alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 29.1411 General. ( a ) *Accessibility.* Required safety equipment to be used by the crew in an emergency, such as automatic liferaft releases, must be readily accessible.
( b ) *Stowage provisions.* Stowage provisions for required emergency equipment must be furnished and must— ( 1 ) Be arranged so that the equipment is directly accessible and its location is obvious; and
( 2 ) Protect the safety equipment from inadvertent damage.
( c ) *Emergency exit descent device.* The stowage provisions for the emergency exit descent device required by § 29.809(f) must be at the exits for which they are intended.
( d ) *Liferafts.* Liferafts must be stowed near exits through which the rafts can be launched during an unplanned ditching. Rafts automatically or remotely released outside the rotorcraft must be attached to the rotorcraft by the static line prescribed in § 29.1415.
( e ) *Long-range signaling device.* The stowage provisions for the long-range signaling device required by § 29.1415 must be near an exit available during an unplanned ditching.
( f ) *Life preservers.* Each life preserver must be within easy reach of each occupant while seated.
vARTMENTOF, 

Docket Management Facility ji?Ki~M^^>IK''I; 

! 0F^tPATK);-18 

•ni fFB ?2 P ?-•• 32 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0089 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

West Building Grand Floor, Room W-120140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Ref: Sun Country slot exemption 

I request your consideration to allow Sun Country to continue the LAN (Lansing, Michigan) to DCA 

(Washington Reagan National Airport, DC) direct service. This is the only non-stop service between the 

state capital and the national capital. It is a convenient, one-per-day, 1 /i hour flight. The only 

alternatives at this time require in excess of 3 34 hours with connecting flights at major hubs. The 

alternatives are also more expensive than the Sun Country flights. 

j^dy lyrorrill 

136 Roberts Lane #202 

Alexandria VA 22314 

Phone: 703-548-2941
#### § 385.33 Review by the staff.

Where a petition for review is duly filed, the staff member may, upon consideration of all documents properly filed, reverse his or her decision. Except in the case of Administrative Law Judges, action taken by a staff member other than an office head or Assistant General Counsel may be reversed by the respective office head or Assistant General Counsel who is in the supervisory chain of command with respect to the staff member who took the initial action. If the initial action is reversed, the petition for review will not be submitted to the Reviewing Official. Staff action reversing the initial action shall be subject to petition for Department review as any other staff action.

[Doc. No. T-1, 49 FR 50985, Dec. 31, 1984. Redesignated by Doc. No. OST-96-1268, 61 FR 19171, May 1, 1996]
§ 29.305 Strength and deformation. ( a ) The structure must be able to support limit loads without detrimental or permanent deformation. At any load up to limit loads, the deformation may not interfere with safe operation.
( b ) The structure must be able to support ultimate loads without failure. This must be shown by— ( 1 ) Applying ultimate loads to the structure in a static test for at least three seconds; or
( 2 ) Dynamic tests simulating actual load application.
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of VOS International, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending September 30, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,Allan J. Ligi, President of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

(1) The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

February 2, 2006                                                   By:/s/ Allan J.Ligi                                                                                                            Allan J. Ligi                                                                                        President, Principal Executive Officer

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains  financial  information  extracted from Forstmann &
     COmpany,   Inc's.  condensed  consolidated  financial  statements  for  the
     thirteen  weeks ended  January 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
     references to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000798246
<NAME>                        Forstmann & Company, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                             40
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  22,139
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,430
<INVENTORY>                                    39,647
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               67,508
<PP&E>                                         19,436
<DEPRECIATION>                                  4,061
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 84,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          59,024
<BONDS>                                           865
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           44
<OTHER-SE>                                     24,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   84,899
<SALES>                                        18,498
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               18,498
<CGS>                                          19,052
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  19,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,395
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  121
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,407
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,662)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,662)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     14
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,676)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.52)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
   Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned, David Guarino, Chief Financial Officer of Kahala Corp. (the
"Company"), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report"). The undersigned
hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the applicable 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
19th day of August, 2002.

/s/ David Guarino
----------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

507 

CA 13-01513 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

GRAMERCY PARK LLC, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

 

V ORDER

TOWN OF AMHERST, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

HARRIS BEACH PLLC, BUFFALO (RICHARD T. SULLIVAN OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

DEMARIE & SCHOENBORN, P.C., BUFFALO (JOSEPH DEMARIE OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County

(Frederick J. Marshall, J.), entered February 22, 2013. The judgment

dismissed the complaint after a nonjury trial. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court.

Entered: May 2, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
### NUM BER 13-0 8-00 503- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG RA YNA LD O M END EZ , A pp ellan t, v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee. On ap pe al f rom th e 3 47t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re Ch ief Ju stice Va lde z an d Ju stice s Y añ ezan d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t, Ray nal do M endez , fil ed a n o ti ce of appeal on A ug ust22, 2008, chal len g ing hi s conv icti on for burg lar y of a habi tati on. By

order si g ned O cto ber

15, 2008, the t ri al cour

t g ra nted appel lan t' s mot ion for n ew tr ial

. W hen the tri al cour

t grants a motion for new tr ial , i t rest ores the c ase to i ts posi ti on before the former

tr ial

. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 21.9( b)

. At the new tri al, the defendant pl ed2

g uil ty to ro bber

y w it h a p lea ag re ement. On Dec ember 3, 2008, the tr ial co urt c erti fied th at thi s “ is a pl ea- barg ain ca se, and the d efendant has NO ri g ht of appea l” and “t he defendant has waiv ed th e rig ht of

app eal.” See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25 .2(a)(2). On Jan uary 21, 200 9, th is Court notif ied a p p e lla nt’s cou nsel of the trial court’s cer ti ficat ion and ordered c ounse l to: (1 ) re v iew the re cord; (2 ) deter mine w hether appel lan t has a rig ht to app eal; a nd (3) forw ard to th is Court , by l etter , c ounse l’ s fin din g s a s t o w hether appel lan t has a r ig ht t o appea l, or , al ter nati v ely , adv is e thi s Co u rta s to t he ex is tenc e of any

amended cer

ti ficat ion

. On Feb ruary 7, 20 09, coun sel f iled a lette r brief w ith this Court. Counsel’s respo nse est abl is hes that the a ppeal bec ame moot w it h the g ra nti ng of a new tr ial

. Cou nsel does not e sta bli sh that the c erti ficat ion cu rrentl y on file w it h thi s C our t i s i ncor re ct or

that appel lan t ot her

w is e has a r ig ht t o appea l. The Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Proc edure prov ide thatan a ppeal mustbe d is mis sed if the trial court’s certif ication doe s not sho w thatthe de fe n d a nt ha s the right of app eal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25 .2 ( d); se e T EX . R. A PP . P. 37 .1, 4 4.3 , 44. 4. Acco rdingly , this app eal is DI SM ISSE D. An y

pendi ng moti ons are deni ed as moot. P E RC U R I A M Do not p ubl is h. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 26th day

of Febr uar

y , 200 9.
#### § 437.9 Issuance of an experimental permit.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76726, Sept. 19, 2024.

The FAA issues an experimental permit authorizing an unlimited number of launches or reentries for a suborbital rocket design for the uses described in § 437.5.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40158

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS SANCHEZ-CEBALLOS, also known as Fernando Juarez-Ceballos,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-50-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus SanchezCeballos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sanchez-Ceballos has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40158 Document: 00513243252 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
No. 15-40158

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-40158 Document: 00513243252 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5


<CAPTION>

Article 5 Fin. Data Schedule for 1st Qtr 10-Q

<S>                               <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                    JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1999

<CASH>                               146,758
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                            100
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     181,397
<PP&E>                                22,147
<DEPRECIATION>                          (527)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       217,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                583,051
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                           1,132,700
<OTHER-SE>                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         217,254
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        945,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          84
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    (945,408)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     1,346
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           84
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                        (945,408)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.00)



</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 380
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 380.33 Major changes in itinerary or price; refunds. ( a ) For the purposes of this section, “major change” means any of the following: ( 1 ) A change in the departure or return date shown in the operator-participant contract, (or, if the contract states alternative dates, the date designated to the participant by the charter operator in accordance with § 380.33a(b)), unless the change results from a flight delay. In any event, however, a date change that the operator knows of more than 2 days before the scheduled flight date, and any delay of more than 48 hours, will be considered a major change.
( 2 ) A change in the origin or destination city shown in the operator-participant contract for any flight leg (or, if the contract states alternative cities, the city designated to the participant by the operator in accordance with § 380.33a(b)), unless the change affects only the order in which cities named in a tour package are visited.
( 3 ) A substitution of any hotel that is not named in the operator-participant contract; and
( 4 ) A price increase to the participant that occurs 10 or more days before departure and results in an aggregate price increase of more than 10 percent.
( b ) The charter operator shall not increase the price to any participant less than 10 days before departure.
( c ) The charter operator shall notify all participants of major changes, as required by the operator-participant contracts. This notification shall include the participants' rights to refunds required to be described in the operator-participant contract. The operator shall, if applicable, also notify the participants that the acceptance of a refund constitutes a waiver of their legal rights.
( d ) Except as otherwise specified, notifications and refunds required by this part are considered made at the time they are mailed or sent by an equivalent method.
( e ) The charter operator shall make all refunds required to be described in the operator-participant contract within the time limits set forth in paragraphs (k), (n), (r), and (s) of § 380.32, as applicable.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CEO CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC§1350, as adopted), Joel A. Ronning,the Chief Executive Officer of DigitalRiver, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

**1.****             **TheCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004,and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual Report”)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

**2.****             **Theinformation contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company forthe periods presented therein.

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**,the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 14th day of March2005.

 
|   | /s/ Joel A. Ronning     |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Joel A. Ronning         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Digital River, Inc. and will be retained by Digital River, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan M. Peinado, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 38]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered July 28, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not err in permitting testimony regarding prior uncharged criminal conduct by the defendant since the testimony was relevant to establish both that the defendant had a motive to kill the victim and that the defendant was the perpetrator *(see, People v Ventimiglia,*52 NY2d 350; *People v Brown,*249 AD2d 556; *People v Wilson,*225 AD2d 642). In any event, any potential prejudice was mitigated by the limiting instruction given, at the defendant’s request, when the testimony was admitted *(see, People v Brown,*supra;*People v Wilson, supra).*

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0095 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0095

**96/95/EC: Commission Decision of 12 January 1996 authorizing Sweden to maintain its national measures as regards transmissible gastroenteritis in application of Article 10 (4) of Council Directive 64/432/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 021 , 27/01/1996 P. 0074 - 0074 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 12 January 1996 authorizing Sweden to maintain its national measures as regards transmissible gastroenteritis in application of Article 10 (4) of Council Directive 64/432/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (96/95/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1), as last amended by Council Directive 95/25/EC (2), and in particular Article 10 (4) thereof,

Whereas Sweden considers that its territory is free from a number of animal diseases and has submitted an application for additional trade guarantees to the Commission; whereas the applications have been examined by the Commission; whereas a more detailed examination is necessary in the case of the application relating to transmissible gastroenteritis;

Whereas it is necessary to extend the special measures which apply to trade in pigs and hatching eggs to Sweden while this examination is being carried out;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Sweden is authorized to maintain its national measures relating to transmissible gastroenteritis until 31 December 1996.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 January 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No 121, 29. 7. 1964, p. 1977/64.

(2) OJ No L 243, 11. 10. 1995, p. 16.
#### § 460.51 Space flight participant training.

An operator must train each space flight participant before flight on how to respond to emergency situations, including smoke, fire, loss of cabin pressure, and emergency exit.
#### Socony-Vacuum Oil Company, Incorporated, et al., Respondents, *v.*The City of New York et al., Appellants.

(Argued November 20, 1936;

decided December 4, 1936.)

*669
      *Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Sol Charles Levine, Oscar S. Cox, Robert Granville Burke*and *Frank J. Derrick*of counsel), for appellants.

*Charles Pratt Healy*and *Stafford Smith*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ. Taking no part: Crouch, J.
###### Editorial Note on Part 294

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 294 appear at 84 FR 15934, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 294.80 Waiver of sovereign immunity.

By accepting an approved registration under this part, a registrant waives any right it may possess to assert any defense of sovereign immunity in any action or proceeding instituted against it in any court or other tribunal in the United States based upon any claim arising out of its operations under this part.