alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# ' SERVED: NOVEMBER2, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION

In The MatterOf: SMYRNAAIR CENTER Respondent 

## OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC . ,,,_ ...
·"'- ·.·

) ) ) ) ) Docket No. FAA-2014-0685 Case No. 201ICE190020 

### ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING On January 22, 2015, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was tiled. Among other things, this Order set a telephone motion conference for December 3, 2015, and the Hearing for March 15
- 17, 2016, in the Nashvilie, Tennessee area. On October 29,2015,the FAA filed a Notice ofSettlement/Withdrawal ofComplaint statingthat "[p]ursuantto a settlementreached by the parties"the FAA "hereby withdraws its Complaint." After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The telephone Motion Conference set for December 3, 2015, is cancelled. 2. The Hearing set for March 15- 17, 2016, is cancelled. 3. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint, and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.

Attachment: Service ListI. 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-Suite2WJ000 1

Mr. Ryan M. Landers Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 ONE COPY DocketNo. FAA-2014-0685 (Civil Penalty Action)

Mr. Thomas F. Mink, II Charles M. Duke William M. Leech Respondent's Counsel P.O. Box 198742 Smyrna Air Center, Inc.

2I9 Second Avenue North, Suite 400 Nashville, TN 37219-8742**TI~L:** 615-256-0138 FAX: 615-730-5997 Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative Law

### Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation '1>.1'

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 •. \: Rlls'p'Ondent

c/o Neal Ropp, Accountable Manager 300 Warpoole Road Symma, TN 37167

1Service 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 2W 1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-A30. 

### ;o::;>;
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1802

___________________________

Shaunpen Zhou

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

International Business Machines Corporation

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque

____________

 Submitted: December 28, 2017

 Filed: January 12, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Shaunpen Zhou appeals after the district court adversely granted summary 1

judgment in his employment-discrimination action. 

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern 1

District of Iowa. 
After careful de novo review, see Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844,

852 (8th Cir. 2012), we conclude that the district court’s disposition of Zhou’s claims

was appropriate for the reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. 

See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

-2-
§ 102.175 Agency review of the obligation. ( a ) The Agency official responsible for collection of the debt will consider any evidence submitted by the debtor as a result of the notification required by § 102.174 and notify the debtor of the result. If appropriate, the debtor will also be advised where and to whom to request a review of any unresolved dispute.
( b ) The debtor will be granted 30 days from the date of the notification required by paragraph (a) of this section to request a review of the determination of the Agency official responsible for collection of the debt on any unresolved dispute. The debtor will be advised of the result.
[82 FR 11785, Feb. 24, 2017]
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Global Crossing Limited (Form S-8 No.’s333-121079, 333-125281, and 333-133520 and Form S-3 No. 333-133466) of our reports dated March 13, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Global Crossing Limited, Global Crossing Limited’smanagement’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Global Crossing Limited, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended December 31, 2006. 

 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNGLLP

Iselin, New Jersey 

March 13, 2007
#### §§ 61.170-69.171 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.608 Petitions for discretionary review. ( a ) Within five (5) calendar days after service of a decision by an administrative law judge, any party may file with the Secretary a petition for discretionary review of the administrative law judge's decision.
( b ) Petitions for discretionary review shall comply with § 302.32(a). The petitioner must also certify that it has served the petition by hand, by electronic transmission, or by overnight express delivery on all parties to the proceeding and that those parties have received or will receive the petition no later than the date it is filed.
( c ) Any party may file an answer in support of or in opposition to any petition for discretionary review. The answer shall be filed within four (4) calendar days after service of the petition for discretionary review. The answer shall comply with the page limits specified in § 302.32(b).
#### §§ 91.162-91.165 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4498 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4498

 To amend Public Law 106-511 to reauthorize the Navajo electrification 
             demonstration program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 6, 2020

  Mr. Heinrich (for himself and Ms. McSally) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend Public Law 106-511 to reauthorize the Navajo electrification 
             demonstration program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. NAVAJO ELECTRIFICATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

    Section 602 of Public Law 106-511 (114 Stat. 2376; 119 Stat. 779) 
is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``10-year''; 
                and
                    (B) in the third sentence, by striking ``by the 
                year 2011''; and
            (2) by striking subsections (d) and (e) and inserting the 
        following:
    ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated the Secretary of Energy to carry out this section 
$89,000,000 for fiscal year 2020.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### BEARD v. CITY OF GADSDEN. (Two Cases)

(Decided February 10, 1916.)

Appeal from Gadsden City Court.

Heard before Hon. James A. Bilbro.

No counsel marked for appellant. Culli & Martín, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Affirmed for want of assignment of error.
#### § 420.30 Launch site location review for permitted launch vehicles.

If an applicant plans to use its proposed launch site solely for launches conducted under an experimental permit, the FAA will approve a launch site location if the FAA has approved an operating area under part 437 for launches from that site.

[Doc. No. FAA-2006-24197, 72 FR 17019, Apr. 6, 2007]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.5

                                   May 7, 2003

PNC Leasing, LLC
620 Liberty Avenue, 13th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222

      Re:  Master Lease Agreement dated March 3, 1997 by and between PNC Leasing
           Corp. (predecessor to PNC Leasing, LLC) and RMH Teleservices, Inc.
           ("RMH") as amended (the "Master Lease")

Gentlemen:

      Reference is made to that certain letter agreement between PNC Leasing,
LLC ("PNC") and RMH dated September 4, 2002 (the "Letter Agreement"), pursuant
to which PNC agreed to waive the provisions of Paragraph 21 of the Master Lease,
provided that on or before March 1, 2003, PNC received $1,000,000 in cash
collateral from RMH to secure RMH's remaining obligations to PNC under the
Master Lease (the "Cash Collateral"). This letter confirms the following: (a) on
March 27, 2003, PNC agreed to extend the date in the Letter Agreement for
delivery of the Cash Collateral to April 10, 2003; (b) PNC received the Cash
Collateral on April 3, 2003; and (c) the provisions of Paragraph 21 of the
Master Lease are waived and no default or event of default occurred under the
Master Lease as a result of the Cash Collateral being delivered after March 1,
2003. RMH hereby agrees that if the Master Lease is still in effect on May 31,
2003, PNC may conduct one offsite "desktop" appraisal of the Equipment (as
defined in the Master Lease), at the expense of RMH (which expense shall not
exceed $12,500).

      Nothing contained in this letter shall constitute a modification of any of
the terms and conditions of the Master Lease except to the extent explicitly
inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this letter. All terms and
conditions of the Master Lease not inconsistent herewith shall remain in full
force and effect.

      If the above is as we agreed, please execute the enclosed copy of this
letter where indicated below and return same to the undersigned.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        RMH TELESERVICES, INC.


                                        By:  /s/ James E. Perry
                                            -----------------------------
                                        Name/Title:  James E. Perry
                                                     Senior Vice President


The undersigned, intending to be
legally bound hereby, confirms and
agrees with the above:

<PAGE>

PNC LEASING, LLC

By:   /s/ Michael A. Valerio, Jr.
    --------------------------------
Name/Title:  Michael A. Valerio, Jr.
             Vice President
#### § 91.141 Flight restrictions in the proximity of the Presidential and other parties.

No person may operate an aircraft over or in the vicinity of any area to be visited or traveled by the President, the Vice President, or other public figures contrary to the restrictions established by the Administrator and published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM).
# Tbl3_NGDB

# image1.jpeg
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,
2005, 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 20, 2005


/s/ Phillip Verrill
Phillip Verrill, Chief Financial Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 27, 2023

NO. 03-23-00243-CV

S. S. F., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the order terminating parental rights signed by the trial court on April 4, 

2023. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was 

no reversible error in the order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s termination order.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Jfotirtlj Court of Appeals

Antonio,

September 09, 2013

No. 04-12-00854-CR

Romeo linojosa.

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas.

Appellee

Trial Court Case No. 2011-CRM-635-D2

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and the majority of the judges

have determined that oral argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and

factual issues presented in the appeal. See TEX, R. APP. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for oral

argument are denied, and the cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on Tuesday,

October OS. 2013. to the following panel: Chief Justice Stone. Justice Marion, and Justice

Alvarez. All parties will be notified of the Court's decision in this appeal in accordance with

TEX. R. APP. P. 48.

Either party may Hie motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that

oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and Factual issues

presented in the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. I1. 39.8. Such motion should be filed within ten (10)

days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on Monday. September 09, 2013.

Catherine^ Stone. Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, have hereunto set my hand and a/fixed the -;eal of the said

court on this Monday. September 09, 20)3-

Jjf OF 4%fr>
#### CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 17335

Congressional.

Decided April 8, 1935]

*Mr. George A. King*for the plaintiff. *Messrs. Clarence W. De Knight*and *Ernest G. Metcalfe*were on the brief.

*Mr. Percy M.*Cox, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General George C. Sweeney,*for the defendant.

*468Whaley, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is one (Senate bill 1532) of a number of cases referred to this court under Senate congressional reference, Resolution No. 170, 67th Congress, 2nd session.

The plaintiff was the owner of a lease with the Bush Terminal Buildings Company. By a commandeer order dated June 18, 1918, the defendant demanded possession of the space occupied by the plaintiff under this lease. The plaintiff purchased other property and made preparations to comply with the order of possession. On September 13, 1918, the defendant canceled the commandeer order. However, the plaintiff having acquired other property, moved from the premises on December 1, 1918.

This suit is for just compensation for the value of the lease taken and other expenses incurred in moving to the new site. This case is similar in all respects to the case of *William*Wrigley, *Jr., Co.*v. *The United*States, 75 C. Cls. 569. In that case it was held that the Government had taken the lease from the service of the commandeer order and the tenant was entitled to just compensation for the value of the lease from the date of vacation of the premises to the date of expiration of the lease. The plaintiff in the present case vacated the premises on December 1, 1918, and on that same day the Bush Terminal Buildings Company canceled the unexpired term of the lease. The fair market value of the lease over the amount named in the lease is $912.92. This amount with interest to the date of payment will justly compensate the plaintiff for what was taken by the defendant.

Other items of expense in moving were proved but all these are consequential in their nature and are not recoverable. See *Wrigley case, supra.*

*469This cause of action is for the taking of private property for public use and is within the general jurisdiction of this court. *Barnes*v. *United States,*46 C. Cls. 7.

The plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of $912.92, with interest from December 1, 1918, until paid. It is so ordered.

Williams, *Judge;*LittletoN, *Judge;*Gkeen, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief Justice,*concur.
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010.

§ 47.63 Application. A manufacturer or dealer that wishes to obtain a Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate, AC Form 8050-6, must submit— ( a ) A Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate Application, AC Form 8050-5; and
( b ) The fee required by § 47.17.
[Doc. No. 7190, 31 FR 4495, Mar. 17, 1966, as amended by Amdt. 47-16, 37 FR 25487, Dec. 1, 1972; Amdt. 47-29, 75 FR 41982, July 20, 2010]
###### Editorial Note on Part 380

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 380.27 Methods of competition.

No charter operator shall engage in unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition in air transportation or the sale thereof.
OPEN FILE 1969

164°00'

| 65°45'

__\ ue

\_

Li

>

YS
Ne

. Fr —_
= “hy ¥ ~
\
\
if 1 '
|
Co
‘ | a oa \
| . 1
| ; |
. oN \
f Aw : = OF cirbonks :
/ —_ \
: _ ve
ce ~~
| l

‘
©
\

“ \
-
Y\ Q a ~ OAnchorage ‘
yo | | f ‘6s 5 Le
ss | \ D> oe / peo a
| | C . L es : & .
op Leu 2 CM
| ~Y ¢ Cw
| f ‘ x
| fy
4 if. - - giv
ve
_ CS Ca é

100 (e) | .
ae 190 200 __ 300 miles
Scale

INDEX HAP OF ALASKA SHOWING LOCATION OF SEWARD PENINSULA AipgoRtE BEOPHYS ICA

SURVEYS, 1968. SEE DETAILED INDEX FOR ACTUAL COVERAGE.

ie, /
| F
{ : | 65°15"
164°30' 164°00
Flown and compiled by Lockwood, Kessler,
. ; ‘ and Bartlett, Inc., 1968. i

2D PENINSULA AREA, ALASKA ~ -

AEROMAGNETIC MAP OF PART OF THE
SEWARD PENINSULA ALASKA

4MILES

SHEET NUMBER SOF Il _ dein
— ; , LKB 1968
: seo
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 5 This map is preliminary
Released to open file and has not been edited ‘ /
or reviewed for conformity if ,

------------ 4 to Geological Survey standards / (i
#### § 93.151 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes a special air traffic rule for aircraft conducting VFR operations in the vicinity of the Ketchikan International Airport or Ketchikan Harbor, Alaska.

[Doc. No. FAA-2002-13235, 68 FR 9795, Feb. 28, 2003]
#### § 25.1551 Oil quantity indication.

Each oil quantity indicating means must be marked to indicate the quantity of oil readily and accurately.

[Amdt. 25-72, 55 FR 29786, July 20, 1990]
#### Gertrude B. Silverman, Appellant, *v.*Sterling National Bank and Trust Company of New York, Respondent.

(Argued June 2, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*471
      *M. Claiborne Mebel*and *Bertram L. Kraus*for appellant.

*Leslie Kirsch, Joseph Glass*and *Sydney W. Cable*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
#### § 414.29 Safety element approval records.

The holder of a safety element approval must maintain all records necessary to verify that the holder's activities are consistent with the representations contained in the application for which the approval was issued for the duration of the safety element approval plus one year.
#### Ward *vs.*Fryer’s Executrix.

NEW.YORK,

May, 1838.

An action will not lie on a promise by one to indemnify and save another harmless from all loss which he may sustain in consequence of making advances to a third person at the request of the promissor, without showing an ineffectual attempt to coerce payment from the party to whom the advances were made, or that endeavors to collect the money from him would have been useless by reason of his insolvency or otherwise.

Demurrer to declaration. The plaintiff declares in *assumpsit, on*a promise of the testator that in consideration that the plaintiff would advance to one J. F. Smyth money, for the purpose of facilitating his advancement in life, he *would indemnify and save the plaintiff from all loss*which he might be put to by reason of such advancement of money as aforesaid, for an amount in the whole not exceeding $5000. The plaintiff then avers that he advanced to J. F. Smyth, for the purpose aforesaid, the sum of $5000, and although the same had long since become due and payable to the plaintiff, yet the same had not been repaid by the said J. F. Smyth, although often requested so to do: that the testator had notice of the premises, bnt *did not*and *would not indemnify and save the plaintiff harmless*from any loss or damage by reason of his advancing the said money to the said J. F. Smyth, although often requested so to do; by means and in consequence whereof the plaintiff has lost the said sum of $5000. The declaration contains a second count similar to the above. The defendant demurs specially, and the plaintiff joins in demurrer.

*S. Stevens,*for the defendant.

*M. T. Reynolds,*for the plaintiff.

*495By the, Court,

BRoNsow, 3.

The plaintiff has framed the special counts as though the promise of the testator was absolute, that he would pay the money which might be advanced, in case it should not be paid at the proper time by Smyth. J think that was not the legal effect of his under~ taking. It was not a promise to pay-but an engagement to indemnify and save the plaintiff harmless from all loss by reason of advancing the money. Smyth was the princi~ pal debtor, and for aught that appears he may be abundantly able to pay~ It should, I think, be averred, that an unsuccessful attempt was made to collect the money from him; or that, in consequence of his insolvency, or for some other reason, such an attempt would have been useless. The plaintiff says that Smyth did not pay, and that the testator did not indemnify, by means and in consequence whereof he has lost the money. The conclusion does not legitimately follow from the premises. A debt is not necessarily lost, merely because the debtor neglects or refuses to peform his engagement.

Judgment for the defendant.
#### Shepherd *vs.*Hibbard.

ALBANY,

Feb. 1838.

An infant defendant cannot appear by attorney and move to set aside the plaintiff’s proceedings, on the ground of the want of the appointment of a guardian.

This was a motion to set aside the proceedings of the plaintiff, on the ground that the defendant is *an infant,*and no guardian has been appointed. It was objected that the defendant now appeared *by attorney,*which he could not do if he was an infant. The objection was sustained by Mr. *Justice*Bronson, and the motion was denied with costs.

*M. T. Reynolds,*for the motion.

*J. Holmes,*contra.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Required by Rule 13a-14(b)
or 15d-14(b) of the Exchange Act

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Advanstar Communications Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph Loggia, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:

|By: |  | /s/JOSEPH LOGGIAJoseph Loggia
Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------- |  | 

Date:
March 29, 2005

---