alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 101.33 Initiation of formal action; settlement.

If, after investigation, it appears that the Board should determine the dispute under section 10(k) of the Act, the Regional Director issues a notice of hearing which includes a simple statement of issues involved in the jurisdictional dispute and which is served on all parties to the dispute out of which the unfair labor practice is alleged to have arisen. The hearing is scheduled for not less than 10 days after service of the notice of the filing of the charge, except that in cases involving the national defense, agreement will be sought for scheduling of hearing on less notice. If the parties present to the Regional Director satisfactory evidence that they have adjusted the dispute, the Regional Director withdraws the notice of hearing and either permits the withdrawal of the charge or dismisses the charge. If the parties submit to the Regional Director satisfactory evidence that they have agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute, the Regional Director shall defer action upon the charge and shall withdraw the notice of hearing if issued. The parties may agree on an arbitrator, a proceeding under section 9(c) of the Act, or any other satisfactory method to resolve the dispute. If the agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment results in a determination that employees represented by a charged union are entitled to perform the work in dispute, the Regional Director dismisses the charge against that union irrespective of whether the employer complies with that determination.
§ 61.193 Flight instructor privileges. ( a ) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is authorized within the limitations of that person's flight instructor certificate and ratings to train and issue endorsements that are required for: ( 1 ) A student pilot certificate;
( 2 ) A pilot certificate;
( 3 ) A flight instructor certificate;
( 4 ) A ground instructor certificate;
( 5 ) An aircraft rating;
( 6 ) An instrument rating;
( 7 ) A flight review, operating privilege, or recency of experience requirement of this part;
( 8 ) A practical test; and
( 9 ) A knowledge test.
( b ) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is authorized, in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator, to: ( 1 ) Accept an application for a student pilot certificate or, for an applicant who holds a pilot certificate (other than a student pilot certificate) issued under part 61 of this chapter and meets the flight review requirements specified in § 61.56, a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating;
( 2 ) Verify the identity of the applicant; and
( 3 ) Verify that an applicant for a student pilot certificate meets the eligibility requirements in § 61.83 or an applicant for a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating meets the eligibility requirements in § 107.61 of this chapter.
[Docket FAA-2010-1127, Amdt. 61-135, 81 FR 1306, Jan. 12, 2016, as amended by Docket FAA-2015-0150, Amdt. 61-137, 81 FR 42208, June 28, 2016]
ATTACHMENT.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

January Term, 1898.]

Cox, Swing and Smith, JJ.

#### Charles J. Puerrung et al. v. Carter-Crume Co.

Service on Foreign Corporations on Ground oe Non-Residence.

Section 148c, Rev. Stat., providing that foreign corporations complying therewith shall not be subject to process of attachment oh the ground of non-residence, held to be constitutional and valid.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton cpunty. ■

The plaintiffs brought suit for $750 against the Carter-Crume Company, and garnished funds in the hands of Diem & Wing, the attachment being secured on the ground that the defendant company was a foreign corporation and a non-resident *of*the state. At the trial below Judge Sayler dissolved the attachment.

*C. W.*Baker, for plaintiff in error.

*Kittredge & Wilby, contra.*

Smith, J.

We are of the opinion that the judgment in this case should be affirmed'; that sec. 148c, Rev. Stat., which in effect provides that in actions brought in this state against foreign corporations which have complied with the provisions of said statute they shall not be subject to process of attachment, under sec. 5521, Rev. Stat., or any law of Ohio, on the ground that it is a foreign corporation or a non-resident of the state, is a valid and constitutional law.

Cox and Swing, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11971]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  

[Report No. AUC-00-31-F (Auction No. 31); DA 00-942]


Auction of Licenses for the 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands 
Postponed Until September 6, 2000

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

SUMMARY: This document postpones the upcoming auction of licenses in 
the 747-762 and 777-792 bands originally scheduled to begin June 7, 
2000, in order to provide additional time for bidder preparation and 
planning. The auction is rescheduled to begin September 6, 2000.

DATES: Auction No. 31 will begin September 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Davenport, Auctions Legal 
Branch at (202) 418-0660, or Kathy Garland, Auctions Operations at 
(717) 338-2888.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of a Public Notice 
released May 2, 2000. The complete text of the public notice is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. It may also be purchased from the Commission's 
copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc. (ITS, Inc.) 
1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800. It is also 
available on the Commission's web site at http://www.fcc.gov.
    1. The upcoming auction of licenses in the 747-762 and 777-792 MHz 
band, scheduled to begin on June 7, 2000, is postponed until September 
6, 2000, in order to provide additional time for bidder preparation and 
planning. Therefore, the FCC Form 175 application filing window for 
Auction No. 31 is now closed. Any applications that were in the system 
will be deemed ineffective and purged from the system. Applicants 
wishing to participate must file in compliance with the deadlines 
listed. The new filing window for FCC Form 175 will open on July 17, 
2000. The new schedule is as follows:
    Filing Deadline for FCC Form 175--August 1, 2000; 6 pm ET.
    Upfront Payment Deadline--August 18, 2000; 6 pm ET.
    Orders For Remote Bidding Software--August 21, 2000; 6 pm ET.
    Mock Auction--August 31, 2000.
    Auction Start Date--September 6, 2000.

Federal Communications Commission.
Louis J. Sigalos,
 Deputy Chief, Auctions & Industry Analysis Division.
[FR Doc. 00-11971 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
§ 385.16 Heads of Offices and Assistant General Counsels. The heads of Offices and Assistant General Counsels have the authority to: ( a ) Grant requests for permission to withdraw petitions, applications, motions, complaints, or other pleadings or documents which the respective Office has responsibility for processing where such authority has not otherwise been assigned in this regulation.
( b ) Grant extensions of time for filing of documents or reports which are required to be filed by regulation or Department order and which reports or documents the respective Office has the responsibility for processing.
( c ) Grant waivers of the environmental procedures set by Department order in any proceeding or portion of a proceeding dealing with environmental matters.
( d ) Establish procedures on a case-by-case basis for environmental proceedings to ensure compliance with applicable law.
[Doc. No. T-1, 49 FR 50985, Dec. 31, 1984. Redesignated by Doc. No. OST-96-1268, 61 FR 19170, May 1, 1996]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         244,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               37,539,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   770,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,795,000
<PP&E>                                     206,971,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              45,118,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             210,872,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       37,243,076
<BONDS>                                    150,999,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       41,404,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (20,968,181)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               210,872,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           218,916,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              171,630,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            31,550,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          17,599,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,863,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,863,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,863,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-1161

___________ Ellery Cole, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Winebrenner, COII; Sandra Jimmerson, * Acting FUM; Mike Tagger, AHO; * [UNPUBLISHED] Vaughn, COII, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 26, 2001 Filed: August 2, 2001

___________ BeforeWOLLMAN, Chief Judge, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. M issouri prisoner Ellery Cole appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging that defendants failed toprotect

him from inmate attacks, and that the discipline they imposed for his possession of a weapon in self-defense violated his right to procedural due process. After careful de novo review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in rejecting either claim. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 417.25 Post launch report. ( a ) For a launch operator launching from a Federal launch range, a launch operator must file a post launch report with the FAA no later than 90 days after the launch, unless an FAA launch site safety assessment shows that the Federal launch range creates a post launch report that contains the information required by this section.
( b ) For a launch operator launching from a non-Federal launch site, a launch operator must file a post launch report with the FAA no later than 90 days after the launch.
( c ) The post launch report must: ( 1 ) Identify any discrepancy or anomaly that occurred during the launch countdown and flight;
( 2 ) Identify any deviation from any term of the license or any event otherwise material to public safety, and each corrective action to be implemented before any future flight;
( 3 ) For the launch of launch vehicle flown with a flight safety system, identify any flight environment not consistent with the maximum predicted environment as required by D 417.7(b) and any measured wind profiles not consistent with the predictions used for the launch, as required by § 417.7(g)(3); and
( 4 ) For the launch of an unguided suborbital launch vehicle, identify the actual impact location of all impacting stages and any impacting components, and provide a comparison of actual and predicted nominal performance.
[Doc. No. FAA-2000-7953, 71 FR 50537, Aug. 25, 2006, as amended by Amdt. 417, 73 FR 63630, Oct. 27, 2008]
§ 67.309 Neurologic. Neurologic standards for a third-class airman medical certificate are: ( a ) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of the following: ( 1 ) Epilepsy;
( 2 ) A disturbance of consciousness without satisfactory medical explanation of the cause; or
( 3 ) A transient loss of control of nervous system function(s) without satisfactory medical explanation of the cause.
( b ) No other seizure disorder, disturbance of consciousness, or neurologic condition that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition involved, finds— ( 1 ) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
( 2 ) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
# L_2006005EN.01002002.xml

| 10.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/20

---

Corrigendum to Directive 96/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 on textile names

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 32 of 3 February 1997
  )

On page 48, in Annex II, in the third column under Item 19:

for:

| ‘19 | Acetate | 19,00 ’, |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘19

Acetate

19,00 ’,

read:

| ‘19 | Acetate | 9,00 ’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘19

Acetate

9,00 ’.

---
§ 295.50 Enumerated unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition. ( a ) Violations of this Part shall be considered to constitute unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712.
( b ) In addition to paragraph (a) of this section, the following enumerated practices, among others, by an air charter broker are unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712: ( 1 ) Misrepresentations that may induce members of the public to reasonably believe that the air charter broker is a direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier when that is not the case.
( 2 ) Misrepresentations as to the quality or kind of service or type of aircraft.
( 3 ) Misrepresentations as to the time of departure or arrival, points served, route to be flown, stops to be made, or total trip-time from point of departure to destination.
( 4 ) Misrepresentations as to the qualifications of pilots or safety record or certification of pilots, aircraft, or air carriers.
( 5 ) Misrepresentations that passengers are directly insured when they are not so insured. For example, where the only insurance in force is that protecting the direct air carrier or air charter broker in event of liability.
( 6 ) Misrepresentations as to fares or charges for air transportation or services in connection therewith.
( 7 ) Misrepresentations as to membership in or involvement with an organization that audits air charter brokers, direct air carriers, or direct foreign air carriers, or that the air charter broker or any direct carriers to be used for a particular flight meets a standard set by an auditing organization.
( 8 ) Representing that a contract for a specified direct air carrier, direct foreign air carrier, aircraft, flight, or time has been arranged without a binding commitment with a direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier for the furnishing of such transportation as represented.
( 9 ) Selling or contracting for air transportation while knowing or having reason to know or believe that such air transportation cannot be legally performed by the direct air carrier or foreign direct air carrier that is to perform the air transportation.
( 10 ) Misrepresentations as to the requirements that must be met by charterers to qualify for charter flights.
( 11 ) Using or displaying or permitting or suffering to be used or displayed the name, trade name, slogan or any abbreviation thereof, of the air charter broker in advertisements, on or in places of business, or on or in aircraft or any other place in connection with the name of an air carrier or foreign air carrier or with services in connection with air transportation, in such manner that it may mislead or confuse potential consumers with respect to the status of the air charter broker.
§ 93.81 Applicability and description of area. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 52362 , June 24, 2024.
Cross Reference
This amendment was delayed until Oct. 31, 2024 at 89 FR 56821 , July 11, 2024.
Cross Reference
Link to a correction published at 89 FR 56821 , July 11, 2024.
The Valparaiso, Florida Terminal Area is designated as follows: ( a ) North-South Corridor. The North-South Corridor includes the airspace extending upward from the surface up to, but not including, 18,000 feet MSL, bounded by a line beginning at: Latitude 30°42′51′′ N., Longitude 86°38′02′′ W.; to Latitude 30°43′18′′ N., Longitude 86°27′37′′ W.; to Latitude 30°37′01′′ N., Longitude 86°27′37′′ W.; to Latitude 30°37′01′′ N., Longitude 86°25′30′′ W.; to Latitude 30°33′01′′ N., Longitude 86°25′30′′ W.; to Latitude 30°33′01′′ N., Longitude 86°25′00′′ W.; to Latitude 30°25′01′′ N., Longitude 86°25′00′′ W.; to Latitude 30°25′01′′ N., Longitude 86°38′12′′ W.; to Latitude 30°29′02′′ N., Longitude 86°38′02′′ W.; to point of beginning.
( b ) East-West Corridor—The East-West Corridor is divided into three sections to accommodate the different altitudes as portions of the corridor underlie restricted areas R-2915C, R-2919B, and R-2914B. ( 1 ) The west section would include that airspace extending upward from the surface to but not including 8,500 feet MSL, bounded by a line beginning at: Latitude 30°22′47′′ N., Longitude 86°51′30′′ W.: then along the shoreline to Latitude 30°23′46′′ N., Longitude 86°38′15′′ W.; to Latitude 30°20′51′′ N., Longitude 86°38′50′′ W.; then 3 NM from and parallel to the shoreline to Latitude 30°19′31′′ N., Longitude 86°51′30′′ W.; to the beginning.
( 2 ) The center section would include that airspace extending upward from the surface to but not including 18,000 feet MSL, bounded by a line beginning at: Latitude 30°25′01′′ N., Longitude 86°38′12′′ W.; to Latitude 30°25′01′′ N., Longitude 86°25′00′′ W.; to Latitude 30°25′01′′ N., Longitude 86°22′26′′ W.; to Latitude 30°19′46′′ N., Longitude 86°23′45′′ W.; then 3 NM from and parallel to the shoreline to Latitude 30°20′51′′ N., Longitude 86°38′50′′ W.; to Latitude 30°23′46′′ N., Longitude 86°38′15′′ W.; to the beginning.
( 3 ) The east section would include that airspace extending upward from the surface to but not including 8,500 feet MSL, bounded by a line beginning at:
Latitude 30°25′01′′ N., Longitude 86°22′26′′ W.; to Latitude 30°22′01′′ N., Longitude 86°08′00′′ W.; to Latitude 30°19′16′′ N., Longitude 85°56′00′′ W.; to Latitude 30°11′01′′ N., Longitude 85°56′00′′ W.; then 3 NM from and parallel to the shoreline to Latitude 30°19′46′′ N., Longitude 86°23′45′′ W.; to the beginning.
[Amdt. 93-70, 59 FR 46154, Sept. 6, 1994, as amended by Amdt. 93-82, 68 FR 9795, Feb. 28, 2003]
**Exhibit
      32.2**








**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 WT Holdings Corporation (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ke Huang,
      Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
      knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Ke
                  HuangKe
                    Huang
                  Principal
                    Accounting Officer
                  May
                      15, 2006





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
      and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
      document.
§ 101.10 Hearings. ( a ) Except in extraordinary situations the hearing is open to the public and usually conducted in the Region where the charge originated. A duly designated administrative law judge presides over the hearing. The Government's case is conducted by an attorney attached to the Board's Regional Office, who has the responsibility of presenting the evidence in support of the complaint. The rules of evidence applicable in the district courts of the United States under the Rules of Civil Procedure adopted by the Supreme Court are, so far as practicable, controlling. Counsel for the General Counsel, all parties to the proceeding, and the administrative law judge have the power to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence into the record. They may also submit briefs, engage in oral argument, and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the administrative law judge. The attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence material to any matter under investigation may be compelled by subpoena.
( b ) The functions of all administrative law judges and other Board agents or employees participating in decisions in conformity with section 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 557) are conducted in an impartial manner and any such administrative law judge, agent, or employee may at any time withdraw if he or she deems himself or herself disqualified because of bias or prejudice. The Board's attorney has the burden of proof of violations of section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act and section 222(f) of the Telegraph Merger Act. In connection with hearings subject to the provisions of section 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 556): ( 1 ) No sanction is imposed or rule or order issued except upon consideration of the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by any party and as supported by and in accordance with the preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.
( 2 ) Every party has the right to present its case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.
( 3 ) Where any decision rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, any party is on timely request afforded a reasonable opportunity to show the contrary.
( 4 ) Subject to the approval of the administrative law judge, all parties to the proceeding voluntarily may enter into a stipulation dispensing with a verbatim written transcript of record of the oral testimony adduced at the hearing and providing for the waiver by the respective parties of their right to file with the Board exceptions to the findings of fact (but not to conclusions of law or recommended orders) in the administrative law judge's decision.