alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 399
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 399 appear at 84 FR 15947, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 399.12 Negotiation by air carriers for landing rights in foreign countries. ( a ) It is the policy of the Department(jointly with the Department of State) that, as a general rule, landing rights abroad for United States flag air carriers will be acquired through negotiation by the U.S. Government with foreign governments rather than by direct negotiation between an air carrier and a foreign government.
( b ) It is corollary to the foregoing policy that no United States air carrier may avail itself of representations by one foreign government to further its interest with another foreign government, especially with respect to landing rights, except insofar as such representations have been specifically authorized by the U.S. Government.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4517 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4517

   To provide States additional time relating to the appointment of 
  electors and for the meeting of electors for the 2020 election for 
                     President and Vice President.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 6, 2020

   Mr. Rubio introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide States additional time relating to the appointment of 
  electors and for the meeting of electors for the 2020 election for 
                     President and Vice President.

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

SECTION 1. RULES RELATING TO ELECTORS FOR THE 2020 ELECTION.

    In the case of the election for President and Vice President in 
2020--
            (1) section 5 of title 3, United States Code, shall be 
        applied--
                    (A) by substituting ``by January 1, 2021'' for ``at 
                least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of 
                the electors''; and
                    (B) by substituting ``by such date'' for ``at least 
                six days prior to said time of meeting of the 
                electors''; and
            (2) section 7 of title 3, United States Code, shall be 
        applied by substituting ``January 2, 2021,'' for ``the first 
        Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following 
        their appointment''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 93.226 Allocation of slots in low-demand periods. ( a ) If there are available slots in the following time periods and there are no pending requests for international or EAS operations at these times, FAA will allocate slots upon request on a first-come, first-served basis, as set forth in this section: ( 1 ) Any period for which a slot is available less than 5 days per week.
( 2 ) Any time period for which a slot is available for less than a full season.
( 3 ) For LaGuardia and Washington National Airports: ( i ) 6:00 a.m.-6:59 a.m.
( ii ) 10:00 p.m.-midnight.
( b ) Slots will be allocated only to operators with the economic and operating authority and aircraft required to use the slots.
( c ) Requests for allocations under this section shall be submitted in writing to the address listed in § 93.221(a)(1) and shall identify the request as made under this section.
( d ) The FAA may deny requests made under this section after a determination that all remaining slots in a particular category should be distributed by lottery.
( e ) Slots may be allocated on a seasonal or temporary basis under this provision.
[Doc. No. 24105, 51 FR 21718, June 13, 1986]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                       Written Statement of the Controller

                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Controller of Americas Power Partners, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


   /s/ Jerome P. Frett
--------------------------
     Jerome P. Frett

May 13, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12002]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Open Commission Meeting, Monday, May 15, 
2000

May 8, 2000.
    The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on 
the subjects listed below on Monday, May 15, 2000, which is scheduled 
to commence at 9:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street, SW, 
Washington, DC.

Item No., Bureau, and Subject

1--Common Carrier and Office of Engineering and Technology--Title: 
2000 Biennial Regulatory Review of Part 68 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations (CC Docket No. 99-216).
    Summary: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking to streamline Part 68 technical rules and registration 
process.

    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from 
Maureen Peratino or David Fiske, Office of Media Relations, telephone 
number (202) 418-0500; TTY (202) 418-2555.
    Copies of materials adopted at this meeting can be purchased from 
the FCC's duplicating contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc. (ITS, Inc.) at (202) 857-3800; fax (202) 857-3805 and 857-3184; or 
TTY (202) 293-8810. These copies are available in paper format and 
alternative media, including large print/type; digital disk; and audio 
tape. ITS may be reached by e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0a9b4b39fa9aea380a9b8eeaea5b4a3afadeea3afad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ee7fafdd1e7e0edcee7f6a0e0ebfaede1e3a0ede1e3">[email protected]</span></a>. Their 
Internet address is http://www.itsi.com. This meeting can be viewed 
over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol 
Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet.
    For information on these services call (703) 993-3100. The audio 
portion of the meeting will be broadcast live on the Internet via the 
FCC's Internet audio broadcast page at http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/>. 
The meeting can also be heard via telephone, for a fee, from National 
Narrowcast Network, telephone (202) 966-2211 or fax (202) 966-1770. 
Audio and video tapes of this meeting can be purchased from Infocus, 
341 Victory Drive, Herndon, VA 20170, telephone (703) 834-0100; fax 
number (703) 834-0111.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12002 Filed 5-9-00; 2:18 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 93.335 Definitions.

For purposes of this subpart—

*DC FRZ flight plan* is a flight plan filed for the sole purpose of complying with the requirements for VFR operations into, out of, and through the DC FRZ. This flight plan is separate and distinct from a standard VFR flight plan, and does not include search and rescue services.

*DC SFRA flight plan* is a flight plan filed for the sole purpose of complying with the requirements for VFR operations into, out of, and through the DC SFRA. This flight plan is separate and distinct from a standard VFR flight plan, and does not include search and rescue services.

*Fringe airports* are the following airports located near the outer boundary of the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area: Barnes (MD47), Flying M Farms (MD77), Mountain Road (MD43), Robinson (MD14), and Skyview (51VA).

*Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (DC FRZ)* is an area bounded by a line beginning at the Washington VOR/DME (DCA) 311° radial at 15 nautical miles (NM) (Lat. 38°59′31′′ N., Long. 077°18′30′′ W.); then clockwise along the DCA 15 nautical mile arc to the DCA 002° radial at 15 NM (Lat. 39°06′28′′ N., Long 077°04′32′′ W.); then southeast via a line drawn to the DCA 049° radial at 14 NM (Lat. 39°02′18′′ N., Long. 076°50′38′′ W.); thence south via a line drawn to the DCA 064° radial at 13 NM (Lat. 38°59′01′′ N., Long. 076°48′32′′ W.); thence clockwise along the 13 NM arc to the DCA 276° radial at 13 NM (Lat.38°50′53′′ N., Long 077°18′48′′ W.); thence north to the point of beginning, excluding the airspace within a one nautical mile radius of the Freeway Airport, W00, Mitchellville, MD from the surface up to but not including flight level (FL) 180. The DC FRZ is within and part of the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area SFRA.

*Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area (DC SFRA)* is an area of airspace over the surface of the earth where the ready identification, location, and control of aircraft is required in the interests of national security. Specifically, the DC SFRA is that airspace, from the surface to, but not including, FL 180, within a 30-mile radius of Lat. 38°51′34′′ N., Long. 077°02′11′′ W., or the DCA VOR/DME. The DC SFRA includes the DC FRZ.

[Doc. No. FAA-2004-17005, 73 FR 76213, Dec. 16, 2008; Amdt. 93-91, 73 FR 79314, Dec. 29, 2008]
EXHIBIT 32.2

# CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Auriga Laboratories, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that, to the best of
my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
September 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Philip S. PesinPhilip S. Pesin
Chief Financial Officer

November 13, 2006
SURVEY

-
XN
{
. -
Bs
= ~
“te
7 ‘
f
TM~
=
_.
\
\ |
\
f
'
- |
ij '
\
)
)
1 :
164°00' N
‘ a

NSULA AREA, ALASKA”

AEROMAGNETIC MAP

SEWARD PENII
| te 34
y
< This map is preliminary
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY and has not been edited

Released to open ~ or reviewed for conformity
=_— file ; to Geological Survey standards
#### Joshua Mizell, *Appellant,*v. County of DeSoto and Others, *Appellees.*

The issuance of County Warrants, admittedly illegal in part, and containing provisions that might render them negotiable, should be enjoined.

Appealed from the Circuit Court for DeSoto County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*J ames F. Glen,*for Appellant;

*Treachoell*& *Treadwell*and *R. E. Brown,*for Appellees.

Cockrell, J.

— This is an appeal from an interlocutory order, refusing a temporary injunction against the performance of a contract between the county of DeSoto and a partnership known as The Read-Parker Construction Company for building a court house. The order was based upon the finding that the former court house had been torn down and the contractors had expended about one-half the amount of their bid, when the injunction was asked; the validity of the contract in many of its features was not adjudged upon at this summary hearing, and we shall likewise pass them over as premature, or perhaps not requiring immediate action. There is, however, one provision as to which we feel the complainant was entitled to a restraining order. The so-called “warrants” to *he*issued by the county to the contractors are without authority of law, partaking rather of the nature of bonds, which may only be issued by a vote, of the county, and it is not safe to say that these “warrants” are non-negotiable and maybe defended against in the hands of others. It is *542admitted that they have illegal provisions, and yet the county commissioners seek to estop the county from asserting any defense to them. While it is true they are payable out of a designated fund to be thereafter levied, a special court house tax, yet it may be debatable, whether in the language of the Negotiable Instrument Law, the language of the warrants may not be construed as an indication of a particular fund out of which re-imbursement is to be made;” negotiability as applied to municipal securities is in some respects unique, and the safer course is to avoid the possibility of future litigation.

The order is reversed, with directions to modify as above indicated.

Whitfield, C. J., and Taxlor, Shackleford and Hooker, J. J., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of UC HUB
GROUP,  INC.  for  the  quarter  ending October 31, 2005, I, Larry Wilcox, Chief
Financial  Officer  of  UC HUB GROUP, INC., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350,  as  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief,  that:

     1.     Such  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending October
31,  2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for  the  quarter  ending  October  31,  2005,  fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition and results of operations of UC HUB GROUP,
INC.

     Dated:  January 20, 2006.

                                    /s/  Larry Wilcox
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                    Larry Wilcox, Chief Financial Officer of
                                    UC HUB GROUP, INC.


<PAGE>
Editorial Note on Part 747
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 747 appear at 84 FR 1609, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 747.14 Witness fees and expenses. ( a ) *In general.* A witness, including an expert witness, who testifies at a deposition or hearing will be paid the same fees for attendance and mileage as are paid in the United States district courts in proceedings in which the United States is a party, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and unless otherwise waived.
( b ) *Exception for testimony by a party.* In the case of testimony by a party, no witness fees or mileage need to be paid. The NCUA will not be required to pay any fees to, or expenses of, any witness not subpoenaed by the NCUA.
( c ) *Timing of payment.* Fees and mileage in accordance with this paragraph (c) must be paid in advance by the party requesting the subpoena, except that fees and mileage need not be tendered in advance where the NCUA is the party requesting the subpoena.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7543

LEON KEITH GASKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

FRANK C. SIZER, JR.; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,

Attorney General of the State of Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 98-6364

LEON KEITH GASKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

FRANK C. SIZER, JR.; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,

Attorney General of the State of Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-97-1392-WMN)
2

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 20, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leon Keith Gaskins, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Leon Keith Gaskins seeks to appeal three district court orders

granting extensions of time to Respondents, and the order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning

of the district court. Gaskins v. Sizer, No. CA-97-1392-WMN (D. Md.

June 12, 1997, Aug. 26, 1997, Sept. 26, 1997, and Feb. 27, 1998).

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
#### Edith Farr, as Administratrix of the Estate of Westley A. Farr, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Frank E. Wright, Respondent.

Argued January 22, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*561J. *Stanley Carter*and *M. James Conboy*for appellant.

*Harold W. Turner*for respondent.

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 the evidence presented a question of fact for the jury. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Lottghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Hubbs, J.
#### § 401.1 The Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

The Office of Commercial Space Transportation, referred to in these regulations as the “Office,” is a line of business within the Federal Aviation Administration and is located in the Federal Aviation Administration Headquarters, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 331, Washington, DC 20591.

[Amdt. 401-3, 68 FR 35289, June 13, 2003]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Geologic map of the Haji-Gakiron deposit, Bamyan Province, Afghanistan modified from the 1965 original mapcompilation of M.S. Smirnov and I.K. Kusov**
 
Map A | Map B
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.76:2011-1185
Item Number:0624-H (online)
CGP systemNumber:000932942
 
January 26, 2018
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Jonathan K. Hsu, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of 24/7 Real Media, Inc.:

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

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report does fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



Date:
April 12, 2005

| |  | /s/JONATHAN K. HSUExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### Janet C. McIntosh, an Infant, by Drew W. McIntosh, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, *v.*County of Jefferson et al., Appellants. Drew W. McIntosh, Respondent, *v.*County of Jefferson et al., Appellants. Edith B. McIntosh, Respondent, *v.*County of Jefferson et al., Appellants. Elizabeth J. McIntosh, an Infant, by Drew W. McIntosh, her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, *v.*County of Jefferson et al., Appellants.

Argued November 24, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.

*467
      *John H. O'Brien*for County of Jefferson, appellant.

*Ellsworth J. Carter*for Town of Clayton, appellant.

*Melvin F. Kinkley*and *Norman F. Ward*for respondents.

In each case, order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
#### § 14.1 Purpose.

These regulations implement Executive Order 12356, entitled National Security Information, dated April 2, 1982, and directives issued pursuant to that Order through the National Security Council and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
#### ZALESKY v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 8802.

Decided Jan 21, 1929

Mongenstern & Morgenstern, Cleveland, for Zalesky.

L A Lucken, for State.

VICKERY, J

It developed during this trial, that since the courts have held that a justice has no right to try cases in which he is interested by way of getting compensation, the business has fallen off to such an extent that the councils have refused to pay a Justice of the Peace, and I presume the officers who have been employed. All this tends to show that the so-called salary was a subterfuge to evade the ruling laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in what is known as the Turney case and, of. course, the Justice, inasmuch as his salary depended upon getting more than enough money in the treasury to p,ay it, had to fine people brought before him, before he could get the money. Therefore, he was clearly interested in having the defendant found guilty and assessed a fine, for only by that means was he enabled to get his salary.

The objection to the jurisdiction of the justice, because of his interest having been seasonably made, that is, at the very earliest opportunity, the plaintiff in error has the right to avail himself of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Turney vs. State of Ohio, decided March, 7th, 1927, (Ohio Law Bulletin and Reporter Vol. XXV page 236, of March 14, 1927) and followed by the courts in our own State. The justice being an interested party had no right to sit in this case and the judgment was, therefore, illegal, and the defendant below, plaintiff in error here, was wrongfully convicted.

The judgment will, therefore, be reversed and the defendant discharged.

Sullivan, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.