderson , Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lauren L. Brudnicki , Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Kraay v. State , 148 So. 3d 789, 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON, and THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
#### § 298.22 Processing by the Department.

After examination of the OST Form 4507 submitted by the carrier, the Department will stamp the effective date of the registration on the form and return the duplicate copy to the carrier to confirm that it has registered with the Department as required by this part. The effective date of the registration shall not be earlier than the effective date of the insurance policy or policies named in the certificate of insurance filed by the carrier under § 298.21(c)(2).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6066

PENNELL NORMAN FOUST,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL

FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-00-3499-AW)

Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pennell Norman Foust, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Pennell Foust appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the

motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. Foust v. Stouffer, No. CA-00-

3499-AW (D. Md. filed Dec. 4, 2000; entered Dec. 6, 2000). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                         9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY  REPORT  ON FORM  10-QSB  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                     1000

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                            519
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            426
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         85,609
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           83,419
<LOANS>                                        54,929
<ALLOWANCE>                                       425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                150,470
<DEPOSITS>                                     73,021
<SHORT-TERM>                                    4,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             3,136
<LONG-TERM>                                    45,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          345
<OTHER-SE>                                     24,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                150,470
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 2,046
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               2,940
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  131
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                5,117
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              1,647
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,991
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           2,126
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 1,183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   987
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        987
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      987
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   2.95
<LOANS-NON>                                         0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       11
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  425
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       0
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 425
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              425
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0



</TABLE>
#### HUTSON v. NICHOLS.

(Decided June 1, 1916.)

Appeal from Morgan Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. Thos. W. Wert.

No counsel marked for appellant. Wert & Lynne, for appellee.

Per Curiam

Affirmed for want of assignment of error.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 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 Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jim D. Johnston, 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. Date: May 15, 2007 By:/s/ Jim D. Johnston
Jim D. Johnston
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)  4
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 09, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 09, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16D0041. KENDAL MEGAN DOMENICONE v. MICHAEL SCOTT DOMENICONE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2014CV244167
128 STAT. 1174 PUBLIC LAW 113–113—JUNE 9, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2391: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Mar. 24, considered and passed House. 

May 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–113 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 5323 Highway 

N in Cottleville, Missouri as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Phillip Vinnedge Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL PHILLIP D. VINNEDGE POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 5323 Highway N in Cottleville, Missouri, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Phillip Vinnedge 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any references in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Phillip Vinnedge Post Office’’. 

Approved June 9, 2014. 

June 9, 2014 

[H.R. 2391] 


kgrant on DSKB33CYQ1 with PUBLAW
#### In the Matter of the City of Long Beach, Appellant, against J. Russel Sprague et al., as Members of the Board of Supervisors of Nassau County, Respondents.

Argued March 3, 1937;

decided March 23, 1937.

*608
      *David B. Tolins, Corporation Counsel,*for appellant.

*James L. Dowsey, County Attorney (Kenneth M. Spence, Paul Van Anda*and *John J. Knob*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

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