alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 129.17 Aircraft communication and navigation equipment for operations under IFR or over the top. ( a ) *Aircraft navigation equipment requirements—General.* No foreign air carrier may conduct operations under IFR or over the top unless— ( 1 ) The en route navigation aids necessary for navigating the aircraft along the route (e.g., ATS routes, arrival and departure routes, and instrument approach procedures, including missed approach procedures if a missed approach routing is specified in the procedure) are available and suitable for use by the aircraft navigation equipment required by this section;
( 2 ) The aircraft used in those operations is equipped with at least the following— ( i ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, two approved independent navigation systems suitable for navigating the aircraft along the route to be flown within the degree of accuracy required for ATC;
( ii ) One marker beacon receiver providing visual and aural signals; and
( iii ) One ILS receiver; and
( 3 ) Any RNAV system used to meet the navigation equipment requirements of this section is authorized in the foreign air carrier's operations specifications.
( b ) *Aircraft communication equipment requirements.* No foreign air carrier may operate an aircraft under IFR or over the top, unless it is equipped with— ( 1 ) At least two independent communication systems necessary under normal operating conditions to fulfill the functions specified in § 121.347(a) of this chapter; and
( 2 ) At least one of the communication systems required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section must have two-way voice communication capability.
( c ) *Use of a single independent navigation system for operations under IFR or over the top.* Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, the aircraft may be equipped with a single independent navigation system suitable for navigating the aircraft along the route to be flown within the degree of accuracy required for ATC if: ( 1 ) It can be shown that the aircraft is equipped with at least one other independent navigation system suitable, in the event of loss of the navigation capability of the single independent navigation system permitted by this paragraph at any point along the route, for proceeding safely to a suitable airport and completing an instrument approach; and
( 2 ) The aircraft has sufficient fuel so that the flight may proceed safely to a suitable airport by use of the remaining navigation system, and complete an instrument approach and land.
( d ) *VOR navigation equipment.* If VOR navigation equipment is required by paragraph (a) or (c) of this section, no foreign air carrier may operate an aircraft unless it is equipped with at least one approved DME or suitable RNAV system.
[Doc. No. FAA-2002-14002, 72 FR 31683, June 7, 2007]
#### § 300.11 Use of confidential information.

No former CAB member or employee or DOT employee, or any person associated with him or her, shall ever use or undertake to use in any DOT proceeding or matter any confidential facts or information which came into the possession of such Member or employee or to his or her attention by reason of his or her employment with the CAB or DOT without first applying for and obtaining the consent of the appropriate ethics counselor for the use of such facts or information.

[Docket No. 82, 50 FR 2380, Jan. 16, 1985. Redesignated and amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019]
# EUR-Lex - 31995R0406 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995R0406

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 406/95 of 27 February 1995 amending Regulation (EC) No 1431/94 laying down detailed rules for the application in the poultrymeat sector of the import arrangements provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 **

*
Official Journal L 044 , 28/02/1995 P. 0010 - 0010 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 406/95 of 27 February 1995 amending Regulation (EC) No 1431/94 laying down detailed rules for the application in the poultrymeat sector of the import arrangements provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 of 29 March 1994 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for high-quality beef, and for pigmeat, poultrymeat, wheat and meslin, and brans, sharps and other residues (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in poultrymeat (2), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1431/94 (3), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2389/94 (4), lays down the detailed rules for applying in the poultrymeat sector the import system provided for by Regulation (EC) No 774/94;

Whereas, on the basis of the experience gained, with a view to preventing speculation, the conditions for gaining access to the system and for allowing operators to withdraw their applications must be adjusted;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Poultrymeat and Eggs,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 1431/94 is hereby amended as follows:

1. Article 3 (a) is replaced by the following:

'(a) Applicants for import licences must be natural or legal persons who, at the time applications are submitted, can prove to the satisfaction of the competent authorities in the Member States that they have imported or exported not less than 50 tonnes (product weight) or exported not less than 500 tonnes (product weight) of products falling within CN code 0207, 1602 31 or 1602 39 in the two calendar years preceding the year in which the licence application is lodged. However, retail establishments or restaurants selling their products to final consumers are excluded from the benefits of this system.';

2. the third subparagraph of Article 4 (4) is deleted.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 March 1995.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 February 1995.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 91, 8. 4. 1994, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 77.

(3) OJ No L 156, 23. 6. 1994, p. 9.

(4) OJ No L 255, 1. 10. 1994, p. 104.
#### DILLON et v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist., Lawrence Co.

Decided Nov 14, 1928.

THOMAS J.

The circumstance of flight is as consistant with the theory of innocence as of guilt so for as the charge is concerned. They were aware of the manufacture of liquor and could have run away to avoid suspicion. There was no evidence that any one of them was actually engaged in the manufacture of intoxicating and distilled liquor.

Ir, is a well known fact that persons who are suffering or who have recently suffered from mental disease have illusions that to them are real as actual facts.

It is argued on behalf of the state that the evidence in support of the alibi is exaggerated and therefore of little weight. This may be true, but it must be remembered that this is characteristic of the evidence of partisans. Often times witnesses attempt to introduce circumstances to add plausibility to their stories, especially under the stress of cross examination, which may not be true yet the essential part of their testimony may be true.

While the court is reluctant in setting aside verdicts, yet we feel that it would be not only unsafe to sustain-such verdicts as the one under review, but that the state has not established the charge by that degree of proof requisite to sustain the conviction.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Middleton, P J, and Mauck, J, concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIALOFFICER**

I, Robert W. Hill,certify that:

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of InterDent Service Corporation;

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

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

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a)              designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

b)             evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of adate within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “EvaluationDate”); and

c)              presented in thisquarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)              all significantdeficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)             any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

6.               The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whetheror not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factorsthat could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of ourmost recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard tosignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 
|        |   | /s/ ROBERT W. HILL                                |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Robert W. Hill                                    |
|   |   | Chief Financial  Officer, Treasurer and Secretary |
|   |   | August 14, 2006                                   |

 

 

----
180406 SCH ORD RE WIDE RANGE CORPORATION LIFT STAY VERSION APRIL 6, 2018 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

----------------------------------------------------------x

In re: PROMESA

Title III

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered)

et al.,

Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x

ORDER SCHEDULING BRIEFING OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY

The Court has received and reviewed the Motion for Relief from Stay (the 

“Motion”) filed by Wide Range Corporation (the “Movant”). (Docket Entry No. 2852.) 

Opposition papers to the Motion must be filed by April 20, 2018. Movant’s reply papers must 

be filed by April 27, 2018. The Court will thereafter take the Motion on submission, unless a 

party thereto requests a hearing.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2018

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

United States District Judge

 1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) 

(Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation 

(“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 

17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System 

of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 

3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power 

Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax 

ID: 3747). (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software 

limitations).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2854 Filed:04/06/18 Entered:04/06/18 16:19:02 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
#### HAMERICK v YOUNGSTOWN (city)

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided Mar 8, 1929

Nathan Kaufman, Youngstown, for Hamerick.

W B Spag.nola, Youngstown, for City.

ROBERTS, J.

The petition in error in this court alleges error in substantially the same terms as just read, as being found in the petition for the return of the property seized. The affidavit for the search warrant stated the location of the property to be searched but did not state the name of the owner of the property.

In the case of State vs. Sabo, 108 Ohio St., 200, it is said in the syllabus:

(Here follows quotation)

The evidence in this case, or the testimony of the prohibition officers indicated presumably it was occupied as a residence, but there is no evidence upon the proposition as to whether it was ,a bona fide private residence or not. However, the evidence shows that mash, intoxicating liquor, boiler and coil were found hidden in the premises, which indicates that the property was being used for illegal manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and such being the fact, this decision which has just been quoted from, conclusively establishes the proposition that this was not a bona fide private residence, and what the fact may have been regarding the affidavit for the search warrant becomes immaterial, or a search warrant was really not necessary, and this case of State of Ohio vs. Sabo also holds that “Irregularities in the form of the affidavit or warrant'are immaterial.”

The conclusion reached is that there was no reversible error and the decision of the lower court is affirmed.

Pollock and Farr. JJ, concur.
§ 77.25 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart applies to any aeronautical study of a proposed construction or alteration for which notice to the FAA is required under § 77.9.
( b ) The purpose of an aeronautical study is to determine whether the aeronautical effects of the specific proposal and, where appropriate, the cumulative impact resulting from the proposed construction or alteration when combined with the effects of other existing or proposed structures, would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
( c ) The obstruction standards in subpart C of this part are supplemented by other manuals and directives used in determining the effect on the navigable airspace of a proposed construction or alteration. When the FAA needs additional information, it may circulate a study to interested parties for comment.
#### § 10.6 Antiretaliation.

It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any worker because such worker has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to Executive Order 13658 or this part, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding.
PUBLIC LAW 114–99—DEC. 11, 2015 129 STAT. 2201 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1170: 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 114–144 (Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015): 

Sept. 22, considered and passed Senate. 

Nov. 30, Dec. 1, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–99 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the authority of the United 

States Postal Service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer 

research, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Breast Cancer Research Stamp 

Reauthorization Act of 2015’’. 

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST CANCER 

RESEARCH. 

Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended 

by striking ‘‘2015’’ and inserting ‘‘2019’’. 

SEC. 3. ENSURING THAT FUNDS GENERATED BY SPECIAL POSTAGE 

STAMP SALES ARE USED FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH. 

Section 414(c)(1) of title 39, United States Code, is amended 

in the matter following subparagraph (B) by adding at the end 

the following: ‘‘An agency that receives amounts from the Postal 

Service under this paragraph shall use the amounts for breast 

cancer research.’’. 

Approved December 11, 2015. 

39 USC 101 note. 

Breast Cancer 

Research Stamp 

Reauthorization 

Act of 2015. 

Dec. 11, 2015 

[S. 1170] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1 with PUBLAWLAW
§ 27.29 Empty weight and corresponding center of gravity. ( a ) The empty weight and corresponding center of gravity must be determined by weighing the rotorcraft without the crew and payload, but with— ( 1 ) Fixed ballast;
( 2 ) Unusable fuel; and
( 3 ) Full operating fluids, including— ( i ) Oil;
( ii ) Hydraulic fluid; and
( iii ) Other fluids required for normal operation of roto-craft systems, except water intended for injection in the engines.
( b ) The condition of the rotorcraft at the time of determining empty weight must be one that is well defined and can be easily repeated, particularly with respect to the weights of fuel, oil, coolant, and installed equipment.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, and 605 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423, 1424, and 1425); and sec. 6(c) of the Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-14, 43 FR 2324, Jan. 16, 1978]
#### REDWINE v HESS et

Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co

No 3293.

Decided Feb 4, 1929

Sylvester Hickey, Cincinnati, for Redwine.

Nelson Schwab, Pros Atty and John P Goldsberry, Asst Pros Atty, both of Cincinnati, for Hess.

HAMILTON, PJ.

On the record and the law, we find there is ample evidence to warrant the levying and collecting of the tax and penalty ag.ainst the property in. question.

We find that section 6071, General Code, has not been repealed by the legislature, and we hold that while section 6072 has been repealed, sections 6212-30 to 6212-33 have been substituted therefor and supersede section 6072; that sections 6212-30 to 6212-33 must re,ad in connection with section 6071.

That such a levy and assessment under the statute may be upheld was decided in the case of Krnich v. McClearv, Treasurer, et al, 103 Ohio St. 457. We find that the omission by the Auditor to alphabetically arrange the assessment on the duplicate does not invalidate the assessment as against this plaintiff.

We do not pass upon the question as affecting an innocent purchaser of the property.

The record discloses no error, prejudicial to the plaintiff in error.

Cushing and Ross, JJ, concur.
**EXHIBIT 12.1** **Digital    River, Inc.** **Computation    of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**                            **Years Ended December 31,**   **2002**  **2003**  **2004**  **2005**  **2006**      **As Restated(2)**  **As Restated(2)**  **As Restated(2)**  **As Restated(2)**        Income (Loss) from operations         $    (916    )     $    16,298      $    34,762      $    66,713      $    67,595     Add: Fixed charges          165       235       2,094       3,092       3,240     Earnings as defined          (751    )      16,533       36,856       69,805       70,835     Fixed charges         $    165      $    235      $    2,094      $    3,092      $    3,240     Ratio of earnings to fixed    charges(1)          —       70.4       17.6       22.6       21.9            (1)     The ratio of earnings to fixed charges is computed by dividing    income (loss) from operations plus fixed charges by fixed    charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense, amortization    of debt issuance costs and that portion of rental payments under    operating leases that we believe to be representative of    interest. Earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges in    2002 by an amount equal to the net loss for the period.     (2)     See Note 2, “Restatement of Consolidated Financial    Statements,” in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
#### QUIGLEY v CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

Decided June 17, 1929

Messrs. Howell, Roberts & Duncan, Cleveland, for Quigley.

Mjessrs. Squire, Sanders, & Dempsey, Cleveland, for Illuminating Co.

HUGHES and JUSTICE, JJ. (3rd Dist) and WILLIAMS, J., .(6th Dist) sitting.

*614JUSTICE, J.

It is the claim of the plaintiff that the foregoing facts tend to prove the claimed fraud with its resultant damages and that in directing a verdict for defendant the trial court invaded the province of the jury and thereby committed such error as calls for a reversal of the judgment. With this contention we are not in accord.

Admittedly plaintiff had, prior to the meeting of November 17, told John Zimmer that he had shown the property to a representative of the defendant company. Mr. Zimmer was treasurer of the United Banking & Trust Co. and represented the owners of the property in looking after and caring for it. Manifestly his knowledge of plaintiff’s activities regarding the property is chargeable to the owners . of the property.

The fact that the representatives of the owners at the meeting of Nov. 17th had no knowledge of the part taken by plaintiff in the deal, is, of course of no consequence.

In Neal vs. Cinn. Union Stock Yards Co. 1st C. C. (NS) 13, the court held: “While the corporation only is chargeable with that knowledge which comes to each of its servants within the scope of the duties of each of its servants respectively, the corporation as the common head, brain center so to speak, must be held to have the composite knowledge which comes to it through the channels of its several servants. It is not necessary that any one servant should know all the facts. If it were, all a. corporation would have to do would be to limit the scope of the duties .of each servant and the corporation could never be held to know all about anything.”

In the instant case the owners in law knew, prior to the meeting of Nov. 17th, that plaintiff had exhibited the 'property to defendant company. It therefore is of no moment whether defendant through its president made or did not make the claimed representations at the meeting of Nov. 17th, as clearly the owners could *615not have been deceived by representations which they themselves knew to be false when made. Obviously plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever in the premises. ,

It occurs to us that further comment is unnecessary. True, there are other questions presented by counsel in their arguments and written briefs, — for example, whether or not plaintiff’s claim comes within the inhibition of Sec. 8621 G. C. and whether or not the admitted settlement is a defense to said claim; but as to them, we express no opinion. It is not necessary for us to do so in disposing of this case.

Holding these views it follows that the judgment of the common pleas court should be affirmed.

Hughes and Williams, JJ, concur.