alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 27, 2010 

Honorable Ray LaHood ^ ^'S o 

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation ^ o§- n 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE ^ cyWashington D.C. '"^ 

Dear Secretary LaHood; 

This letter is sent to you in support of the proposal and application of Ventura County/Oxnard 

Airport to the Department of Transportation for a grant under the Small Community Air Service 

Development Program 

Ventura County/Oxnard Airport has requested that Horizon Air consider air service between 

Oxnard Airport and San Jose International Airport. Since Horizon Air does not serve Oxnard 

Airport, this will be a risky venture. To offset this risk, we support the development of a strong 

incentive package by Ventura County/Oxnard Airport that will include a revenue guarantee, local 

advertising and marketing, airport fee waivers, and a pre-purchased ticket program by local 

businesses. 

New air service in the Oxnard-San Jose market will not only depend on a strong incentive 

package and good passenger response but it will also depend on the financial health of the 

airline, the availability of aircraft to fly the new route, and the competitive situation in the market 

and other factors beyond our control. 

Horizon Air has many requests from communities and airports for new air service and even 

though the passenger demand forecast for Oxnard Airport meets our requirements, we will not 

give Oxnard Airport a high priority In our expansion program without a strong incentive program 

similar to the current request of Ventura County/Oxnard Airport. The award of this grant request 

will help reduce the risk and influence our decision regarding service in the Oxnard-San Jose 

market. 

Horizon Air looks forward to working with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the 

Ventura County/Oxnard Airport on this air service initiative. Please contact me if you have any 

questions concerning this letter of support and any specifics about Horizon Air. 

Sincerely yours, 

DanRusso 

Vice President of Marketing and Communications 

||,,ii,..., , \r. - l'( J 'i.. - f.;;'!' • ><;,,(!. . \ \ \ ";-i !
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30098-30099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11634]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL00-71-000]


City of Detroit, Michigan v. The Detroit Edison Company; Notice 
of Complaint

May 4, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 2, 2000, The City of Detroit, Michigan 
(Detroit) submitted a Complaint pursuant to Sections 206 and 306 of the 
Federal Power Act against the Detroit Edison Company (DECo). The 
Complaint alleges that DECo has improperly applied a penalty charge to 
certain power delivered by DECo to Detroit on July 27, 1999; that the 
parties' contract does not and should not provide for a penalty charge 
in the circumstances at issue.
    Copies of the filing were served upon the Respondents and the 
Michigan Public Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules and 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
or protests must be filed on or before May 22, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet athttp://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers

[[Page 30099]]

to the compliant shall also be due on or before May 22, 2000.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11634 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[LETTERHEAD OF PERRIN FORDREE & COMPANY, P.C. OF TROY MICHIGAN]




CONSENT OF ENDEPENDENT CEERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As Independent  Public  Accountants,  we hereby consent to the  incorporation by
reference in this  registration  statment of our report dated  October 20, 2000,
included in Gateway Distributors,  Ltd. Form 10-KSB for the years ended December
31,  1999  and  1998,  and  to  all  references  to  our  Firm  included  in the
Registration Statement.



PERRIN, FORDREE & COMPANY, P.C.


/s/ Perrin, Fordree & Company P.C.


February 8, 2001
Troy, Michigan
Editorial Note on Part 45
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 45 appear at 74 FR 53394, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 45.10 Marking. No person may mark a product or article in accordance with this subpart unless— ( a ) That person produced the product or article — ( 1 ) Under part 21, subpart F, G, K, or O of this chapter; or
( 2 ) For export to the United States under the provisions of an agreement between the United States and another country or jurisdiction for the acceptance of products and articles; and
( b ) That product or article conforms to its approved design, and is in a condition for safe operation; and, for a TSO article; that TSO article meets the applicable performance standards.
[Doc. No. FAA-2006-25877, Amdt. 45-26, 74 FR 53394, Oct. 16, 2009]
#### Annette Murphy, Appellant, v Wilson Ogletree, Individually and Doing Business as CNY Enterprises, Inc., Respondent.

[697 NYS2d 893]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell on ice on the sidewalk at the Federal Building in Syracuse, New York. Defendant had a contract with the General Services Administration to remove snow from the parking lot and sidewalk areas. Defendant established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he did not assume a duty of reasonable care to plaintiff by virtue of his snow removal contract with the General Services Administration *(see, Roesch v Hillick,*247 AD2d 927, 928, *lv denied*92 NY2d 808; *Autrino v Hausrath’s Landscape Maintenance,*231 AD2d 943, *lv denied*
      *86189 NY2d 812), and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Tormey, III, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.
§ 171.255 Requests for IFR procedures. ( a ) Each person who requests an IFR procedure based on an ISMLS facility that he owns must submit the following information with that request: ( 1 ) A description of the facility and evidence that the equipment meets the performance requirements of §§ 171.259, 171.261, 171.263, 171.265, 171.267, and 171.269, and is installed in accordance with § 171.271.
( 2 ) A proposed procedure for operating the facility.
( 3 ) A proposed maintenance organization and a maintenance manual that meets the requirements of § 171.273.
( 4 ) A statement of intent to meet the requirements of this subpart.
( 5 ) A showing that the ISMLS facility has an acceptable level of operational reliability, maintainability and acceptable standard of performance. Previous equivalent operational experience with a facility with identical design and operational characteristics will be considered in showing compliance with this paragraph.
( b ) After the FAA inspects and evaluates the ISMLS facility, it advises the owner of the results and of any required changes in the ISMLS facility or in the maintenance manual or maintenance organization. The owner must then correct the deficiencies, if any, and operate the ISMLS facility for an inservice evaluation by the FAA.
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), the undersigned, David J Cutler, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of Multi-Link Telecommunications, Inc., (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report Form 10QSB for the nine months ended June 30, 2003
of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1034, and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:  October 11, 2004





By  /s/David J Cutler
    -----------------------------------
    David J Cutler
    Chief Executive Officer
    Chief Financial Officer





4

2
EXHIBIT 31.2

Certification of CFO Pursuant to
Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Robert Chmiel, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 of Consolidated Energy, Inc.;

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;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  April 7, 2006

/s/Robert Chmiel

Robert Chmiel

Interim Chief Financial Officer







1
```

[113th Congress Public Law 115]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 1178]]

Public Law 113-115
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   232 Southwest Johnson Avenue in Burleson, Texas, as the ``Sergeant 
  William Moody Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: June 9, 2014 -  [H.R. 
                                3060]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SERGEANT WILLIAM MOODY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 232 Southwest Johnson Avenue in Burleson, Texas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Sergeant William Moody Post Office 
Building''.
    (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 ``Sergeant 
William Moody Post Office Building''.

    Approved June 9, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3060:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                  <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 31996R2163 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996R2163

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2163/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning the stopping of fishing for cod by vessels flying the flag of France **

*
Official Journal L 290 , 13/11/1996 P. 0003 - 0003 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2163/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning the stopping of fishing for cod by vessels flying the flag of France

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2870/95 (2), and in particular Article 21 (3) thereof,

Whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 3074/95 of 22 December 1995 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1996 and certain conditions under which they may be fished (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1952/96 (4), provides for cod quotas for 1996;

Whereas, in order to ensure compliance with the provisions relating to the quantitative limitations on catches of stocks subject to quotas, it is necessary for the Commission to fix the date by which catches made by vessels flying the flag of a Member State are deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated;

Whereas, according to the information communicated to the Commission, catches of cod in the waters of ICES divisions I, II b by vessels flying the flag of France or registered in France have reached the quota allocated for 1996; whereas France has prohibited fishing for this stock as from 15 October 1996; whereas it is therefore necessary to abide by that date,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Catches of cod in the waters of ICES divisions I, II b by vessels flying the flag of France or registered in France are deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated to France for 1996.

Fishing for cod in the waters of ICES divisions I, II b by vessels flying the flag of France or registered in France is prohibited, as well as the retention on board, the transhipment and the landing of such stock captured by the abovementioned vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply with effect from 15 October 1996.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 November 1996.

For the Commission

Emma BONINO

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 261, 20. 10. 1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 301, 14. 12. 1995, p. 1.

(3) OJ No L 330, 30. 12. 1995, p. 1.

(4) OJ No L 258, 11. 10. 1996, p. 1.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certification of CEO Pursuant to**

**Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Stewart York, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Inverted Paradigms Corporation (“Inverted”); 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement 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 annual report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of (“Inverted”) as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4. (“Inverted”) other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))for (“Inverted”) and have: 

 

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to (“Inverted”) is made known to us, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) [Omitted in relianceon SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986 Section III. E.]; 

 

(c)Evaluated the effectiveness of (“Inverted”) disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d) Disclosed in thisreport any change in (“Inverted”) internal control over financial reporting that occurred during our most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financialreporting; and 

 

5. (“Inverted”) other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to our auditors and the audit committee of our Board of Directors: 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: February 8, 2007
#### § 382.74 How many service animals must a carrier transport in the cabin of aircraft?

You are not required to accept more than two service animals for a single passenger with a disability.

[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2018-0068, 85 FR 79774, Dec. 10, 2020]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1216

JAMES R. BAILES,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, 

District Judge. (3:09-cv-00146)

Submitted: June 14, 2011 Decided: June 22, 2011

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd A. Biddle, Melissa Eakle Leasure, BAILES, CRAIG & YON, 

PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Matthew J. 

Perry, LAMP, O’DELL, BARTRAM, LEVY, TRAUTWEIN & PERRY, P.L.L.C., 

Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James R. Bailes appeals the district court’s orders 

granting summary judgment for Erie Insurance Property and 

Casualty Company (“Erie”) in Bailes’ declaratory judgment action

seeking coverage on two insurance contracts. Bailes sought to 

determine whether policies issued by Erie provided coverage 

against claims arising from an accidental death as well as 

injuries to others in a rental property owned by Bailes and his

brother. Bailes also appeals the district court’s denial of his 

subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. 

We review an award of summary judgment de novo. See

PCS Phosphate Co. v. Norfolk S. Corp., 559 F.3d 212, 217 (4th 

Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 

(1986). In determining whether the moving party has shown that 

there is no genuine issue of material fact, we must assess the 

factual evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom in the 

light most favorable to the non-moving party. Robinson v. 

Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 607 (4th Cir. 2010). We review the denial 

of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment 
3

for abuse of discretion. Sloas v. CSX Transp., Inc., 616 F.3d 

380, 388 (4th Cir. 2010). 

After reviewing the record, we agree with the district 

court that the express terms of the Ultracover Home Protector 

insurance policy and the Personal Catastrophe Liability 

Endorsement exclude coverage for the claims asserted against 

Bailes that give rise to this litigation. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Walter McMillan, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[699 NYS2d 346]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about July 7, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Neither of plaintiffs experts stated that the interlocking safety mechanism, which the 12-year-old decedent deliberately disengaged to gain entry to the elevator shaft for the purpose of engaging in the dangerous activity of “elevator surfing”, was an insufficient safety device. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue as to whether defendant had neglected to take reasonable measures to prevent the decedent from gaining access to the elevator shaft *(see, Tillmon v New York City Hous. Auth.,*203 AD2d 19, 20). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the attractive nuisance doctrine has no application to the facts at bar. Plaintiff was old enough to be cognizant of the very great and obvious risks involved in “elevator surfing” *(see, de Pena v New York City Tr. Auth.,*236 AD2d 209, 210, *lv denied*90 NY2d 808; *cf., Schwartz v Erpf Estate,*255 AD2d 35). Indeed, the proximate cause of decedent’s death was his *154own willful behavior in engaging in an obviously hazardous and illegal activity (see, *Tillmon v New York City Hous. Auth.,*203 AD2d, *supra,*at 20). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.