alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 77.31 Determinations. ( a ) The FAA will issue a determination stating whether the proposed construction or alteration would be a hazard to air navigation, and will advise all known interested persons.
( b ) The FAA will make determinations based on the aeronautical study findings and will identify the following: ( 1 ) The effects on VFR/IFR aeronautical departure/arrival operations, air traffic procedures, minimum flight altitudes, and existing, planned, or proposed airports listed in § 77.15(e) of which the FAA has received actual notice prior to issuance of a final determination.
( 2 ) The extent of the physical and/or electromagnetic effect on the operation of existing or proposed air navigation facilities, communication aids, or surveillance systems.
( c ) The FAA will issue a Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation when the aeronautical study concludes that the proposed construction or alteration will exceed an obstruction standard and would have a substantial aeronautical impact.
( d ) A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation will be issued when the aeronautical study concludes that the proposed construction or alteration will exceed an obstruction standard but would not have a substantial aeronautical impact to air navigation. A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation may include the following: ( 1 ) Conditional provisions of a determination.
( 2 ) Limitations necessary to minimize potential problems, such as the use of temporary construction equipment.
( 3 ) Supplemental notice requirements, when required.
( 4 ) Marking and lighting recommendations, as appropriate.
( e ) The FAA will issue a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation when a proposed structure does not exceed any of the obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation.
§ 61.321 How do I obtain privileges to operate an additional category or class of light-sport aircraft? If you hold a sport pilot certificate and seek to operate an additional category or class of light-sport aircraft, you must— ( a ) Receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who trained you on the applicable aeronautical knowledge areas specified in § 61.309 and areas of operation specified in § 61.311. The endorsement certifies you have met the aeronautical knowledge and flight proficiency requirements for the additional light-sport aircraft privilege you seek;
( b ) Successfully complete a proficiency check from an authorized instructor, other than the instructor who trained you, consisting of the tasks in the appropriate areas of operation contained in the applicable Practical Test Standards (incorporated by reference, see § 61.14) as listed in appendix A of this part for the additional light-sport aircraft privilege you seek;
( c ) Complete an application for those privileges on a form and in a manner acceptable to the FAA and present this application to the authorized instructor who conducted the proficiency check specified in paragraph (b) of this section; and
( d ) Receive a logbook endorsement from the instructor who conducted the proficiency check specified in paragraph (b) of this section certifying you are proficient in the applicable areas of operation and aeronautical knowledge areas, and that you are authorized for the additional category and class light-sport aircraft privilege.
[Docket No. FAA-2001-11133, 69 FR 44869, July 27, 2004, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2022-1463; Amdt. No.61-153, 89 FR 22518, Apr. 1, 2024]
AAM-12-312-E April 18,2012

Exemption No. 10049A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0358

Mr. Chin Yi Tu

President Civic Helicopters, Inc. 2206 Palomar Airport Road, Suite H Carlsbad, CA 92011

Dear Mr. Tu:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 10049. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 4, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Civic Helicopters, Inc. (Civic Helicopters), for an extension of Exemption No. 10049. That exemption from § 91.147 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)allows Civic Helicopters to operate under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safetysensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Civic Helicopters.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10049 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.2

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Civic Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Civic Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10049. This exemption terminates on April 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 10049.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
No. 17,229.

#### Kennedy *v.*Hudkins.

Quieting *Title.*— By *Widow who, While an Infant, Had Joined with Ser Susband in its Conveyance.*— Complaint.—In an action by a widow to quiet her title to certain real estate, in the conveyance of which she had joined with her husband, while she was under twenty-one years of age, the complaint is insufficient, which fails to allege that at the time of the execution of the deed the husband was also a minor.

Real *Estate.*— Conveyance.—Joinder *of Infant Wife with*Susband.— An infant wife may lawfully join with her adult husband in the conveyance of his real estate, in the same manner as she would be authorized to do if she were over twenty-one years of age.

From the Fulton Circuit Court.

*I. Conner*and *W. W. McMahan,*for appellant.

*E. Myers, G. W. Holman*and *R. C. Stephenson,*for appellee.

Jordan, J.

— The facts, as they appear from the allegations of the complaint, in this cause, are as follows: “That on December 16, 1881, the appellant was the wife of one Richard Hudkins, who was, at that time, the owner in fee of the real estate described in the complaint, situated in Fulton county, Indiana; that on that day, being a minor, she joined with her said husband in a warranty deed conveying said lands to appellee; that she and her said husband acknowledged the instrument of conveyance in accordance with the statutory form prescribed for persons of full age; that she reached her majority on December 19, 1883; that after the execution of said deed her said husband died, leaving her surviving, as his widow; that on September 10, 1893, she dis-affirmed the deed of conveyance in question. The complaint concludes with a prayer to quiet her title to one-third of the real estate, and for partition thereof.

*571Filed March 13, 1895.

A demurrer was sustained to the complaint for insufficiency of facts, and this action of the lower court is assigned for error. Since April 13, 1866, an infant wife of an adult husband has been empowered by statute to join with him in the conveyance of his real estate in the same manner as she would be authorized if over the age of twenty-one years. Section 3363, R. S. 1894, section 2943, R. S. 1881. *Applegate*v. *Conner,*93 Ind. 185; *Bakes*v. *Gilbert,*93 Ind. 70.

It will be observed that the complaint in the case at bar omits to aver that the husband, at the time of the execution of the deed in controversy, was also a minor; this was an essential fact to be alleged in addition to the infancy of the appellant, in order to constitute a cause of action in her. *Bakes*v. *Gilbert, supra.*

Infancy of the appellant’s husband, at the date of the conveyance, can not be presumed, but must be averred and proven as one of the requisite facts or grounds for relief. *Boyd*v. *Fitch,*71 Ind. 306; *McSweeney*v. *Mc-Millen,*96 Ind. 298.

Appellant’s complaint did not state a cause of action, and there was no error in sustaining the demurrer of appellee.

Judgment affirmed with costs.
TAWA MONTGOMERY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1045

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 20, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Robert Groeb, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Gail E. Anderson, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lauren L. Brudnicki, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Kraay v. State, 148 So. 3d 789, 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON, and THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 23.2

                                                                  March 30, 2006

For:
INKSURE TECHNOLOGIES INC.

Attn: Mr. Eyal Bigon, CFO

                   RE: INKSURE TECHNOLOGIES INC. - FORM 10-KSB

     We hereby confirm our consent to use the name of this firm in connection
with the Risk Factors under the headlines "Under current Israeli law, Inksure
Ltd. may not be able to enforce covenants not to compete" (page24) and "Under
Israeli Law, our stockholders may face difficulties in the enforcement of civil
liabilities" from the word "However, subject to (11th line)..." through the end
of the paragraph (page 24), of the form 10-KSB filed by you with the U.S
Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                                       Very truly yours,


                                                       Yossi Avraham, Arad & Co.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). LA / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T H U S S E IN A B U S H IN D I, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 70864 A ge nc yN o. A 029- 228- 877 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H us s e i n A bus hi ndi , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of J or dan, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an 

# FI LED DE C 07 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSL A/ Res ea r ch 06- 70864 2 i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus . O ur j u r i s d i c t i o n i s g o v e rn e db y8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We d i s m i s s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew A bu shi nd i ’ s c on t ent i on thatthe B IA ac t ed ul tr avi r e s i n i t s Jul y16, 2003 or de rbe c aus e A bus hi ndi f a i l e d t o r a i s e tha ti s s ue b e f o r e th e B I A in h is ap p e a l o f r ig h t an dth e r e b yf

a ile dto e x h au s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . Se e B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft, 35 8 F . 3d 67 4, 67 8 (9th C i r. 20 04 ); s e e a l

s o Ag y e m a n v . I

NS , 296 F . 3d 871, 877 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( “ [ W ] e m aynot ent ert ai n d ue process cl ai m s bas ed on corr ec t abl e proceduralerrors un l es s the al i en r a is e dth e m b e lo w .” ) . PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D I SM I SSED .
#### § 61.18 [Reserved]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 13, 2017

Order 

Clerk

January 13, 2017

154913(16)

MICHAEL SULLIVAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 154913

v COA: 334273

Livingston CC: 14-006162-DO

DENISE SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the time 

for filing his answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer 

will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before January 27, 2017.
### -APARTMEN T O F ANGPORIATIO N 

### ::KE rOPERATIONS 2 mNO V - 3 A q : 2 S SERVE D NOVEMBE R2,201 0 U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D C
I N TH E MATTE RO F CORPORAT E AI R FA A DOCKE T NO
. CPIONMOOIO (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S NO
. FAA-2010-097 5

NOTIC E O F ASSIGNMEN T O F PROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor e designate d a s Cas e No
. 2008NM700126 ) ha s bee n assigne d t o Administrativ e Lav

^ Judg e Richar d C
. Goodwin
. Al l future pleading s an d othe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve d o n th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an d th e othe r persons o n th e attache d Servic e List
.

Ronnie A Chie f Administrativ e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docket No
. CPlONMOOl

© (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) SERVIC E TLIS T ORIGINA L & ONE COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 800 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docket Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit

e 2W1000 ' ONE COP Y Cynthi aChandler-Snell , Respondent' s Counsel Senio r Attorney , Federa

l Express , Inc
. 3620 Hacks Cros s Roa

d Buildin g B , 3' " Floor Memphis , T

N 38125-880 0 TEL : 901-434-836 1 FAX : 901-434-828 3 iScot t R
. Morris , Complainant' s Counsel Attorpey , Office o f

th e Regiona

l Counsel Jkorthwest Mountain Region , ANM-7 , FA A 160 1 Lind Avenue , S.W
. Renton,WA 9805 7 TEL : 425-227-141 7 ^ ,, , FAX : 425-227-1007 Th e Honorable Richar

dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jersey Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g GroundFloor , RoomEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Advisor

202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistant 202-366-512 1 g: ^ FAX : 202-366-753 6

* Servic e was by U.S
. Mail
. Fo r servic e i n person o r b y expedited courier , us e th e toVLo^^^address : Hearin g Docket , Federa

l Aviation Administration , i60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrijfe^uildin g - Roo

m 2614 , Washington , D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin g Docke t Cleric , AGC-430
.
#### § 303.46 Decision by the Assistant Secretary.

The Assistant Secretary shall decide, on the basis of the record and in accordance with the procedures prescribed in part 302 of this chapter, whether to grant or deny, in whole or in part, the application. A copy of the Assistant Secretary's final decision shall be served on all parties.
#### STATE ex MENTZER et v PRICE et

Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist, Paulding Co

No. 51,

Decided July 14, 1928

F. P. Spriggs, Paulding, R. H. Sutphen, Defiance, and R. E. Peters, for relators.

P. E. Dempsey, Columbus and S. S. Beard, Paulding, for respondents.

*84JUSTICE, J

It is insisted relators can not maintain this suit for that, in its last analysis, they seek thereby to have this court review the election contest. "If this contention be true quo warranto will not lie. 115 OS 588. But is this contention true? We do not think so for the reason that relators claim that the election contest is a nullity. Manifestly that which is not, can not be reviewed.

It is insisted, however, that relators can not, in this suit, attack the contest proceedings. With this contention we do not agree. Void judgments may always be collaterally attacked. 44 OS 497; Freeman on Judgements, Fifth Edition, Section 322, page 642.

In the instant suit relators claim they are entitled to membership on said board and that respondents are unlawfully withholding said offices from them.

The relators gave the security for costs, and, as we see it, Sect 12307 GC clearly authorizes the prosecution of this suit.

Coming now the question of the claimed violation by relators of the Corrupt Practice Act of this state.

Section 5175-25, General Code, provides that any person is guilty of a corrupt practice if he in connection with any election, pays, lends or contributes or promises to pay, lend or contribute any money or other valuable consideration for any other purpose than those enumerated therein. It provides futher that any contribution or expenditure, or offer to contribute or expend any money or thing of value for any purpose whatever, except as therein provided, is. “hereby declared to be corrupt practice and invalidates the election of any person guilty thereof.”

Admittedly relators made the said promises, statements and declarations set forth in the said notice of contest. Did they, by so doing, violate this section of the General Code? We do not think so.

Said promises, statements and declarations as likewise the said other promises of relators, are, in our opinion, mere expressions of a policy which relators will pursue as public officials if elected to office. Such kind of pledges are made in the interests of the public and are consistent with personal fitness for office. They involve no personal pecuniary consideration offered by the relators in order to accomplish their election. Clearly they do not fall under the ban of the Corrupt Practice Act of this state.

93 OS 314-319.

Holding these views, it follows that relators should be inducted at once into membership on the Board of Trustees of Public Affairs of the Village of Paulding, Ohio, and that respondents, Charles F Price and George E Coons, be' forthwith ousted therefrom.

Before Judges Crow, Hughes and Justice.
#### § 91.905 List of rules subject to waivers.

Sec.

91.107 Use of safety belts.

91.111 Operating near other aircraft.

91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

91.115 Right-of-way rules: Water operations.

91.117 Aircraft speed.

91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

91.121 Altimeter settings.

91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

91.125 ATC light signals.

91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.

91.127 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class E airspace.

91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.

91.130 Operations in Class C airspace.

91.131 Operations in Class B airspace.

91.133 Restricted and prohibited areas.

91.135 Operations in Class A airspace.

91.137 Temporary flight restrictions.

91.141 Flight restrictions in the proximity of the Presidential and other parties.

91.143 Flight limitation in the proximity of space flight operations.

91.153 VFR flight plan: Information required.

91.155 Basic VFR weather minimums

91.157 Special VFR weather minimums.

91.159 VFR cruising altitude or flight level.

91.169 IFR flight plan: Information required.

91.173 ATC clearance and flight plan required.

91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

91.176 Operations below DA/DH or MDA using an enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) under IFR.

91.177 Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.

91.179 IFR cruising altitude or flight level.

91.181 Course to be flown.

91.183 IFR radio communications.

91.185 IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure.

91.187 Operation under IFR in controlled airspace: Malfunction reports.

91.209 Aircraft lights.

91.303 Aerobatic flights.

91.305 Flight test areas.

91.311 Towing: Other than under § 91.309.

91.313(e) Restricted category civil aircraft: Operating limitations.

91.515 Flight altitude rules.

91.707 Flights between Mexico or Canada and the United States.

91.713 Operation of civil aircraft of Cuban registry.

[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34325, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65661, Dec. 17, 1991; Docket FAA-2013-0485, Amdt. 91-345, 81 FR 90175, Dec. 13, 2016; Docket FAA-2016-9154, Amdt. 91-348, 82 FR 39664, Aug. 22, 2017]
```

[113th Congress Public Law 110]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 1171]]

Public Law 113-110
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
103 Center Street West in Eatonville, Washington, as the ``National Park 
 Ranger Margaret Anderson Post Office''. <<NOTE: June 9, 2014 -  [H.R. 
                                1036]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL PARK RANGER MARGARET ANDERSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 103 Center Street West in Eatonville, Washington, shall be 
known and designated as the ``National Park Ranger Margaret Anderson 
Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``National 
Park Ranger Margaret Anderson Post Office''.

    Approved June 9, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1036:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            Mar. 24, considered and passed House.
            May 21, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

NOV 26 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

GARRY A. ULLAND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER, INC.;

DAVE TUCKER; JAMES D.

RATZLAFF; DON S. SEERY;

LEONARD A. KLAFTA; JOE MEYER;

CAROLINE DETBARN-FERGUSON;

COLLEEN TYSER-VOTH; D.

MATTHEW; M. MICHAEL; DERBY

POLICE DEPARTMENT; THOMAS

PRUNIER; FRANCIS KNIPFER;

DERBY POLICE OFFICERS;

SEDGWICK COUNTY MEDICAL

STAFF; DERBY E.M.S.; SEDGWICK

COUNTY CORONER; CORRIE L.

MAY; BILL DIETZ, Medical

Investigator,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-3132

(D.C. No.96-3604-GTV)

(District of Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
2

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

We hold the district court did not err in dismissing this action for lack of

jurisdiction. We AFFIRM for the reasons stated by the district court in its order of

April 22, 1997.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge