alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 382.105 What is the responsibility of carriers at foreign airports at which airport operators have responsibility for enplaning, deplaning, and connecting assistance?

At a foreign airport at which enplaning, deplaning, or connecting assistance is provided by the airport operator, rather than by carriers, as a carrier you may rely on the services provided by the airport operator to meet the requirements of this subpart. If the services provided by the airport operator are not sufficient to meet the requirements of this subpart, you must supplement the airport operator's services to ensure that these requirements are met. If you believe you are precluded by law from supplementing the airport operator's services, you may apply for a conflict of laws waiver under § 382.9 of this part.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the periodic report of Asiamart, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Alex Yue, Chief Executive Officer
      (Principal 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:
                November 19, 2008
            /s/
                Alex YueAlex
                YueChief
                Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)
#### OSTER BROTHERS FURNITURE CO v. MATLES

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided March, 15, 1929

Metcalfe & Cannon, and Harry Barrett, all of Youngstown, for Furniture Co.

Max Brunswick, Youngstown, for Matles.

FARR, J.

Upon the trial below, there was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, and from such judgment error is prosecuted in this court upon the ground that the judgment is contrary to law. The original contract between the parties is in writing and the - subsequent agreements are admitted to have been oral,, and the important issue here is whether or not such defense by way of oral agreements for reduced rentals is available to Matles.

An examination of the record does not disclose that there was any new or additional consideration for these oral agreements, and it is fundamental that to sustain a new contract of that character that there must be a consideration moving, from one party to the other, and so it is held in the case of Marshal, et al. v. Ames, 11 C. C., 368.

Of interest in this connection is Gordon v. Greem, 197, Pac., 955.

And in the opinion, at page 956, it is said:

> “See also Doldsborough v. Gable, 140 Ill., 269; 29 N. E., 722, 15 L. R. A., 294; Seymour v. Hughes, 55 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 251, 105 N. Y. Supp., 249; Wharton v. Anderson, 28 Minn., 302, 9 N. W., 860. The modified agreement as found by the court to have been made between the parties, was therefore a mere nudum pactum, which did not relieve defendant from the obligations under his lease.”

There being no consideration shown for the alleged new oral agreements, there is nothing whatever to support them, and they are, in the language of the foregoing, merely ' nudum pactums. See also Coe v. Hobby, 72 N. Y. 141-148.

It follows, therefore, that the judgment in the instant case is contrary to law and for that reason the same is reversed and the cause remanded.

Pollock and Roberts, JJ, concur.'
§ 91.1721 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) The Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU-2B Cockpit Checklists are incorporated by reference into this part. The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, Room W 12-140, West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or at the National Archives and Records Administration, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( b ) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., 4951 Airport Parkway, Suite 530, Addison, TX 75001. ( 1 ) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU-2B Checklists: ( i ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-60, Type Certificate A10SW, MHI Document No. YET06220C, accepted by FSB on February 12, 2007.
( ii ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-40, Type Certificate A10SW, MHI Document No. YET06256A, accepted by FSB on February 12, 2007.
( iii ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-36A, Type Certificate A10SW, MHI Document No. YET06257B, accepted by FSB on February 12, 2007.
( iv ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-36, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06252B, accepted by FSB on February 12, 2007.
( v ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-35, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06251B, accepted by FSB on February 12, 2007.
( vi ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-30, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06250A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.
( vii ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-26A, Type Certificate A10SW, MHI Document No. YET06255A, accepted by FSB on February 12, 2007.
( viii ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-26, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06249A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.
( ix ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-26, Type Certificate A10SW, MHI Document No. YET06254A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.
( x ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-25, Type Certificate A10SW, MHI Document No. YET06253A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.
( xi ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-25, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06248A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.
( xii ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-20, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06247A, accepted by FSB on February 12, 2007.
( xiii ) - ( xiv ) [Reserved]
( xv ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-15, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06246A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.
( xvi ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-10, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06245A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.
( xvii ) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06244A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[Docket FAA-2006-24981, Amdt. 91-344, 81 FR 61591, Sept. 7, 2016; Amdt. 91-344A, 82 FR 21472, May 9, 2017]
#### Tuffs vs. Gibbons.

ALBANY,

March, 1839.

Matter of defence arising after issue joined should regularly be pleaded at or b= before the time of the next continuance; a plea subsequently put in will however be sustained upon satisfactory excuse, but if it appear that the defence rests in fraud, it will be stricken out.

' Motion to set aside a plea of accord and satisfaction, March, 1839. pleaded *puis darrein continuance*on the hearing of the *640cause before a referee. There had been several continuances between ¡¡me that the matter of the plea arose and the time of pleading it.

*A. Taber,*for the motion.

*M. T. Reynolds,*contra.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

Matter of defence which arises after issue joined should be pleaded at or before the time of the next continuance. But the court may in its discretion allow it to be pleaded, although one or more continuances have intervened. *Morgan*v. *Dyer,*9 Johns. R. 255. 10 id. 161. In this case the accord which is pleaded was made between the defendant and the plaintiff’s attorney, after they both had notice that the demand had been assigned by the plaintiff to one Chapman. On the papers submitted it is a plain case of a fraudulent attempt to defeat the right of the assignee. The plea must therefore be set aside with costs.

Motion granted.
Table 1. Estimating Veolia's Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs)Updated: 6/22/2012Unit # MetalMetalFeedRatesDuring2008Testing(lb/hr)aHighest 12-hr RollingAverageMetal FeedRate 7/1/04-1/1/08(lb/hr)Highest 12-hrRollingAverage MetalFeedrate(lbs/hr), fromJune 7, 2012Test FeedRate As a %of theHighest 12-hr RollingAverage ofHistoricalValuesWas TestingDone at≥Highest 12-hrHistoricalRates?bWas TestingDone at≥Median 12-hrHistoricalRates?bVeolia’s3/2/10ProposedExtrapolatedFeedrate(lb/hr)cEPA’sProposedOPLs (lb/hr)dEst.StackConc. @Veolia'sProposedOPLs(μg/dscm @7% O2)eEst. StackConc. @EPA'sProposedOPLs(μg/dscm @7% O2)eHWC MACTLimit (40C.F.R. §63.1219);μg/dscm @7% O2Hg 0.00165 0.0054 0.006431% No Yes 0.0057 0.0016518353 130LVM 47.2 84.5 68.556% No Yes 140 68.5 20 10 92SVM 63.6 50.691.0126% No Yes 189 91.0 65 31 230Hg 0.0018 0.00545 0.005933% No Yes 0.0057 0.001818157 130LVM 47.7 77.3 77.862% No Yes 143 77.8 70 38 92SVM 64.3 72.181.689% No Yes 193 81.6 173 73 230Hg 0.0214 0.05981 0.06036% No Yes 0.078 0.021 89 24 130LVM 50.3 69.977.372% No Yes 151 77.3 30 15 92SVM 63.6 58.4 98.1109% No Yes 191 98.1 81 42 230Notesa. Feed rate calculated by EPA in March 2010 using calculated Hg spike composition & offsite waste feed concentrations.b. In general, feed rates that fall within the top 10-25% of historical 12-hour rolling average rates may be consideredfor extrapolation.c. Calculated by escalating the metal feed rate during testing by a factor of 3.d. No extrapolation is recommended for Hg because the test feed rates were too low (< 50% of the highest historical rate).For Unit 4, EPA needs an acceptable analysis of the corresponding activated carbon injection rate at higher feed rates.If the test feed rate is higher than the highest historical 12-hour feed rate (e.g., SVM from Units 2 & 4), use the testfeed rate. For LVM (Units 2, 3, 4) and SVM (Unit 3), extrapolate up to the highest historical feed rate.e. Stack concentrations are estimated from exhaust parameters and "removal efficiencies" reported by Veolia in theMarch 2010 application, except that Hg removal efficiencies were re-calculated by EPA. (Todd Ramaly Memo, March 26, 2010)234
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ending December 31, 2006 of OMI Corporation (the "Company")  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  Kathleen C. Haines, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

| | 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 result of operations of the Company.
|

|Date: | February 28, 2007 | By: | /s/Kathleen C. Haines  
|----- | ----------------- | --- | -----------------------
|      |                   |     | Kathleen C. Haines     
|      |                   |     | Senior Vice President, 
|      |                   |     | Chief Financial Officer
|      |                   |     | and Treasurer          

A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OMI Corporation and will be retained by OMI Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon
request.

---
EXHIBIT 10-o-2


 


Amended schedule of Executives of the Company who are a party to a
Change of Control Agreement:


 


1.               C. M. Jones


2.               B. M. Abzug


3.               J. E. Besong


4.               G. R. Chadick


5.               R. M. Chiusano


6.               G. S. Churchill


7.               L. A. Erickson


8.               J. J. Gaspar


9.               H. L. Gregory


10.         H. M. Reininga


11.         K. L. Statler
Bucks Lake

Wilderness NO MOTOR

VEHICLES ALLOWED

French

Corral

Rackerby Challenge

Forbestown

Clipper

Mills

Strawberry

Valley

Goodyears

Bar

Cherokee

Berry

Creek

Brush

Creek

Cascade

American

House

LaPorte

Mt.

Fillmore

Gold

Lake

Clio

Calpine

Paradise

East

Pulga

Soapstone

Hill

Haskins

Valley

Dogwood

Peak

Onion

Valley

Bluenose

Mountain

Johnsville Blairsden Portola

Reconnaisance

Peak Chilcoot

Beckwourth

Pass

Stirling

City

Kimshew

Point Storrie

Bucks

Lake

Meadow

Valley Quincy

Spring

Garden

Mt.

Ingalls

Grizzly

Valley

Crocker

Mountain

Dixie

Mountain

Frenchman

Lake

Constantia

Belden Caribou Twain

Crescent

Mills Taylorsville

Genesee

Valley

Babcock

Peak

Squaw

Valley

Peak

Ferris

Creek

McKesick

Peak

Almanor

Canyon

Dam Greenville

Moonlight

Peak

Kettle

Rock

Antelope

Lake

Stony

Ridge Milford

Fredonyer

Pass Diamond

Mountain

Janesville

Standish

Bullards Bar

Recreation

Area

Sly Creek

Recreation

Area

Lakes Basin

Recreation

Area

Little

Grass Valley

Recreation Area

Bucks Lake

Recreation

Area

Lake Davis

Recreation

Area

Silver Lake

Recreation

Area

Frenchman Lake

Recreation Area

North Fork

Recreation

Area

Round Valley

Recreation

Area

Butt Valley

Recreation

Area

Antelope Lake

Recreation

Area

C:\GIS\Projects\ForestMaps\Vehicle_Restricted_Areas.mxd

Last Modified: May 6, 2009 Michael Kobelt

Areas With OHV Restrictions

Criteria for Unioning Polygons:

1. Clip out all private land

2. Clip out all lakes

3. Do not join different adjacent areas (eg, wilderness separate from

PCT corridor separate from bald eagle, or beartrap separate from

lakes basin, etc). May need to be able to query individual areas,

and some areas need to be labeled and symbolized differently.

4. Do not cover space that had no areas covering it

(eg, small space between bear trap and lakes basin).

5. For each resulting unioned area, add a field in the attribute table

for labeling, and populate it with the same R-1, R-2, etc values that

are in the RESTRICT_I field of the ohv_restrict_MF_SP shapefile.

6. Do not include bullards bar recreation area (FID #29) - there is

no OHV restriction.

7. Use the updated ohv_restrict_MF_SP shapefile as the

boundaries have been modified.

8. We agreed to not include the 3 Prohibited areas in the union.

Map of data layers used

in creation of Vehicle Restricted

and Vehicle Prohibited Areas

used in OHV Analysis

Legend [by order of layers]

Vehicle_Restrict_Areas

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Areas (pnfspnm88_2)

LMP Motorized Wheeled Vehicles Prohibited Area (ohv_restrict.shp)

LMP Motorized Vehicles Restricted/ForestOrder maps (areas R-1 - R-34)(ohv_restrict.shp) [30% transparent]

Recreation Areas (pnfreca88_2)
§ 25.955 Fuel flow. ( a ) Each fuel system must provide at least 100 percent of the fuel flow required under each intended operating condition and maneuver. Compliance must be shown as follows: ( 1 ) Fuel must be delivered to each engine at a pressure within the limits specified in the engine type certificate.
( 2 ) The quantity of fuel in the tank may not exceed the amount established as the unusable fuel supply for that tank under the requirements of § 25.959 plus that necessary to show compliance with this section.
( 3 ) Each main pump must be used that is necessary for each operating condition and attitude for which compliance with this section is shown, and the appropriate emergency pump must be substituted for each main pump so used.
( 4 ) If there is a fuel flowmeter, it must be blocked and the fuel must flow through the meter or its bypass.
( b ) If an engine can be supplied with fuel from more than one tank, the fuel system must— ( 1 ) For each reciprocating engine, supply the full fuel pressure to that engine in not more than 20 seconds after switching to any other fuel tank containing usable fuel when engine malfunctioning becomes apparent due to the depletion of the fuel supply in any tank from which the engine can be fed; and
( 2 ) For each turbine engine, in addition to having appropriate manual switching capability, be designed to prevent interruption of fuel flow to that engine, without attention by the flight crew, when any tank supplying fuel to that engine is depleted of usable fuel during normal operation, and any other tank, that normally supplies fuel to that engine alone, contains usable fuel.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-11, 32 FR 6912, May 5, 1967]
§ 91.505 Familiarity with operating limitations and emergency equipment. ( a ) Each pilot in command of an airplane shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with the Airplane Flight Manual for that airplane, if one is required, and with any placards, listings, instrument markings, or any combination thereof, containing each operating limitation prescribed for that airplane by the Administrator, including those specified in § 91.9(b).
( b ) Each required member of the crew shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with the emergency equipment installed on the airplane to which that crewmember is assigned and with the procedures to be followed for the use of that equipment in an emergency situation.
#### BUY WISE, INC. v METRO DADE COUNTY—CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION

Case No. 91-073AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

November 15, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

John H. Pelzer, Esquire, Ruden Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., for appellant.

Jay W. Williams, Assistant Dade County Attorney, for appellee.

Before GOLDMAN, DONNER, MUIR, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

GOLDMAN J.

This is an appeal from a hearing officer’s finding of guilt for alleged *59violation of Dade County Code of Ordinances, Section 8A-108(a).1

We reverse. There was no substantial evidence upon which the hearing officer could base a finding of guilt.2

It is clear the purpose of the Code is to prevent consumer fraud, especially through bait and switch tactics. Common sense tells us that the intent necessary is not just the intent to sell a product, but the intent to mislead, or disseminate false information.

In this case an ad was placed in the Miami Herald which contained a mistake. There was no evidence of intent proven. Buy Wise attempted to correct the mistake, and further produced invoices proving they sold the advertised T.V.’s or its equivalent (or even better sets) at the advertised price.

The County simply failed to produce any competent substantial evidence of an intent to violate the ordinance. See *Vance v Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club Ltd.,*403 So.2d 1367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

A Hearing Officer’s decision must be reversed where there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the decision. *Bell v Jefferson,*414 So.2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

Accordingly, the decision of the Hearing Officer is reversed.

REVERSED.

DONNER and MUIR, JJ., concur.

1

 The Code provides in pertinent part: “It is unlawful for any . . . corporation . . . with *intent*to directly or indirectly dispose of . . . personal property ... or to induce the public to enter into an obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate, cause to be made or disseminated before the public in this County, in any newspaper . . ., any . . . representation or statement of fact, concerning such . . . personal property, which is untrue or misleading and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care, should be known to be untrue or misleading.”

2

 The hearing officer admitted into evidence a letter written by a dissatisfied customer. Hearsay evidence is admissible in an administrative hearing to corroborate other evidence, but may not be used to support a finding that is not otherwise supported by competent, substantial evidence. *MacPherson v School Board of Monroe County,*505 So.2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). This critical hearsay evidence was not corroborated by any other substantial evidence.
§ 27.1191 Firewalls. ( a ) Each engine, including the combustor, turbine, and tailpipe sections of turbine engines must be isolated by a firewall, shroud, or equivalent means, from personnel compartments, structures, controls, rotor mechanisms, and other parts that are— ( 1 ) Essential to a controlled landing: and
( 2 ) Not protected under § 27.861.
( b ) Each auxiliary power unit and combustion heater, and any other combustion equipment to be used in flight, must be isolated from the rest of the rotorcraft by firewalls, shrouds, or equivalent means.
( c ) In meeting paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, account must be taken of the probable path of a fire as affected by the airflow in normal flight and in autorotation.
( d ) Each firewall and shroud must be constructed so that no hazardous quantity of air, fluids, or flame can pass from any engine compartment to other parts of the rotorcraft.
( e ) Each opening in the firewall or shroud must be sealed with close-fitting, fireproof grommets, bushings, or firewall fittings.
( f ) Each firewall and shroud must be fireproof and protected against corrosion.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-2, 22 FR 964, Jan. 26, 1968]
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                    18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Financial
Officer of Fortune Entertainment Corporation, that, to his knowledge, the
quarterly report of the company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2004, 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 company's financial
condition and results of operations.


May 19, 2004


/s/ Phillip Verrill
Phillip Verrill, Chief Financial Officer
WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND XII, L.P.



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL 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. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Principal Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Principal 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 Principal Executive Officer November 13, 2006



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS 
|Douglas P. Williams        
|Principal Financial Officer
|November 13, 2006