alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 93.213 Definitions and general provisions. ( a ) For purposes of this subpart— ( 1 ) *New entrant carrier* means a commuter operator or air carrier which does not hold a slot at a particular airport and has never sold or given up a slot at that airport after December 16, 1985.
( 2 ) *Slot* means the operational authority to conduct one IFR landing or takeoff operation each day during a specific hour or 30 minute period at one of the High Density Traffic Airports, as specified in subpart K of this part.
( 3 ) *Summer season* means the period of time from the first Sunday in April until the last Sunday in October.
( 4 ) *Winter season* means the period of time from the last Sunday in October until the first Sunday in April.
( 5 ) *Limited incumbent carrier* means an air carrier or commuter operator that holds or operates fewer than 12 air carrier or commuter slots, in any combination, at a particular airport, not including international slots, Essential Air Service Program slots, or slots between the hours of 2200 and 0659 at Washington National Airport or LaGuardia Airport. However, for the purposes of this paragraph (a)(5), the carrier is considered to hold the number of slots at that airport that the carrier has, since December 16, 1985: ( i ) Returned to the FAA;
( ii ) Had recalled by the FAA under § 93.227(a); or
( iii ) Transferred to another party other than by trade for one or more slots at the same airport.
( b ) The definitions specified in subpart K of this part also apply to this subpart.
( c ) For purposes of this subpart, if an air carrier, commuter operator, or other person has more than a 50-percent ownership or control of one or more other air carriers, commuter operators, or other persons, they shall be considered to be a single air carrier, commuter operator, or person. In addition, if a single company has more than a 50-percent ownership or control of two or more air carriers and/or commuter operators or any combination thereof, those air carriers and/or commuter operators shall be considered to be a single operator. A single operator may be considered to be both an air carrier and commuter operator for purposes of this subpart.
[Doc. No. 24105, 50 FR 52195, Dec. 20, 1985, as amended by Amdt. 93-52, 51 FR 21717, June 13, 1986; Amdt. 93-57, 54 FR 34906, Aug. 22, 1989; 54 FR 37303, Sept. 8, 1989; Amdt. 93-65, 57 FR 37314, Aug. 18, 1992]
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-67085, 333-79269, 333-36680, 333-47026, 333-53332, 333-69036, 333-101759)and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-81626 and 333-85996) ofour reports dated January 28, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Digital River, Inc. and subsidiaries includedin this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.

 

 
| /s/ Ernst & Young  LLP |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |
| Minneapolis,  Minnesota,        |
| March 24,  2003                 |

 

----
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-71,667-01 AND WR-71,667-03

EX PARTE WAYNE DALE WAGNER, JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. CR30704-A AND CR30704-C IN THE 385 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM MIDLAND COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to life

imprisonment. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Wagner v. State, No. 11-06-

00235-CR (Tex. App. — East land June 7, 2007) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed

these applications for writs of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk

forwarded them to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

On March 25, 2009, this Court denied application number WR-71,667-01 based on the

findings of the trial court without a hearing. On September 21, 2011, this Court dismissed

application number WR-71,667-02 as a subsequent application barred by Article 11.07, Section 4

of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. On January 7, 2022, this Court received a third
2

application in the same trial court cause number alleging that Applicant was denied due process as

the result of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the review of his initial habeas application in

Midland County. It has been determined that former assistant district attorneyRalph Petty was paid

by the district judges to work on Applicant’s -01 application when Petty was employed at the same

time as an appellate prosecutor by the Midland County District Attorney’s office. That dual

employment was not disclosed to this Court or Applicant at the time his -01 application was under

consideration.

While it does not appear that Petty’s dual employment affected the pre-trial, trial, or appellate

proceedings in Applicant’s case, the undisclosed employment relationship between the District 

Judge who presided over the initial habeas proceedings in this case and the prosecutor who

simultaneouslyrepresented the State in the same proceeding leads us to conclude that Applicant was

deprived of his due process rights to fair consideration of his claims in the first habeas application. 

Therefore, this Court now reconsiders on its own motion the denial without written order on the

findings of the trial court of application number WR-71,667-01 

However, after an independent review of the record in this case without consideration of the

trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, this Court believes that Applicant’s claims are

without merit. Therefore, after reconsideration on the Court’s own motion, relief is again denied in

cause number WR-71,667-01.

Applicant’s most recent application, cause number WR-75,609-03 is dismissed as moot. 

Filed: March 2, 2022

Do not publish
§ 29.805 Flight crew emergency exits. ( a ) For rotorcraft with passenger emergency exits that are not convenient to the flight crew, there must be flight crew emergency exits, on both sides of the rotorcraft or as a top hatch, in the flight crew area.
( b ) Each flight crew emergency exit must be of sufficient size and must be located so as to allow rapid evacuation of the flight crew. This must be shown by test.
( c ) Each exit must not be obstructed by water or flotation devices after a ditching. This must be shown by test, demonstration, or analysis.
[Amdt. 29-3, 33 FR 968, Jan. 26, 1968, as amended by Amdt. 27-26, 55 FR 8004, Mar. 6, 1990]
#### § 1202.14 Labor members of Adjustment Board.

Section 3, First, (f) of title I of the Railway Labor Act relating to the settlement of disputes among labor organizations as to the qualification of any such organization to participate in the selection of labor members of the Adjustment Board, places certain duties upon the National Mediation Board. This section of the act is quoted below:

(f) In the event a dispute arises as to the right of any national labor organization to participate as per paragraph (c) of this section in the selection and designation of the labor members of the Adjustment Board, the Secretary of Labor shall investigate the claim of such labor organization to participate, and if such claim in the judgment of the Secretary of Labor has merit, the secretary shall notify the Mediation Board accordingly, and within 10 days after receipt of such advice the Mediation Board shall request those national labor organizations duly qualified as per paragraph (c) of this section to participate in the selection and designation of the labor members of the Adjustment Board to select a representative. Such representatives, together with a representative likewise designated by the claimant, and a third or neutral party designated by the Mediation Board, constituting a board of three, shall within 30 days after the appointment of the neutral member investigate the claims of the labor organization desiring participation and decide whether or not it was organized in accordance with section 2, hereof, and is otherwise properly qualified to participate in the selection of the labor members of the Adjustment Board, and the findings of such boards of three shall be final and binding.
§ 5.7 Requirements for domestic, flag, and supplemental operations. ( a ) Any person authorized to conduct operations under part 121 of this chapter that has an SMS acceptable to the FAA on or before May 28, 2024, must revise its SMS to meet the requirements of this part no later than May 28, 2025.
( b ) Any person applying for authorization to conduct operations under part 121 of this chapter or with such application pending on or after May 28, 2024, must develop and implement an SMS that meets the requirements of this part.
( c ) Any person required to develop and implement an SMS under this section must maintain the SMS as long as the person is authorized to conduct operations under part 121 of this chapter.
( d ) Any person required to develop and implement an SMS under this section must make available to the Administrator, upon request, all necessary information and data that demonstrates that the person has an SMS that meets the requirements set forth in this part.
- 372 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports GARRISON v . OTTO Cite as 308 Neb. 372

Margaret L. Garrison, appellee, v. Logan M. Otto II, appellant. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed February 5, 2021. No. S-20-386. Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: John A. Colborn , Judge. Affirmed. Edith T. Peebles, of Brodkey, Cuddigan, Peebles, Belmont & Line, L.L.P., for appellant. Adam R. Little, of Ballew Hazen, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.
Heavican , C.J., Miller

- Lerman , Cassel , Stacy, Funke , Papik , and Freudenberg , JJ. Per Curiam

. This is an appeal of a domestic abuse protection order, which we moved to our docket. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2018). The court, having considered the oral arguments and hav

ing reviewed the record de novo, finds that the domestic abuse protection order entered by the trial court should be affirmed. Affirmed. Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 03/19/2021 12:09 AM CDT
§ 65.92 Inspection authorization: Duration. ( a ) Each inspection authorization expires on March 31 of each odd-numbered year. However, the holder may exercise the privileges of that authorization only while he holds a currently effective mechanic certificate with both a currently effective airframe rating and a currently effective powerplant rating.
( b ) An inspection authorization ceases to be effective whenever any of the following occurs: ( 1 ) The authorization is surrendered, suspended, or revoked.
( 2 ) The holder no longer has a fixed base of operation.
( 3 ) The holder no longer has the equipment, facilities, and inspection data required by § 65.91(c) (3) and (4) for issuance of his authorization.
( c ) The holder of an inspection authorization that is suspended or revoked shall, upon the Administrator's request, return it to the Administrator.
[Doc. No. 12537, 42 FR 46279, Sept. 15, 1977, as amended by Amdt. 65-50, 72 FR 4404, Jan. 30, 2007]
#### § 102.9 Who may file; withdrawal and dismissal.

Any person may file a charge alleging that any person has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labor practice affecting commerce. The charge may be withdrawn, prior to the hearing, only with the consent of the Regional Director with whom such charge was filed; at the hearing and until the case has been transferred to the Board pursuant to § 102.45, upon motion, with the consent of the Administrative Law Judge designated to conduct the hearing; and after the case has been transferred to the Board pursuant to § 102.45, upon motion, with the consent of the Board. Upon withdrawal of any charge, any complaint based thereon will be dismissed by the Regional Director issuing the complaint, the Administrative Law Judge designated to conduct the hearing, or the Board.
Exhibit 99.1

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

In
connection with the Annual Report of Advanstar Communications Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Krakoff, 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, based upon a review of the Report, and as of the end of the period covered by the Report:

|/s/ Robert L. KrakoffRobert L. Krakoff
Chief Executive Officer
November 25, 2002 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of SunCoast Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John S. Wilks, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: November 12, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/    John S. Wilks                                                                               
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |     |  | John S. Wilks, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting
Officer)
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 19, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 19, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A25I0031. SOUTH GEORGIA RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, LLC v. MELISSA T. 

PACE AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF WADE JEFFERSON PACE, DECEASED .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

STCV2201801
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Actuate Corporation (the registrant);
 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;
  /s/    Daniel A. GaudreauDaniel A. GaudreauSenior Vice President, Operations and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the quarterly report of Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Alton L. Boynton, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the 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 Company.

Date: May 15, 2006

/s/ Alton L. Boynton
----------------------------------
Alton L. Boynton
President (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)
TRANSFER
TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL CORP.


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
connection with the Annual Report of Transfer Technology International Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Chris Trina, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)The Report fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the 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 Company.




/s/  CHRIS
TRINA
 Chris
Trina
 Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer
 April 8,
2009




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

EASTERN DISTRICT

PRINTFLY CORPORATION

v.

JORDAN NEMEROFF AND ELYSSA

NEMEROFF

v.

MICHAEL NEMEROFF AND ALEXIS

NEMEROFF

PETITION OF: JORDAN NEMEROFF AND

ELYSSA NEMEROFF :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 352 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of April, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
§ 61.71 Graduates of an approved training program other than under this part: Special rules. ( a ) A person who graduates from an approved training program under part 141 or part 142 of this chapter is considered to have met the applicable aeronautical experience, aeronautical knowledge, and areas of operation requirements of this part if that person presents the graduation certificate and passes the required practical test within the 60-day period after the date of graduation.
( b ) A person may apply for an airline transport pilot certificate, type rating, or both under this part, and will be considered to have met the applicable requirements under § 61.157, except for the airline transport pilot certification training program required by § 61.156, for that certificate and rating, if that person has: ( 1 ) Satisfactorily accomplished an approved training curriculum and a proficiency check for that airplane type that includes all the tasks and maneuvers required by §§ 121.424 and 121.441 of this chapter to serve as pilot in command in operations conducted under part 121 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) Applied for an airline transport pilot certificate, type rating, or both within the 60-day period from the date the person satisfactorily accomplished the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) for that airplane type.
( c ) A person who holds a foreign pilot license and is applying for an equivalent U.S. pilot certificate on the basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement and associated Implementation Procedures for Licensing may be considered to have met the applicable aeronautical experience, aeronautical knowledge, and areas of operation requirements of this part.
[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997; Amdt. 61-103, 62 FR 40901, July 30, 1997; Amdt. 61-128, 76 FR 54107, Aug. 31, 2011; Amdt. 61-130, 78 FR 42374, July 15, 2013; Amdt. 61-144, 85 FR 10920, Feb. 25, 2020]
###### Editorial Note on Part 47

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010.

#### § 47.39 Effective date of registration.

An aircraft is registered on the date the Registry determines that the submissions meet the requirements of this part. The effective date of registration is shown by a date stamp on the Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1, and as the date of issue on the Certificate of Aircraft Registration, AC Form 8050-3.

[Amdt. 47-29, 75 FR 41981, July 20, 2010]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4594 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve and to expand eligibility 

for dependency and indemnity compensation paid to certain survivors 

of certain veterans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 

Mr. TESTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve and 

to expand eligibility for dependency and indemnity compensation paid to certain survivors of certain veterans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Caring for the Sur5 vivors and Families of Veterans Act of 2020’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4594 IS

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPEND2 ENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION FOR 

3 SURVIVORS OF CERTAIN VETERANS RATED 

4 TOTALLY DISABLED AT TIME OF DEATH. 

5 Section 1318 of title 38, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and in9 serting ‘‘(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

10 (2), the Secretary’’; and 

11 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

12 paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(2) In any case in which the Secretary makes a pay14 ment under paragraph (1) of this subsection by reason 

15 of subsection (b)(1) of this section and the period of con16 tinuous rating immediately preceding death is less than 

17 10 years, the amount payable under such paragraph shall 

18 be an amount that bears the same relationship to the 

19 amount otherwise payable under such paragraph as the 

20 duration of such period bears to 10 years.’’; and 

21 (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ‘‘10 or 

22 more years’’ and inserting ‘‘not less than five 

23 years’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4594 IS

1 SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY FOR DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY 

2 COMPENSATION FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES 

3 WHO REMARRY AFTER AGE 55. 

4 Section 103(d)(2)(B) of title 38, United States Code, 

5 is amended in the second sentence by inserting ‘‘chapter 

6 13 or’’ after ‘‘benefits under’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS