alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
'• SERVED: JUNE 18, 2014 

,~::.:_ '] :T.Y: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,,.y-;;·.'0~ ·. OFFICE OF HEARINGS - -I Jl u '" i\/ •J 

In The Matter Of: 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE 

AND ENGINEERING SERVICES 

Respondent 

WASHINGTON, DC 2Jiq 19 A 9: 111 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

Case No. 2011 S0290032 

ORDER SETTING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE 

On May 15, 2014, an Order Granting Joint Motion to Suspend Litigation Dates was filed. 

Among other things, this Order set a June 16, 2014 deadline for the parties to file a revised 

litigation schedule. 

On June 16, 2014, an Order Reserving the Respondent's Second Motionto Compel and 

Directing the Parties to Engage in a Rule 3 7 Discussion was filed. 

Later that same day, June 16, 2014, the Respondent filed a Revised Rule 26(f) 

Schedule/Discovery Plan ("Revised Schedule") on behalf of both parties. The Revised Schedule 

noted that because of the unavailability of the Office of Hearings staff attorney to assist the 

parties with scheduling, no date was yet set for a telephone conference. 

On June 17, 2014, the Respondent's counsel telephoned the Office of Hearings to provide 

agreed-upon, potential dates for a telephone conference to discuss the Revised Schedule. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(1) and (6), and after reviewed all relevant caselaw, 

regulations, statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The parties shall appear for a Telephone Conference on Monday, June 23,2014, at 

10:00 a.m. Eastern time to discuss the Revised Rule 26(f) Schedule/Discovery Plan. 

The parties shall access the Conference by dialing 202-493-2343. 

Attachment: Service List 
' . 

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 2W10001 

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ONE COPY 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southern Region 

P. 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Robert P. Silverberg 

Respondent's Counsel 

Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 

Georgetown Place, Suite 120 

th· 1101 30 St., N.W. . 

Washington, DC 20007 

TEL: 202-944-3300 

FAX: 202-944-3306 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge · 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0291 

(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 2W1000, Washington, 

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

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. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TAX TREATMENT OF PROVIDER RELIEF FUND 

4 PAYMENTS TO HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. 

5 (a) TAXABILITY.—Notwithstanding any other law, 

6 for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4525 IS

1 (1) the amount of any CARES Act Provider 

2 Relief Fund payment shall be excluded from the 

3 gross income of the recipient of such payment; and 

4 (2) no deduction shall be denied or reduced, no 

5 tax attribute shall be reduced, and no basis increase 

6 shall be denied, by reason of the exclusion from 

7 gross income provided by this subsection. 

8 (b) CARES ACT PROVIDER RELIEF FUND PAY9 MENT.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘CARES 

10 Act Provider Relief Fund payment’’ means any grant or 

11 similar assistance provided by the Secretary of Health and 

12 Human Services under the provider relief fund established 

13 through the Public Health and Social Services Emergency 

14 Fund under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 

15 Security Act (Public Law 116–136), including any addi16 tional amounts appropriated to such fund under the Pay17 check Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement 

18 Act (Public Law 116–139) or any other provision of law 

19 enacted after the date of enactment of such Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00464

- CV

I N THE M ATTER OF J.S. §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County ( 323

- 122045

- 23 )

March 7, 2 0 24

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APP EALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
#### § 27.1195 Fire detector systems.

Each turbine engine powered rotorcraft must have approved quick-acting fire detectors in numbers and locations insuring prompt detection of fire in the engine compartment which cannot be readily observed in flight by the pilot in the cockpit.

[Amdt. 27-5, 36 FR 5493, Mar. 24, 1971]
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.”

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-50116

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO LOPEZ-ESCOBAR, JUAN

ESTRADA-SILLAS, JESUS ALVAREZESPINOZA,

Defendants-Appellants.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

(CF-P-94-34-1)

 

December 1, 1995

Before GARWOOD, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

After a review of the record, we hold that the district court

did not abuse its discretion by admitting the English transcripts

of the Spanish tape-recorded conversations. United States v.

Sutherland, 656 F.2d 1181, 1201 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455

U.S. 949 and 991 (1982); United States v. Rochan, 563 F.2d 1246,
2

1251 (5th Cir. 1977). See also United States v. Valencia, 957 F.2d

1189, 1194 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 254 (1992).

Appellants had their own translator listen to the tapes and

prepare English transcripts thereof, but did not tender these

transcripts, or their translator’s testimony, to the court or jury,

and presented no evidence that the government’s transcripts were

inaccurate. The government’s evidence showed that its transcripts

were accurate. 

Appellants’ contention that the Interpreters in Courts of the

United States Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1827, applies is raised for the

first time on appeal. Appellants did not make this contention

below and did not request that the court appoint a translator or

interpreter in respect to the tapes or suggest that it should have

done so. No plain error is shown in this respect; appellants cite

no decision stating the Act is applicable in this setting, and at

least one appellate decision holds it is not. United States v.

Lira-Arredondo, 38 F.3d 531 (10th Cir. 1994).

Finally, the district court did not err in denying AlvarezEspinoza’s motion during trial to suppress statements he made to

Federal Bureau of Investigation agents after his arrest. United

States v. Andrews, 22 F.3d 1328, 1340 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115

S.Ct. 346 (1994).

The appellants’ convictions and sentences are

AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 380

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 380.15 Substitution for charter participants.

Substitutes may be arranged for charter participants at any time preceding departure. Participants who provide the charter operator or its sales agent with a substitute participant, or who are substituted for by a participant found by the operator, shall receive a refund of all moneys paid to the operator, except that the operator may reserve the right to retain an administrative fee not to exceed $25 for effecting the substitution.

[Docket No. OST-97-2356, 63 FR 28241, May 22, 1998, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019]
§ 27.623 Bearing factors. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each part that has clearance (free fit), and that is subject to pounding or vibration, must have a bearing factor large enough to provide for the effects of normal relative motion.
( b ) No bearing factor need be used on a part for which any larger special factor is prescribed.
§ 431.79 Reusable launch vehicle mission reporting requirements. ( a ) Not less than 60 days before each RLV mission conducted under a license, a licensee shall provide the FAA with the following information: ( 1 ) Payload information in accordance with 14 CFR § 415.59 of this chapter and § 431.57; and
( 2 ) Flight information, including the vehicle, launch site, planned launch and reentry flight path, and intended landing sites including contingency abort sites.
( 3 ) Launch or reentry waivers, approved or pending, from a Federal range from which the launch or reentry will take place, that are unique and may affect public safety.
( b ) Not later than 15 days before each licensed RLV mission, a licensee must notify the FAA, in writing, of the time and date of the intended launch and reentry or other landing on Earth of the RLV and may utilize the FAA/U.S. Space Command Launch Notification Form, contained in part 415, Appendix A, of this subchapter for doing so.
( c ) A licensee must report a launch accident, launch incident, reentry accident, reentry incident, or other mishap immediately to the FAA Washington Operations Center and provide a written preliminary report in the event of a launch accident, launch incident, reentry accident, or reentry incident, in accordance with the mishap investigation and emergency response plan submitted as part of its license application under § 431.45.
[Docket No. FAA-1999-5535, 65 FR 56658, Sept. 19, 2000, as amended by Amdt. No. 431-5, 81 FR 59440, Aug. 30, 2016]
**EXHIBIT23.1**

CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

24/7 Real Media, Inc.:

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-118747,333-112729, 333-111991, 333-109925, 333-108422, 333-106252, 333-100583,333-89985, 333-47074, and 333-34020) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-122041,333-100582, 333-87714, 333-83287, 333-66995, 333-56308, and 333-35306) on FormS-8 of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. of our reports dated March 13, 2007, related tothe consolidated financial statements of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. as ofDecember 31, 2006 and 2005 and for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2006, and on management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2006, which reports appear in the December 31, 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-Kof 24/7 Real Media, Inc.
|                | /s/ GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP |
|----------------|---------------------------------|
|           |                            |
| New York, NY   |
| March 16, 2007 |

 

----
#### William Lesser, Appellant, *v.*Holland Farms, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted January 22, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*559
      *Jacquin Frank, Charles Glatzer*and *David M. Fink*for appellant.

*Daniel Mungall*and *Edwin C. Markel*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Hubbs, J
§ 27.602 Critical parts. ( a ) *Critical part.* A critical part is a part, the failure of which could have a catastrophic effect upon the rotocraft, and for which critical characteristics have been identified which must be controlled to ensure the required level of integrity.
( b ) If the type design includes critical parts, a critical parts list shall be established. Procedures shall be established to define the critical design characteristics, identify processes that affect those characteristics, and identify the design change and process change controls necessary for showing compliance with the quality assurance requirements of part 21 of this chapter.
[Doc. No. 29311, 64 FR 46232, Aug. 24, 1999]
§ 27.563 Structural ditching provisions. If certification with ditching provisions is requested, structural strength for ditching must meet the requirements of this section and § 27.801(e). ( a ) *Forward speed landing conditions.* The rotorcraft must initially contact the most critical wave for reasonably probable water conditions at forward velocities from zero up to 30 knots in likely pitch, roll, and yaw attitudes. The rotorcraft limit vertical descent velocity may not be less than 5 feet per second relative to the mean water surface. Rotor lift may be used to act through the center of gravity throughout the landing impact. This lift may not exceed two-thirds of the design maximum weight. A maximum forward velocity of less than 30 knots may be used in design if it can be demonstrated that the forward velocity selected would not be exceeded in a normal one-engine-out touchdown.
( b ) *Auxiliary or emergency float conditions* — ( 1 ) *Floats fixed or deployed before initial water contact.* In addition to the landing loads in paragraph (a) of this section, each auxiliary or emergency float, of its support and attaching structure in the airframe or fuselage, must be designed for the load developed by a fully immersed float unless it can be shown that full immersion is unlikely. If full immersion is unlikely, the highest likely float buoyancy load must be applied. The highest likely buoyancy load must include consideration of a partially immersed float creating restoring moments to compensate the upsetting moments caused by side wind, unsymmetrical rotorcraft loading, water wave action, rotorcraft inertia, and probable structural damage and leakage considered under § 27.801(d). Maximum roll and pitch angles determined from compliance with § 27.801(d) may be used, if significant, to determine the extent of immersion of each float. If the floats are deployed in flight, appropriate air loads derived from the flight limitations with the floats deployed shall be used in substantiation of the floats and their attachment to the rotorcraft. For this purpose, the design airspeed for limit load is the float deployed airspeed operating limit multiplied by 1.11.
( 2 ) *Floats deployed after initial water contact.* Each float must be designed for full or partial immersion perscribed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. In addition, each float must be designed for combined vertical and drag loads using a relative limit speed of 20 knots between the rotorcraft and the water. The vertical load may not be less than the highest likely buoyancy load determined under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
[Amdt. 27-26, 55 FR 8000, Mar. 6, 1990]
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Fund XII, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general
partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ LEO F. WELLS, III  
| |  | Leo F. Wells, III      
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| |  | August 12, 2009        



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
| |  | Douglas P. Williams    
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | August 12, 2009
§ 450.153 Radio frequency management. ( a ) *General.* For any radio frequency used, an operator must— ( 1 ) Ensure radio frequency interference does not adversely affect performance of any flight safety system or safety-critical system; and
( 2 ) Coordinate use of radio frequencies with any site operator and any local and Federal authorities.
( b ) *Application requirements.* An applicant must submit procedures or other means to demonstrate compliance with the radio frequency requirements of this section.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 127793 & (16) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 127793 COA: 256347 Kalamazoo CC: 98-000394-FC DOUGLAS ALAN WORTINGER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e December 16, 2004 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to remand is also c onsidered, and it is DENIED.

s1024 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 31, 2005

Clerk
#### Sandra Mayer, Appellant, v Town of Brookhaven et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 312]

—In an action to recover dam*361ages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated August 17, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied her cross motion to compel disclosure.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages incurred when she was allegedly thrown off her motorcycle when it struck a pothole in a roadway maintained by the defendants Town of Brookhaven and the Town of Brookhaven Highway Department.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that they did not have prior written notice of the allegedly dangerous or defective condition as required by the Town of Brookhaven Code § 84-1 and Town Law § 65-a. While the defendants were correct in asserting that no prior written notice existed, an exception to the written notice requirement applies. No prior written notice is required where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence *(see, Amabile v City of Buffalo,*93 NY2d 471; *Kiernan v Thompson,*73 NY2d 840). In the instant case, the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence of repair work performed by the defendants at the exact site of the accident, just weeks before its occurrence, to raise a triable issue of fact as to possible negligence on the' defendants’ part, which precludes summary judgment *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320; *ITT Hartford Ins. Co. v Village of Ossining,*257 AD2d 606; *Yarshevitz v Town of N. Hempstead,*240 AD2d 737).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Krausman, J. P., McGinity, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Act Rule 13a-14,
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to we, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of wes disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in wes internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during wes most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter reasonably likely to materially affect, wes
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of the internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect wes ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or the
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.
  /s/ Lawrence D. Bain

Lawrence D. BainChief Executive Officer
 21