alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 142.1 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart prescribes the requirements governing the certification and operation of training centers. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part provides an alternative means to accomplish training required by parts 61, 63, 65, 91, 121, 125, 135, or 137 of this chapter.
( b ) Certification under this part is not required for training that is— ( 1 ) Approved under the provisions of parts 63, 91, 121, 127, 135, or 137 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Approved under subpart Y of part 121 of this chapter, Advanced Qualification Programs, for the authorization holder's own employees;
( 3 ) Conducted under part 61 unless that part requires certification under this part;
( 4 ) Conducted by a part 121 certificate holder for another part 121 certificate holder;
( 5 ) Conducted by a part 135 certificate holder for another part 135 certificate holder; or
( 6 ) Conducted by a part 91 fractional ownership program manager for another part 91 fractional ownership program manager.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, after August 3, 1998, no person may conduct training, testing, or checking in advanced flight training devices or flight simulators without, or in violation of, the certificate and training specifications required by this part.
[Doc. No. 26933, 61 FR 34562, July 2, 1996, as amended by Amdt. 142-4, 66 FR 21067, Apr. 27, 2001; Amdt. 142-5, 68 FR 54588, Sept. 17, 2003; Amdt. 142-9, 78 FR 42380, July 15, 2013]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT MARCH 31, 2000 WHICH ARE INCLUDED
IN THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001072816
<NAME>                        Fullcomm Technologies, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         453,354
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               453,354
<PP&E>                                         14,672
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,197
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 471,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          71,143
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       837
<OTHER-SE>                                     399,519
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   471,499
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               612,608
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (607,435)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (607,435)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (607,435)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.09)



</TABLE>
Part IV - Items of General Interest 

OPTIONAL STANDARD MILEAGE RATES

Announcement 2008-63 

This announcement informs taxpayers that the Internal Revenue Service is modifying Rev. 

Proc. 2007-70, 2007-50 I.R.B. 1162, by revising the optional standard mileage rates for 

computing the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, medical, or moving 

expense purposes and for determining the reimbursed amount of these expenses that is 

deemed substantiated. This modification results from recent increases in the price of fuel. 

The revised standard mileage rates are: 

 (1) Business 58.5 cents per mile 

 (2) Medical and moving 27 cents per mile 

 The mileage rate that applies to the deduction for charitable contributions is fixed under § 

170(i) of the Internal Revenue Code at 14 cents per mile. 

 The revised standard mileage rates set forth in this announcement apply to deductible 

transportation expenses paid or incurred for business, medical, or moving expense purposes 

on or after July 1, 2008, and to mileage allowances that are paid both (1) to an employee on or 

after July 1, 2008, and (2) with respect to transportation expenses paid or incurred by the 

employee on or after July 1, 2008.

 The standard mileage rates set forth in Rev. Proc. 2007-70 continue to apply to deductible 

transportation expenses paid or incurred for business, medical, or moving expense purposes 

before July 1, 2008, and to mileage allowances paid (1) to an employee before July 1, 2008, or 

(2) with respect to transportation expenses paid or incurred by the employee before July 1, 

2008. All other provisions of Rev. Proc. 2007-70 remain in effect.
EFFECT ON OTHER DOCUMENTS 

 Rev. Proc. 2007-70 is modified. 

DRAFTING INFORMATION 

 The principal author of this announcement is Bernard P. Harvey of the Office of Associate 

Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). For further information regarding this 

announcement, contact Mr. Harvey at (202) 622-4930 (not a toll-free call).
#### Halsted James et al., Appellants, *v.*South Side Estates, Inc., et al., Defendants, and William H. Door, Respondent.

Submitted January 22, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*563
      *John S. Russell*for appellants.

*Charles L. Sylvester*and *Sidney Kaminsky*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Loughran, Fin ch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Hubbs, J.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

LETTER TO THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T



RENAISSANCE MEDIA GROUP, LLC
RENAISSANCE MEDIA (LOUISIANA) LLC
RENAISSANCE MEDIA (TENNESSEE) LLC
RENAISSANCE MEDIA CAPITAL CORPORATION
12405 Powerscourt Drive, Suite 100
St. Louis, Missouri 63131





March 29, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to temporary note 3T, Renaissance Media Group, LLC, Renaissance
Media (Louisiana), LLC, Renaissance Media (Tennessee), LLC and Renaissance
Media Capital Corporation have obtained a letter of representation from Arthur
Andersen stating that the December 31, 2001 audit was subject to their quality
control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur
Andersen personnel working on the audit and availability of national office
consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur
Andersen was not relevant to the audit.

| |  |                                   |             |                                                  
| |  | --------------------------------- | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------
| |  | Very truly yours,                
|
|
|
|
| |  |                                   |             |                                                  
|
|
|
|
| |  | RENAISSANCE MEDIA GROUP, LLC     
|
|
|
|
| |  | RENAISSANCE MEDIA (LOUISIANA) LLC
|
|
|
|
| |  | RENAISSANCE MEDIA (TENNESSEE) LLC
|
|
|
|
| |  | RENAISSANCE MEDIA CAPITAL        
|
|
|
|
| |  |                                   | CORPORATION |                                                  
|
|
|
|
| |  |                                   |             |                                                  
|
|
|
|
| |  | By:                               |             | /s/ Kent D. Kalkwarf                             
| |  |                                   |            
| |  |                                   |             | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0071 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0071

**95/71/EC: Commission Decision of 9 March 1995 approving the programme for the eradication of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis in Sweden (¹) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 059 , 17/03/1995 P. 0033 - 0033 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 9 March 1995 approving the programme for the eradication of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis in Sweden (Only the Swedish text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (95/71/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas an eradication programme was commenced in Sweden for infectious bovine rhinotracheitis in 1994;

Whereas, in accordance with Article 9 (2) of Directive 64/432/EEC, the Commission has examined the programme; whereas it meets the criteria laid down in Article 9 (1) of the said Directive and can therefore be approved;

Whereas by letter dated 12 January 1995, Sweden has submitted information on its eradication programme for infectious bovine rhinotracheitis;

Whereas the programme should allow infectious bovine rhinotracheitis to be eradicated from Sweden in the future; whereas the situation concerning this disease in Sweden shall be reviewed within two years;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The programme for the eradication of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis from Sweden is hereby approved for a period of two years.

Article 2

Sweden shall bring into force by 1 March 1995 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementing the programme referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 March 1995.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Sweden.

Done at Brussels, 9 March 1995.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No 121, 29. 7. 1964, p. 1977/64.
#### Parkinson *vs.*O. Scoville impleaded with W. Scoville.

ALBANY,

Oct. 1838.

An insolvent discharge (discharging the debtor from the payment of all his debts) is an absolute bar to a recovery upon a contract made and to be executed within this state; although the creditor be a non-resident, and neither united in the petition for the discharge, or accepted a dividend.

If such discharge be granted after judgment upon the contract, as the debtor in such case has had no opportunity to plead the discharge, he will be relieved on motion and a perpetual stay of proceedings on the judgment against him will be granted.

Motion to set aside execution, &c. on the ground that the defendant Orlan Scoville, upon whom *alone*the declaration was served, had, since the judgment, been discharged as an insolvent debtor, pursuant to *2*R. S. § 15, art. 3. The action was on a contract made in the year 1835, within this state, and was to be executed within this state; but the plaintiff then resided and has ever since resided in the state of Pennsylvania. After judgment recovered, to wit, on the 11th July, 1836, the discharge was granted by a supreme court commissioner in the county of Broome, where the defendant, at the time of making the contract and ever since has resided. The plaintiff did not unite in the petition for the discharge, nor has he accepted a dividend from the estate of the insolvent. A *fieri facias*has been issued on the judgment to the sheriff of Broome, which the defendant Orlan moves to set aside, and for a perpetual stay of proceedings on the judgment, so far as he is concerned.

O. *Allen,*for the motion.

P. Cagger, contra.

*By the*Court,

Bronson, J.

As the defendant has had no day in court to plead this matter, he is entitled to relief on motion, if the discharge is operative against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, so far as appears, has never been a resident of this state, nor has he in any form acquiesced in the discharge. But as the contract was made, and was to be ex-*151The case at Lbar falls within both of the two first classes and the motion must therefore be granted. ecuted within this state, the debt was discharged without any reference to the residence of the creditor. 2 R. S. 22, ~` 30, 3~. The two clauses of the 30th section do not limit or qualify each other, but each provides for different classes of cases. The debt is discharged,first, where the contract was made within this state; second, where the contract was to be executed within this state ; third, where the creditor at the time of the first publication of notice was a resident of this state; and fourth, where the creditor, being a non-resident, either united in the petition for a discharge, or has accepted a dividend from the insolvent's estate. Tn the two first classes of cases, the residence of the creditor is unimportant; in the two last, the place where the contract was made, or was to be executed, are matters of no moment.

Motion granted.
§ 60.31 Recordkeeping and reporting. ( a ) The FSTD sponsor must maintain the following records for each FSTD it sponsors: ( 1 ) The MQTG and each amendment thereto.
( 2 ) A record of all FSTD modifications affected under § 60.23 since the issuance of the original Statement of Qualification.
( 3 ) A copy of all of the following: ( i ) Results of the qualification evaluations (initial and each upgrade) since the issuance of the original Statement of Qualification.
( ii ) Results of the objective tests conducted in accordance with § 60.19(a) for a period of 2 years.
( iii ) Results of the previous three continuing qualification evaluations, or the continuing qualification evaluations from the previous 2 years, whichever covers a longer period.
( iv ) Comments obtained in accordance with § 60.9(b) for a period of at least 90 days.
( 4 ) A record of all discrepancies entered in the discrepancy log over the previous 2 years, including the following: ( i ) A list of the components or equipment that were or are missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative.
( ii ) The action taken to correct the discrepancy.
( iii ) The date the corrective action was taken.
( iv ) The identity of the person determining that the discrepancy has been corrected.
( b ) The records specified in this section must be maintained in plain language form or in coded form if the coded form provides for the preservation and retrieval of information in a manner acceptable to the responsible Flight Standards office.
[Docket No. FAA-2002-12461, 71 FR 63426, Oct. 30, 2006, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2022-1355, Amdt. No. 60-7, 87 FR 75711, Dec. 9, 2022]
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of FairPoint Communications, Inc. (the "Company") for the
year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ajay Sabherwal, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ AJAY SABHERWALAjay Sabherwal Chief Financial Officer


September 29, 2010

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

---



QuickLinks
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 5556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8160]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Frida & Diego: Passion, Politics and Painting''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 2`34 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Frida & Diego: Passion, Politics and 
Painting,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
The High Museum of Art in Atlanta, Georgia from on or about February 
14, 2013, until on or about May 12, 2013, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6473). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: January 17, 2013.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-01549 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CHRIS FOSTER

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 17

- 3103

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. ________________________________/

Opinion filed March 2, 2018

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County

, Don F. Briggs , Judge.

Chris Foster, Crawfordville, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

. Chris Foster appeals the summary denial of Grounds One, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten,

Eleven, and Twelve of his amended motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850

. After careful consideration, we affirm the

summary denial of Grounds O ne, Seven, Eight, Ten, and Twelve without further

discussion

.2

In Grounds Six and Eleven, Foster alleges that ineffective assistance of counse l

prejudiced him and claim s that he pled guilty to Cou nt III, possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon, based on the advice of counsel, despite the fact that the State had filed

an amended information which did not include that charge. The State asser ted that its

intention was to simply sever that charge for a later trial; however, amending an

information by deleting a charge has the same legal effect as entering a nolle prosequi.

S ee State v. Belton , 468 So. 2d 495, 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Foster claims that if

counsel had advised him that the State dropped Count III , he would not have stopped his

trial nor pled guilty to that count.

In the plea colloquy, Foster acknowledges that he is pleading g uilty to Count III;

however, that does not sufficiently address what advice counsel provided and whether

Foster relied on that advice to his detriment. Accordingly, we find that the documents
attached to the order summarily denying Grounds Six and Eleven do not conclusively

refute those grounds. We remand for the postconviction court to either attach records

that conclusively refute those grounds or conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding

Grounds Six and Eleven.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART , AND R EMANDED

.

PALMER

, EVANDER

, and EDWARDS

, JJ., concur.
March 13, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

APPROXIMATELY $59,528.00, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00983-CV V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on October 16, 2013. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.202 Contents of applications. ( a ) Certificate applications filed under this subpart shall contain the information required by part 201 of this chapter and, where applicable, part 204 of this chapter, and foreign air carrier permit applications shall contain the information required by part 211 of this chapter, along with any other information that the applicant desires the Department to notice officially.
( b ) Applications shall include a notice on the cover page stating that any person may support or oppose the application by filing an answer and serving a copy of the answer on all persons served with the application. The notice shall also state the due date for answers. Amendments to applications will be considered new applications for the purpose of calculating the time limitations of this subsection.
( c ) Applications shall include a list of the names and addresses of all persons who have been served in accordance with § 302.203.
( d ) Where required, each application shall be accompanied by an Energy Statement in conformity with part 313 of this chapter.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Raymond Seymour, Appellant.

(Submitted October 23,1936;

decided November 24, 1936.)

*Raymond Seymour,*appellant in person.

*Daniel J. O’Mara, District Attorney (Harry L. Rosenthal*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

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