alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 298.90 Prohibited unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition. ( a ) Violations of this Part shall be considered to constitute unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712.
( b ) In addition to paragraph (a) of this section, the following enumerated practices, among others, by an air taxi operator or commuter air carrier are unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712: ( 1 ) Misrepresentations that may induce members of the public to reasonably believe that the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier will be, or is, in operational control of a flight when that is not the case.
( 2 ) Misrepresentations as to the quality or kind of service or type of aircraft.
( 3 ) Misrepresentations as to the time of departure or arrival, points served, route to be flown, stops to be made, or total trip-time from point of departure to destination.
( 4 ) Misrepresentations as to the qualifications of pilots or safety record or certification of pilots, aircraft, or air carriers.
( 5 ) Misrepresentations that passengers are directly insured when they are not so insured. For example, where the only insurance in force is that protecting the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier in the event of liability.
( 6 ) Misrepresentations as to fares or charges for air transportation or services in connection therewith.
( 7 ) Misrepresentations as to membership in or involvement with an organization that audits direct air carriers or that the direct air carrier to be used for a flight meets a standard set by an auditing organization.
( 8 ) Representing that a contract for a specified direct air carrier, aircraft, flight, or time has been arranged without a binding commitment with a direct air carrier for the furnishing of such transportation as represented.
( 9 ) Selling or contracting for air transportation while knowing or having reason to know or believe that such air transportation cannot be legally performed by the direct air carrier or foreign direct air carrier that is to perform the air transportation.
( 10 ) Misrepresentations as to the requirements that must be met by charterers in order to qualify for charter flights.
( 11 ) Using or displaying or permitting or suffering to be used or displayed the name, tradename, slogan or any abbreviation thereof, of an air charter broker in advertisements, on or in places of business, or on or in aircraft or any other place in connection with the name of the air taxi or commuter air carrier in such manner that it may mislead or confuse potential consumers with respect to the status of the air charter broker.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5



<CAPTION>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                        2038195
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 968545
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              36892
<PP&E>                        1005045
<DEPRECIATION>                15386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                6142854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1233835
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   3952250
<COMMON>                      3497200
<OTHER-SE>                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  6142854
<SALES>                       2185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              99178
<CGS>                         94794
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 747166
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           (7641)
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (735663)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (735663)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                 (735663)
<EPS-BASIC>                  (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                (.07)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11826]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-3805]


Avent Inc. Kimberly-Clark Corporation Tucson, AZ; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on March 15, 2000, in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on behalf of workers at Avent Inc., Kimberly-Clark 
Corporation, Tucson, Arizona.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, 
and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 28th day of April, 2000.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-11826 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
§ 29.1419 Ice protection. ( a ) To obtain certification for flight into icing conditions, compliance with this section must be shown.
( b ) It must be demonstrated that the rotorcraft can be safely operated in the continuous maximum and intermittent maximum icing conditions determined under appendix C of this part within the rotorcraft altitude envelope. An analysis must be performed to establish, on the basis of the rotorcraft's operational needs, the adequacy of the ice protection system for the various components of the rotorcraft.
( c ) In addition to the analysis and physical evaluation prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, the effectiveness of the ice protection system and its components must be shown by flight tests of the rotorcraft or its components in measured natural atmospheric icing conditions and by one or more of the following tests as found necessary to determine the adequacy of the ice protection system: ( 1 ) Laboratory dry air or simulated icing tests, or a combination of both, of the components or models of the components.
( 2 ) Flight dry air tests of the ice protection system as a whole, or its individual components.
( 3 ) Flight tests of the rotorcraft or its components in measured simulated icing conditions.
( d ) The ice protection provisions of this section are considered to be applicable primarily to the airframe. Powerplant installation requirements are contained in Subpart E of this part.
( e ) A means must be identified or provided for determining the formation of ice on critical parts of the rotorcraft. Unless otherwise restricted, the means must be available for nighttime as well as daytime operation. The rotorcraft flight manual must describe the means of determining ice formation and must contain information necessary for safe operation of the rotorcraft in icing conditions.
[Amdt. 29-21, 48 FR 4391, Jan. 31, 1983]
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems (1205).                    

*Date and Time:*                         18 and 19, May, 2000, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Rooms 365 and 310, Arlington, Virginia 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Jorn Larsen-Basse, Program Director Surface Engineering and Material Design, Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems, Room 545, (703) 306-1361.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate nominations for the FY’00 Mechanics and Structures of Materials and Surface Engineering and Material Design Review Panel proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: May 2, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-11273  Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.606 Review of complaints or requests for determination. ( a ) Within thirty (30) days after a complaint or request for determination is filed under this subpart, the Secretary will determine whether the complaint or request meets the procedural requirements of this subpart and whether a significant dispute exists, and take appropriate action pursuant to paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section. When both a complaint and a request for determination have been filed with respect to the same airport fee or fees, the Secretary will issue a determination as to whether the complaint, the request, or both meet the procedural requirements of this subpart and whether a significant dispute exists within thirty (30) days after the complaint is filed.
( b ) If the Secretary determines that a significant dispute exists, he or she will issue an instituting order assigning the complaint or request for hearing before an administrative law judge. The instituting order will— ( 1 ) Establish the scope of the issues to be considered and the procedures to be employed;
( 2 ) Indicate the parties to participate in the hearing;
( 3 ) Consolidate into a single proceeding all complaints and any request for determination with respect to the fee or fees in dispute; and
( 4 ) Include any special provisions for exchange or disclosure of information by the parties.
( c ) If the Secretary determines that the complaint or request does not meet the procedural requirements of this subpart, the complaint or request for determination will be dismissed without prejudice to filing a new complaint. The order of the Secretary will set forth the terms and conditions under which a revised complaint or request may be filed.
( d ) If the Secretary finds that no significant dispute exists— ( 1 ) If the proceeding was instituted by a complaint, the Secretary will issue an order dismissing the complaint, which will contain a concise explanation of the reasons for the determination that the dispute is not significant.
( 2 ) If the proceeding was instituted by a request for determination, the Secretary will either issue a final order as provided in § 302.610 or set forth the schedule for any additional procedures required to complete the proceeding.
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 450 

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III 

No. CV-16-486

GREGORY ALLEN KIDD

 APPELLANT

V.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF 

HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR 

CHILDREN

 APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered: September 28, 2016

APPEAL FROM THE HEMPSTED 

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NOS. 29JV-15-130, 29JV-15-131, 

29JV-15-132, 29JV-15-133, 

29JV-15-134] 

HONORABLE RANDY WRIGHT, 

JUDGE

AFFIRMED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Appellant appeals from the circuit court’s March 29, 2016 adjudication order in 

which it adjudicated Z.S., born 9/12/2004; J.C., born 9/27/2005; A.C., born 1/2/2008; 

J.S., born 8/12/2009; and C.S., born 12/10/2011, as dependent-neglected and specifically 

found that C.S. had been sexually abused by appellant. On appeal, appellant argues that the 

circuit court (1) erred in exercising jurisdiction in the case absent joinder of all indispensable 

parties and (2) acted in a manner inconsistent with his due process rights, thereby rendering 

its judgments and orders void. We affirmed. 

Appellant’s argument is that the noncustodial parents to the juveniles were not given 

notice of the proceedings, therefore, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.1

 Constitutional 

 1 While appellant references all defendants in his “Statement of the Nature of the 

Case[,]” he does not discuss his own rights at all in his “Legal Analysis”; he only discusses 

the rights of three of the other defendants, specifically, Candy Collier, the children’s mother; 
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 450 

2 

rights, including the guarantee of due process, are personal rights and may not be asserted 

by a third party.2

 In Burdette v. Dietz, where the appellant made the same argument as to

the natural father, this court stated the following: 

We need not discuss this issue in detail for the following reasons: first, appellant has 

no standing to raise the issue of lack of proper service upon the natural father. Second, 

even if appellant had such standing, she failed at trial to raise issues as to sufficiency 

of process and jurisdiction in the manner required by ARCP Rule 12(b), (h)(1).3

Likewise, appellant has no standing to raise the issue of lack of proper service on the 

noncustodial parents. 

Because appellant makes no argument regarding his own notice, instead focusing his 

efforts on making an argument for other parties who have chosen not to make said argument 

for themselves, he has made an argument that he does not have proper standing to make.

Affirmed. 

 VAUGHT and HIXSON, JJ., agree. 

Stayton & Associates, by: Rowe Stayton, for appellant. 

Andrew Firth, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.

Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad litem for minor 

children.

 

Terrance Scott, legal father of Z.S., J.C., and A.C.; and Matthew Collier, legal father of J.S. 

and C.S. 

2 Cox v. Stayton, 273 Ark. 298, 302, 619 S.W.2d 617, 619 (1981) (citing Broadrick v. 

Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973); Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249 (1953)).

3 18 Ark. App. 107, 109, 711 S.W.2d 178, 180 (1986) (internal citations omitted).
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I, Carl E. Vogel, the Chief Executive Officer of Renaissance Media Group
LLC, Renaissance Media (Louisiana) LLC, Renaissance Media (Tennessee) LLC and
Renaissance Media Capital Corporation (collectively, the Company) in
compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission:  
    
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. /s/ Carl E. Vogel

Carl E. Vogel
Chief Executive Officer
March 25, 2004
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Edward F. Mehm, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Capital Crossing Preferred Corporation(the “registrant”);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) [Not applicable]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     Date: August 10, 2006 By: /s/ Edward F. Mehm       Edward F. Mehm  *Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)*
27
#### § 433.5 Operational restrictions on a reentry site.

A license to operate a reentry site authorizes the licensee to offer use of the site to support reentry of a reentry vehicle for which the three-sigma footprint of the vehicle upon reentry is wholly contained within the site.
#### BREWER v. HENRY.

No. 29526.

Sept. 10, 1940.

*105 P. 2d 430.*

W. L. Farmer, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Walter Morris, of Anadarko, and Glenn Staley, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

GIBSON, J.

Plaintiff appeals from an adverse judgment in his action for a broker’s commission.

The cause was tried to the court without a jury.

The single question for decision here is whether or not the evidence shows that plaintiff brought about the sale.

Defendant Henry listed his farm near Verden for sale with plaintiff and others. Plaintiff was acquainted with one Ryan and called on the latter at Oklahoma City primarily to sell a farm near Tuttle. Ryan at the time expressing doubt as to his desiring the Tuttle farm, plaintiff gave Ryan a description of defendant’s farm, its price, and directions to find it. Plaintiff contributed nothing to its later sale, and did not see the buyer again before the sale. Ryan, engaged in road work, had been about Verden several days after plaintiff called on him, but had not gone to see the farm and was not interested sufficiently to take with him the farm description or directions given him by plaintiff.

Not long thereafter one Woodall approached Ryan in an attempt to sell him a farm in the vicinity of Verden. They inspected a number of places, including the one in question. Thereafter plaintiff informed defendant that he had told Ryan about the farm.

A sale to Ryan was consummated shortly thereafter at a price less than that quoted by plaintiff. Defendant refused to pay a commission to plaintiff, and this action followed.

Plaintiff had no exclusive agency to sell the farm. In such cases the same prospective purchaser may be presented to the owner by other agents. The agent who makes the sale and not the one who first presents the purchaser is entitled to the sale commission where no exclusive agency exists. Nation v. Harness, 33 Okla. 630, 126 P. 799. The record here shows only that plaintiff first informed Ryan of the Henry farm being for sale, but fails to show that plaintiff did anything thereafter that caused Ryan to buy. The question of whether the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale was determined against the plaintiff, and our review of the record causes us to conclude that the trial court was correct in so doing. J. L. Lemmon Co. v. Oppenheimer, 155 Okla. 209, 8 P. 2d 679; Artlin Realty Co. v. Glass, 170 Okla. 588, 41 P. 2d 471; Wagnon v. Shoptaw, 161 Okla. 291, 18 P. 2d 868; Petroleum Pipe Line Co. v. Lundy, 176 Okla. 319, 55 P. 2d 963.

The judgment is affirmed.

WELCH, V. C. J., and OSBORN, HURST, and DANNER, JJ., concur.
\ i ' ... . j 

## , .'.. ::~) ~~.: T/\~·

. . ,. . . : 

## -. ~ : - - - .. : - ..

.. . ~ BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION :---'0 WASHINGTON, D. C. ... ,:: if:

Motion of AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. DOT-OST-1996-1203 for confidential treatment under Rule 12 (Form 41, B-43)

MOTION OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12 Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: FRANCIS C. HElL Managing Director
- Legal and Government Affairs American Airlines, Inc. 1101 17th Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C . 20036 (202) 496-5642 francis.heil@aa.com April 14, 2014



## - -

_., .BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D. C.
Motion of AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. DOT-OST-l~96-1203 for confidential treatment under Rule 12 (Form 41, B-43)

MOTION OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12 American Airlines, Inc., under 14 CFR 302.12, hereby moves that its Form 41, B-43 for YE2013, be accorded confidential treatment and withheld from public disclosure. The information for which confidential treatment is requested pertains to American's airframe and aircraft engine acquisitions and retirements.

In accordance with the Department's Final Rule on Submitting Airline Data via the Internet, 75 Fed. Reg. 41580, 41582, July 16, 2010, we are uploading our confidential report electronically to http : // esubmi t . r ita . do t . gov

On June 5, 1995, by letter of James W. Mitchell, Director, Office of Airline Statistics, the Department granted confidential treatment for a 10-year period to similar data filed by American. For the reasons stated in that letter, the current submission should also receive confidential treatment for 10 years.2 -
WHEREFORE , Amer i can move s that the schedu le be i ng submitt ed e l ectron i ca l ly to the above -referenced webs i te be withhe l d from publ i c d is c l osure under Ru l e 1 2 f or a peri od of 1 0 years. Respectfully submitt ed ,

Francis C. He il Senior Attorney Amer i can Airl i nes , Inc. April 14 , 2014