alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 29.479 Level landing conditions. ( a ) *Attitudes.* Under each of the loading conditions prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, the rotorcraft is assumed to be in each of the following level landing attitudes: ( 1 ) An attitude in which each wheel contacts the ground simultaneously.
( 2 ) An attitude in which the aft wheels contact the ground with the forward wheels just clear of the ground.
( b ) *Loading conditions.* The rotorcraft must be designed for the following landing loading conditions: ( 1 ) Vertical loads applied under § 29.471.
( 2 ) The loads resulting from a combination of the loads applied under paragraph (b)(1) of this section with drag loads at each wheel of not less than 25 percent of the vertical load at that wheel.
( 3 ) The vertical load at the instant of peak drag load combined with a drag component simulating the forces required to accelerate the wheel rolling assembly up to the specified ground speed, with— ( i ) The ground speed for determination of the spin-up loads being at least 75 percent of the optimum forward flight speed for minimum rate of descent in autorotation; and
( ii ) The loading conditions of paragraph (b) applied to the landing gear and its attaching structure only.
( 4 ) If there are two wheels forward, a distribution of the loads applied to those wheels under paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section in a ratio of 40:60.
( c ) *Pitching moments.* Pitching moments are assumed to be resisted by— ( 1 ) In the case of the attitude in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the forward landing gear; and
( 2 ) In the case of the attitude in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the angular inertia forces.
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ SHEILA ROBINSON, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________
2023

- 2384

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:23

- cv

- 00724

- LAS

, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.

______________________ O R D E R

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) withi n the time permitted by the rules,

IT IS O RDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules. Case: 23-2384 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 12/05/2023R OBINSON V

. US 2

All pending motions are denied as moot.

FOR THE COURT

December 5, 2023 Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 5, 2023 Case: 23-2384 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 12/05/2023
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM 3 9494

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. A lexander W. TURTON Airman First Class (E

- 3 ) , U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 20 March 2019

________________________ Military Judge: Ryan A. Hendricks

. Approved sentence: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 18 mo nths , forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E

- 1 , and a reprimand

. Sentence adjudged 27 March 2018 by G CM convened at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida

. For Appellant : Major Christopher C. Newton, USAF; Major Mark J. Schwartz, USAF

. For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF ; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire

. Before HUYGEN , POSCH , and KEY , Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice a nd Procedure 18.4.

_______ _______ __________ PE R CURIAM :The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant ’ s substantial rights occurred. Arti cles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice , 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c) (2016)

.United States v. Turton , No. ACM 39494

2 Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

. *

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court

* Although Appellant raises no specific assignment of error, his counsel note d that the record of trial was docketed with this court 46 days after the convening authority took action, exceeding the 30

- day threshold for a presumptively unreasonable post

- trial delay. See United States v. Moreno , 63 M.J. 129, 142 (C.A.A.F. 2006). However, Appellant concedes that “the harm required for relief may not exist,” and we perceive no prejudice to Appellant from the delay. Having considered the relevant factors identified in Moreno , 63 M.J. at 135, and finding no adverse impact on the public’s perception of the fairness or integrity of the military ju stice system, we find no violation of Appellant’s due process rights. See United States v. Toohey , 63 M.J. 353, 362 (C.A.A.F. 2006). P ursuant to our authority under Article 66, UCMJ , w e have also considered whether relief for post

- trial delay in the absence of a due process violation is appropriate and find it is not. See United States v. Tardif , 57 M.J. 219, 225 (C.A.A.F. 2002); United States v. Gay , 74 M.J. 736, 744 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2015), aff’d , 75 M.J. 264 (C.A.A.F. 2016).
#### § 375.32 Flights incidental to agricultural and industrial operations outside the United States.

Foreign civil aircraft that are engaged in agricultural or industrial operations to be performed wholly outside the United States may be navigated into, out of, and within the United States in connection with those operations provided that the aircraft is not at the time engaged in the carriage of passengers, cargo, or mail for remuneration or hire.
#### MAXEDON v DOYLE et

Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co

No 3256.

Decided Dec 31, 1928

Thomas V Maxedon, for Maxedon.

Wm R Collins and Moulinier, Bettman & Hunt, all of Cincinnati, for Doyle et.

*250Cushing and Ross, JJ, concur.
EPA DR# 3885EPA DR# 3885 EPA 3885EPA DR# 3885 EPA 3885
#### In the Matter of a Temporary Pedestrian Bridge in East One Hundred and Third Street across Turnbull Avenue and across Tracks of New York Rapid Transit Corporation, in Borough of Brooklyn. New York Rapid Transit Corporation, Respondent; City of New York, Appellant.

(Argued September 30, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*537
      *Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Joseph L. Weiner*and *Justin O. Reynolds*of counsel), for appellant.

*Trabue Carswell, M. B. Hoffman*and *George D. Yeomans*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          22,137
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             693
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                41,175
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 1,794
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     57,739
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          12,865
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            12,510
<LOANS>                                        301,874
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (4,002)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 457,588
<DEPOSITS>                                     413,494
<SHORT-TERM>                                     8,600
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,425
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,537
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,532
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 457,588
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,480
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,195
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   428
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,103
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,458
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,752
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,351
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    (340)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,249
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,519
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,519
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.468
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.458
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.24
<LOANS-NON>                                        815
<LOANS-PAST>                                       815
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,793
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    (189)
<RECOVERIES>                                        58
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,002
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,002
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-7082 JAMES D. SIMS,

Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in

06-0335, Judge Mary J. Schoenlen.

ON MOTION Before DYK, 

### Circuit Judge. ORDER James D. Sims moves for a 45-day extension of time, until March 16, 2009, to file his reply brief. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. No further extensions should be anticipated. The caption is revised to reflect the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs. FOR THE COURT 

# FEB 2 4 2009 /s/ 

### Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly 

## Him Clerk U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
FEB 2 4 2009 JAN HORBALY CLERK Date

cc: Kenneth M. Carpenter, Esq. Hillary A. Stern, Esq. s17
#### Glenwood Cafeteria, Inc., Respondent; *v.*Christian G. Allers, Appellant.

Submitted December 3, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.

*481
      *Nathan M.*Cherey, *Morris M. Goldknopf*and *Thomas F. Haggerty*for appellant.

*Israel Harkavy*and *Irwin N. Wilpon*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hobbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Edward F. Mehm, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Capital Crossing Preferred Corporation(the “registrant”);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) [Not applicable]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.         Date: August 11, 2005   By: /s/ Edward F. Mehm                      Edward F. Mehm    *Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)*  
29
EXHIBIT 99.5









CERTIFICATION




REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND




SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18




OF THE UNITED STATES CODE







Gildan Activewear Inc. (the “Corporation”) is filing its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2016 (the “Report”) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.





I, Glenn J. Chamandy, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 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 U.S. 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 Corporation.





Dated: February 25, 2016








/s/ Glenn J. Chamandy


Name:           Glenn J. Chamandy


Title:           President and Chief Executive Officer


­


CERTIFICATION




REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND




SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18




OF THE UNITED STATES CODE







Gildan Activewear Inc. (the “Corporation”) is filing its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2016 (the “Report”) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.





I, Rhodri J. Harries, Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 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 U.S. 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 Corporation.





Dated: February 25, 2016





/s/ Rhodri J. Harries


Name:           Rhodri J. Harries


Title:
Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial and Administrative Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

###### Carolina Power & Light Company

          - [Docket No.  50-261] 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee), to withdraw its March 26, 1999, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-23 for the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, located in Darlington County, South Carolina. 

                    The proposed amendment would have modified the facility technical specifications pertaining to the required action and completion time for the ultimate heat sink in the event that the                           ( print page 30450)                        service water temperature exceeded 95°F.                 

                    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 28, 1999 (64 FR 40905). However, by letter dated April 25, 2000, the licensee withdrew the proposed change.                 

For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated March 26, 1999, and the licensee's letter dated April 25, 2000, which withdrew the application for license amendment. The above documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site ­(http://www.nrc.gov). 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of May 2000. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Ram Subbaratnam,

Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00-11801 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
§ 89.101 Applicability. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to the following: ( 1 ) Persons operating unmanned aircraft registered or required to be registered under part 47 or 48 of this chapter.
( 2 ) Persons operating foreign civil unmanned aircraft in the United States.
( b ) This subpart does not apply to unmanned aircraft operations under part 91 of this chapter that are transmitting ADS-B Out pursuant to § 91.225.
#### In the Matter of Frank Rose et al., Appellants, against Victor J. Shankey et al., Constituting the Town Council of the Town of Haverstraw et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 1, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*Walter A. McDermott*and *Ernest W. Hofstatter*for motion.

*H. Eliot Kaplan*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### Koon *vs.*Moore.

ALBANY,

Feb. 1838

The rule to declare expires with the actual adjournment of the term succeeding the service of the notice, and if a declaration is not served previous to that time, the plaintiff’s default may be entered.

Rule to declare. In *July,*the plaintiff’s attorney was served with a notice of a rule to declare *before the end of the next succeeding term,*or that judgment of discontinuance would be entered against him. The plaintiff not having served a declaration, the defendant on the *tenth*day of November entered his default, the October term having been adjourned *sine die*on the *seventh*day of November. The plaintiff moved to set aside the default as *irregular,*contending that the October term did not *end*until *the fourth Saturday*after the commencement of that term, which was the *eleventh*day of November. If the default should be held regular, he then asked to be let in on the merits.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

Each term of the court may be continued and held until and including the fifth Saturday after its commencement; but arguments can only be heard in the fifth week by consent of parties. So far as respects the issuing, teste and return of process, except subpoenas, attachments and writs of habeas corpus, the term is considered as ending on the second Saturday after its commencement. 2 R. S. 197, § 4, 5. For the purpose of entering rules for judgment, and rules for other proceedings *96specified period. For all other purposes than those above specified, the term means the *actual sitting*of the court, and it ends on the final adjournment. The notice to declare expires with the next succeeding term after it is given, or in other words, with the final adjournment of the court, whenever that may take place. The plaintiff’s default for want of a declaration was not entered until *after the close of the term,*and was consequently regular. But the plaintiff will be relieved on payment of costs. in court, the term is deemed to continue until and including Saturday of the fourth week, whether the court so long sits or not. Statutes, ~ess. of 1833, p. 395, § 5. There is nothing in the statutes requiring the court to he held for any

Order accordingly.
§ 97.1 Applicability. ( a ) This part prescribes standard instrument approach procedures to civil airports in the United States and the weather minimums that apply to landings under IFR at those airports.
( b ) This part also prescribes obstacle departure procedures (ODPs) for certain civil airports in the United States and the weather minimums that apply to takeoffs under IFR at civil airports in the United States.
[Doc. No. FAA-2002-14002, 72 FR 31679, June 7, 2007]
#### KEY v. THE STATE.

(Decided June 8, 1916.)

Appeal from Covington Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. A. B. Foster.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed.