alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.505 Order of investigation.

The Department, on its own initiative, or if it is of the opinion that the facts stated in a petition or complaint warrant it, may issue an order instituting an investigation of the lawfulness of any present or proposed rates, fares, or charges for the foreign air transportation of persons or property by aircraft or the lawfulness of any classification, rule, regulation, or practice affecting such rates, fares, or charges, and may assign the proceeding for hearing before an administrative law judge. If a hearing is held, except as modified by this subpart, the provisions of § 302.17 through § 302.38 of this part shall apply.
Business Consulting Agreement between General Automotive Company and Douglas J.



 Exhibit 10.3 
 Consulting Agreement 
 This Business Consulting
Agreement is entered into on October 30, 2009 by General Automotive Company, Inc. (“Company”) and Douglas J. Nagel. (“Consultant”) 
  

	 	1.	Company is a publicly traded automotive importer and parts supplier, and Consultant is a business consulting firm, specializing in corporate finance and operations, and
general business management matters. 

  

	 	2.	Company desires to engage Consultant as a business consultant, in the above areas, and Consultant accepts such terms as follows. This Agreement shall be for a period of
36 months from the date hereof. 

  

	 	3.	Consultant will advise Company in the specific areas listed above. Consultant will advise the CEO in areas of business management, growth initiatives, and corporate
oversight, and shall assist the CFO in areas of corporate finance and banking relations. 

  

	 	4.	In lieu of cash compensation, Company shall pay for the services of Consultant through the issuance of options to purchase 13,500,000 shares of restricted common stock
of Company. The exercise price of said options shall be 4 cents per share, and these options may be exercised at any time from the date of execution hereof for a period of 5 years. Said options are deemed to be fully vested and fully earned upon
execution of this agreement. Consultant may assign all or a portion of these shares as it deems appropriate. Consultant shall agree to devote up to 20 hours per week in the areas listed above, under this Agreement. Said work may be in phone, in
person, or otherwise, and Consultant will not have any specific hours of work in this regard. 

  

	 	5.	This Agreement may be terminated at any time, for any reason, by the Company, however, termination shall not effect the shares that are issued to Consultant.


  

	 	6.	Consultant agrees to act in the best interest of the Company at all times, maintain confidentiality of any and all information that comes into his










	 	 
possession unless otherwise authorized, to use his best efforts to further the business interests of the Company during the term of this Agreement in accordance with the terms hereof.



  

	 	7.	This Agreement is entered into in Orlando, Florida and enforceable under Florida Law. 

 Wherefore the parties have executed this Agreement this 30th day of October, 2009. 
  

							
	 General Automotive Company, Inc.
	  		  	
				
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Dan Valladao
	  		  	 /s/ Douglas J. Nagel

		 	 Dan Valladao, CEO
	  		  	Douglas J. Nagel
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1305 

TP 14-00849 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF MARVIN DENNARD, PETITIONER, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CITY OF BUFFALO EXAMINING BOARD OF PLUMBERS, 

RESPONDENT. 

 

AMIL SARFRAZ, PLLC, WILLIAMSVILLE (PETER MCGRATH OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER. 

TIMOTHY A. BALL, CORPORATION COUNSEL, BUFFALO (DAVID M. LEE OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [Tracey A.

Bannister, J.], entered February 21, 2014) to review a determination

of respondent. The determination revoked petitioner’s master

plumber’s license. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding

seeking to annul the determination revoking his master plumber’s

license. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination is

supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave.

Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181). Although

the determination is based in part on hearsay evidence, it is well

settled that “[h]earsay is admissible in administrative proceedings,

‘and if sufficiently relevant and probative may constitute substantial

evidence’ ” (Matter of Szczepaniak v City of Rochester, 101 AD3d 1620,

1621, quoting People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139; see

Matter of Gray v Adduci, 73 NY2d 741, 742). We likewise reject

petitioner’s further contention that he was denied a fair hearing

based on the use of hearsay evidence at the hearing (see Matter of

Bauer v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., Bur. of Early

Childhood Servs., 55 AD3d 421, 422; Matter of Murphy v New York Racing

Assn., 146 AD2d 778, 778-779, lv dismissed 74 NY2d 715; cf. Matter of

Scarpitta v Glen Cove Hous. Auth., 48 AD2d 657, 658).

Finally, we conclude that petitioner received timely notice of

the charges against him and was thus not denied a fair hearing based

on untimely notice (see Matter of Block v Ambach, 73 NY2d 323, 332;
-2- 1305 

TP 14-00849 

Matter of Oznor Corp. v County of Monroe, 60 AD3d 1492, 1493; see

generally Matter of Tax Foreclosure No. 35, 127 AD2d 220, 223, affd 71

NY2d 863). Petitioner was notified of the charges against him more

than one year before the instant hearing. Although a prior

determination on those charges was annulled and a new hearing ordered,

the nature of the charges remained the same and petitioner was not

denied the ability to “prepare and present an adequate defense and

thereby have an opportunity to be heard” (Block, 73 NY2d at 332). 

Entered: January 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
| 1. | I      have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q      for the period ended March 31, 2008 of Playboy Enterprises, Inc.;      and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this      report. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      February 20, 2009 | /s/      Jerome H. Kern |
|------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                         | Name:                   | Jerome      H. Kern |
|                         | Title:                  | Interim      Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4531 

To designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs, located at 400 College Drive, Middleburg, Florida, 

the ‘‘Andrew K. Baker Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic’’, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, located at 400 College 

Drive, Middleburg, Florida, the ‘‘Andrew K. Baker Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic’’, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ANDREW K. BAKER DEPART4 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS CLINIC. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The community-based outpatient 

6 clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs, located at 

7 400 College Drive, Middleburg, Florida, shall after the 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4531 IS

1 date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated 

2 as ‘‘Andrew K. Baker Department of Veterans Affairs 

3 Clinic’’ or the ‘‘A.K. Baker V.A. Clinic’’. 

4 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law, regula5 tion, map, document, record, or other paper of the United 

6 States to the community-based outpatient clinic referred 

7 to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a reference 

8 to the Andrew K. Baker Department of Veterans Affairs 

9 Clinic. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Willard U. Taylor, Individually and as Surviving Partner of the Firm of MacFarland, Taylor & Costello, Respondent, *v.*Public Industrials Corporation, Appellant.

Argued November 23, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.

*R. Randolph Hicks*for appellant.

*Stephen Callaghan*and *Ernest A. Fintel*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 128436 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### JOSEPH MATTHEW GORA , Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 128436 COA: 260232 Macomb CC: 03-003532-FC MACOMB CIRCUIT JUDGE, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to app eal the February 25, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

March 14, 2011

Barry Wallerstein, Env.D.

Executive Director

South Coast AQMD

21865 Copley Drive

Diamond Bar, CA 91765

Re: Final Technical System Audit Report on the South Coast Air Quality Management District

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program, April 13 – 16, 2010

Dear Dr. Wallerstein:

I am writing to transmit EPA’s report on the findings of our Technical System Audit 

(TSA) of SCAQMD’s ambient air monitoring program. This audit was performed in accordance 

with 40 CFR Part 58, Section 2.5, which requires that EPA conduct technical system audits of 

Primary Quality Assurance Organizations every three years. 

EPA reviewed SCAQMD’s ambient air monitoring program, including network 

management, field operations, laboratory operations, quality assurance, and data management 

procedures. Overall, we found that SCAQMD has a robust air monitoring program that 

generally meets or exceeds EPA requirements. As with any audit, this TSA uncovered some 

program areas within the agency that can be improved. We look forward to working together as 

you develop a corrective action response to our audit findings, which is due within 60 days of 

receipt of the final TSA report.

I want to thank you and your staff for the full cooperation and participation we were 

given during the audit. The results of this audit contribute to EPA’s overall understanding of 

ambient monitoring in your District. 

Please contact me if you have questions or your staff may contact Meredith Kurpius at 

(415) 947-4534 or Matthew Lakin at (415) 972-3851.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah Jordan

Director, Air Division

Enclosure

cc: Dr. Chung S. Liu, SCAQMD

Rudy Eden, SCAQMD

Dr. Phillip M. Fine, SCAQMD

Dr. Jason C. Low, SCAQMD
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 46 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 46

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
             To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act.

    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 ``Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Repeal 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Public Law 89-224 (commonly known as the ``Klamath Tribe Judgment 
Fund Act'') (79 Stat. 897) is repealed.

SEC. 3. DISBURSEMENT OF REMAINING FUNDS.

    Notwithstanding any provision of Public Law 89-224 (79 Stat. 897) 
(as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act) 
relating to the distribution or use of funds, as soon as practicable 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
shall disburse to the Klamath Tribe the balance of any funds that, on 
or before the date of enactment of this Act, were appropriated or 
deposited into the trust accounts for remaining legal fees and 
administration and per capita trust accounts, as identified by the 
Secretary of the Interior, under that Act (as in effect on the day 
before the date of enactment of this Act).

            Passed the Senate June 27, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 46

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

             To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act.
```
Appendix K 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

SECTION 404 AND SECTION 10 PERMITS 

FOR THE CAMERON LNG TERMINAL EXPANSION
#### § 48.125 Foreign civil aircraft.

Except for corporations eligible to register under § 48.20(c), the FAA will issue a recognition of ownership to persons required to comply with the provisions of this part pursuant to an authorization to operate issued under part 375 of this title. The recognition of ownership does not have the effect of U.S. aircraft registration.
#### § 33.51 Operation test.

The operation test must include the testing found necessary by the Administrator to demonstrate backfire characteristics, starting, idling, acceleration, overspeeding, functioning of propeller and ignition, and any other operational characteristic of the engine. If the engine incorporates a multispeed supercharger drive, the design and construction must allow the supercharger to be shifted from operation at the lower speed ratio to the higher and the power appropriate to the manifold pressure and speed settings for rated maximum continuous power at the higher supercharger speed ratio must be obtainable within five seconds.

[Doc. No. 3025, 29 FR 7453, June 10, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 33-3, 32 FR 3737, Mar. 4, 1967]
#### § 431.81 Financial responsibility requirements.

A licensee under this part must comply with financial responsibility requirements specified in its license.
Penalty for Private Use

Official BusinessWashington, DC 20426Routing Code: PJ-11.3FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project

Northeast Connector Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement

FERC/EIS-0246F

Volume I

Docket Nos. 

CP13-36-000

CP13-132-000 

PF09-8-000

February

2014
Exhibit 32.2

Certification by Chief Financial Officer
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 of Advanstar Communications Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David W. Montgomery, 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, to the best of my knowledge:



|By: |  | /s/DAVID W. MONTGOMERYDavid W. Montgomery
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
# AGENCY:

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

# ACTION:

 Notice of Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a meeting to develop Phenomena Identification and Ranking Tables (PIRTs). PIRTs have been used at NRC since 1988, and they provide a structured way to obtain a technical understanding that is needed to address certain issues. About twenty of the world's best technical experts are participating in this activity, and the experts represent a balance between industry, universities, foreign researchers, and regulatory organizations. The current PIRT activity is addressing a postulated BWR accident wherein power oscillations occur, the reactor fails to scram, and the oscillations then reach sufficient magnitude that fuel failure may occur before the emergency operating procedures are able to terminate the oscillations and shut the reactor down.

# DATES:

 February 8-10, 2000, 8:30 am-5:30 pm. 

# ADDRESSES:

 Room T10A1 (TWFN) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Dr. Ralph Meyer, SMSAB, Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6789. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 The meeting agenda will be posted on the NRC Web site at www.nrc.gov/​RES/​meetings.html by February 1, 2000. The meeting is open to the public. Attendees will need to obtain a visitor badge at the TWFN building lobby. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of January 2000. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Charles E. Rossi, 

Director, Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. 00-1176 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### § 102.124 Petitions for issuance, amendment, or repeal of rules.

Any interested person may petition the Board, in writing, for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule or regulation. An original of such petition must be filed with the Board and must state the rule or regulation proposed to be issued, amended, or repealed, together with a statement of grounds in support of such petition.
Order entered November 13, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00236-CR

OTIS GARDNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-56220-Q

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On October 29, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to 

pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by appointed counsel J. Daniel 

Oliphant; (3) Mr. Oliphant’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is his workload; 

and (4) Mr. Oliphant requested until December 27, 2013 to file appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by FRIDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2013. 

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN, INC., v. UNITED STATES

[80 C. Cls. 809; 296 U. S. 60]

Mr. Justice Stone

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 13, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Thomas OSullivanThomas OSullivanPresident
(Principal Executive Officer)Date: August 13, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Robert J. Leist, Jr.Robert J. Leist, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7417

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY DONNELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a “L”,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00045-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Donnell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Donnell Williams appeals the district court’s 

orders denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and his motion for reconsideration. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Williams, No. 5:04-cr-00045-RLV-DCK-1 

(W.D.N.C. June 26 & Aug. 20, 2012). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 65.117 Military riggers or former military riggers: Special certification rule. In place of the procedure in § 65.115, an applicant for a senior parachute rigger certificate is entitled to it if he passes a written test on the regulations of this subpart and presents satisfactory documentary evidence that he— ( a ) Is a member or civilian employee of an Armed Force of the United States, is a civilian employee of a regular armed force of a foreign country, or has, within the 12 months before he applies, been honorably discharged or released from any status covered by this paragraph;
( b ) Is serving, or has served within the 12 months before he applies, as a parachute rigger for such an Armed Force; and
( c ) Has the experience required by § 65.115(a).