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



### From: Levi Tappan [mailto:ltappan@citvofoage.org] 

### Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:43 PM 

## To: EAS (OST)

. Subject: Boutique Air Service in Page

ToWhom it may concern, The City Council is very divided overthe issue of EAS to Page. Iwould like you to consider Boutique Airfor a couple reasons. Numberone reliability. Great Lakes has a pattern ofcancelling flights, they are essentially not providing the service thattax payers are paying for. I am happyto report this is not a Page issue. As Mr. Voss has state this is affecting all ofGLA routes. GLA is not providing essential se;vice to any communities. On a scale From A to F the Better Business Bureau grades them aDwith 36 complaints in 3 years. BBB indicate that this business has a pattern ofcomplaints concerning the cancellation offlights with shortwarning due to circumstances involving the availability ofcrew members. BBB has received 12 disputes ofa similar nature beginning January 1, 2014 to date. Specifically, consumers have alleged that the business routinely cancels flights without notification, that the flights are cancelled with little to nowarning, and often leave consumerswith no time to find alternative forms oftransportation. Consumers state thatthese cancellations are due to flight crew issues, and are notweather related. Consumers also state that customer service representatives are notwilling to provide refunds for these cancellations. In addition, consumers allege that attempts to contact the business are not successful orthat messages are not returned. At the council presentation when asked aboutflight competition rates on three separate questions, Mr. Voss again spoke about industry trends and did not give a rate. Either as the CEO he does not know or is too embarrassed to tell us. ConsumerAffairs.com rates Great Lakes: 1out of5 stars This is also affecting medical services to Page: Page Hospital flew a Surgeon to Denver (for GLA Denverto Page) because there are usually less cancellations. It was cancelled. Hewas rerouted to PHX. PHX to Page was then Ca. Page Hospital now regularly chartering flights, for doctors, because ofGLA unreliability. Dermatologist and ENT doctors no longercome to Page from Phoenix because ofunreliability. These stories are not rare or unique to Page. Thankyou foryour consideration ofthis matter. I knowwe can do betterand I know DOT can do better. 

### Levi Tappan City Councilor P.O. Box 1180 697 Vista Ave. Page, Arizona 86040 928.660.8868http://www.bbb.org/wyoming-and-northern-colorado/business-reviews/airlines/great-lakes-airlines-in-cheyenne-wv46004332/ http://www.consumeraffairs.com/travel/great-lakes-airlines.html**~·**
# EUR-Lex - 31996R1419 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996R1419

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1419/96 of 22 July 1996 fixing the amount of the private storage aid for the squid Loligo patagonica **

*
Official Journal L 182 , 23/07/1996 P. 0011 - 0011 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1419/96 of 22 July 1996 fixing the amount of the private storage aid for the squid Loligo patagonica

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 of 17 December 1992 on the common organization of the market in fishery and aquaculture products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3318/94 (2), and in particular Article 16 thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1690/94 (3) lays down detailed rules of application of Regulation (EEC) No 3259/92 for the granting of private storage aid for certain fishery products;

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 2896/94 (4) establishes the rates of interest to be used for calculating the costs of financing intervention measures comprising buying in, storage and disposal, i.e. 6 %;

Whereas the average price for the squid Loligo patagonica has been below 85 % of its guide price for a significant period;

Whereas it is therefore necessary to fix the amount of the private storage aid for the product concerned;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. The private storage aid referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 shall be granted for the quantities of Loligo patagonica offered for sale during the period 1 October 1995 to 31 December 1995 subject to a maximum quantity of 3 399 tonnes.

2. The amount of the aid for a maximum storage period of three months shall be ECU 55/tonne net weight for the first month and ECU 27/tonne net weight for the second and third months.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 22 July 1996.

For the Commission

Emma BONINO

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 388, 31. 12. 1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 350, 31. 12. 1994, p. 15.

(3) OJ No L 179, 13. 7. 1994, p. 4.

(4) OJ No L 305, 30. 11. 1994, p. 12.
#### ROCHESTER CANDY WORKS CO v BERMAN

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9807.

Decided March 25, 1929

Frey, Oliver & Maerlander, Cleveland, for Candy Works.

Wm L Cohen, Cleveland, for Bgrman.

PER CURIAM

The affidavit upon which the order of attachment was issued set forth a ground in the language of the statute. It is the settled law of Ohio that a cause of attachment may be sufficiently stated in the language of the statute. Emmitt v Yeigh, 13 OS. 335.

We can readily concede that if the defendant had offered some evidence in support of the motion to dissolve the order of attachment either in the form of affidavit or by oral evidence, showing that the ground of attachment set forth in the. affidavit was untrue, that the trial court would be properly within its province to sustain said motion, but in the absence of any evidence whatsoever either by affidavit or otherwise, offered in support of the motion to dissolve the order of attachment, it is error for the trial court to sustain said motion.

Seville v. Wagner, 46 OS. 52.

Baer, Harkeimer & Co. vs Otto, 34 OS. 11.

Garner v. White, 32 OS. 192.

The judgment of the Municipal Court is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Vickery, PJ, Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
Exhibit 24.4


                               KEYSPAN CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



     WHEREAS,  KeySpan  Corporation,  a New York  corporation  (the  "Company"),
intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K as prescribed by
said Commission  pursuant to said Act and the rules and regulations  promulgated
thereunder.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in my capacity as a director of the Company,  I do hereby
appoint RONALD S. JENDRAS,  GERALD LUTERMAN,  JOHN J. BISHAR, JR. and MICHAEL J.
TAUNTON,  and each of them  severally,  as my  attorneys-in-fact  with  power to
execute  in my name and  place,  and in my  capacity  as a  director  of KeySpan
Corporation,  said Report,  any amendment to said Report and any other documents
required in connection  therewith,  and to file the same with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this power of attorney  this 6th day of
March, 2003.




                                                      /s/Alan H. Fishman
                                                      ------------------
                                                      Alan H. Fishman
#### EX PARTE STARR.

(Decided February 3, 1916.)

Appeal from Tallapoosa Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Whiteside.

■ Bulger & Rylance, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

Defendant admitted to. bail on authority of *Franks v. State,*11 Ala. App. 70, 65 South. 856. Reversed and remanded.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of RAKO Capital Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Gary M. Fuchs, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                                     /s/ Gary M. Fuchs
                                                     -----------------
                                                     Gary M. Fuchs
                                                     Chief Executive Officer

Dated: March 31, 2003
#### EMERY v TOLEDO (city) et

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co

No 2185.

Decided Feb 25, 1929

Charles A Thatcher, Toledo, for Emery.

George W Ritter, Dir of Law and Dudley F Smith, both of Toledo, for city.

*344LLOYD, J.

Plaintiff herein contends, and contends rightly, because the Supreme Court has so held, that: “Owners of property may judicially inquire whether the specified use is a public use or whether such use will justify or sustain the compulsory taking of private property” and that “no provision is made for the making or trial of such issue” in the probate court, that court being without authority to render a judgupon such issue, if made”. Sargent *vs.*Cincinnati, 110 Ohio St., 444. And this was the law on October 17, 1928, when the application was filed by the city of Toledo in the probate court to secure the assessment of the compensation which it should pay to Mrs. Emery for the appropriated property. The plaintiff herein, with this knowledge, filed her answer and participated in the proceedings had in the probate court and we cannot state our conclusion in words more apt than those used by Danforth, J., in In Re Application of Edward Cooper, 93 N. Y., 507, at page. 512.

So, in the instant case, the plaintiff submitted to and invoked the jurisdiction of the probate court with respect to the subject matter of the controversy there pending, viz: th¿ assessment of the compensation for the property owned by her and appropriated by the city, thereby causing the additional cost and expense incident thereto. She took her “chance for a satisfactory valuation” of her property and having done so can not now invoke the assistance of a court of equity to avóid the result of the “chance” so taken.

To assume as proven the claim of plaintiff that a part of the property so appropriated by the city of Toledo was taken for a private and not for a public use, and therefore violative of the due process and equal protection . clauses of the 14th amendment of the Federal Constitution, would not affect the conclusion reached, for the reason that constitutional as well as statutory provisions may be waived by one who might otherwise be entitled to claim their protection.

> Tone vs. Columbus, 39 Ohio St., 281;

> 20 C. J., 549, Sec. 37;

> In re application of Edward Cooper, 93 N. Y., 507;

> People ex rel McLaughlin vs. Police

> •Commissioners, 174 N. Y., 450, 456;

> Mayor vs. M. R. Co., 143 N. Y., 1-26.

Having elected to participate in the proceedings in the probate court instead of at once invoking the injunctive aid of the court of common pleas, plaintiff has waived the right and is estopped now to claim that a constitutional provision has been violated, and that the appropriation of her property and the assessment of compensation to be paid to her therefor are illegal and void.

The amended petition of the plaintiff and the amendment filed thereto in this court are dismissed and judgment is ren_ dered against her for costs.

Williams and Richards, JJ, concur.
mscdex3202.htm


     


    



    EXHIBIT
32.02

    


    


    CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter
Aspect L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Christian Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter
Management LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     

    
      	
              (1)  

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

            


    

     

    
      	
              (2)  

            	
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.

            


    

     

    


     

    


     

    


     

    


    


    


    
      	 
      	
              By:

            	
              /s/
      Christian Angstadt

            	 
      
	 
      	
              Name:

            	
              Christian
      Angstadt

            	 
      
	 
      	
              Title:

            	
              Chief
      Financial Officer of

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      	
              Demeter
      Management LLC,

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      	
              general
      partner of the registrant

            	 
      
	 
      	
              Date:

            	
              November
      12, 2009
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Terry G. Roussel and Gary W. Nielson, do each herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge, theQuarterly Report of Cornerstone Realty Fund, LLC on Form 10-Q for the twelvemonth period ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatinformation contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of CornerstoneRealty Fund, LLC.

 
|                      | /s/ TERRY G. ROUSSEL                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:   May 11, 2004 | Terry G. Roussel                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|                      | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive  Officer) of  Cornerstone Ventures, Inc.,  Managing  Member of  Cornerstone Industrial Properties, LLC, the Managing Member of  Cornerstone Realty Fund, LLC |

 

 
|                      | /s/ GARY W. NIELSON                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:   May 11, 2004 | Gary W. Nielson                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial  Officer) of  Cornerstone Ventures, Inc.,  Managing  Member of  Cornerstone Industrial Properties, LLC, the Managing Member of  Cornerstone Realty Fund, LLC |

 

----
§ 15.300 How are claims involving the Job Corps initiated? ( a ) Claims involving the Job Corps, including claims against Job Corps Centers run by other Federal agencies, claims by third parties involving the acts or omissions of students of Job Corps, and claims involving the loss of personal property of students of Job Corps should be submitted to the appropriate Job Corps Regional Office. Claims under the MPCECA for non-Department Federal employees should be sent to and must be handled by their respective Federal employer, subject to that employer's procedures. FTCA claims over $25,000 should be sent to and must be handled by the Counsel for Claims and Compensation under subpart B of this part.
( b ) The Job Corps Regional Office shall investigate all facts of the claim, including accident and medical reports, interview witnesses, and, where necessary, prepare the appropriate administrative reports.
( c ) Following the investigation, the Job Corps Regional Office will determine the appropriate reviewing official and if necessary forward the claim to the appropriate office immediately with all currently available documentation, as described in § 15.301.
§ 460.3 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart applies to: ( 1 ) An applicant for a license or permit under this chapter who proposes to have flight crew on board a vehicle or proposes to employ a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
( 2 ) An operator licensed or permitted under this chapter who has flight crew on board a vehicle or who employs a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.
( 3 ) A crew member participating in an activity authorized under this chapter.
( b ) Each member of the crew must comply with all requirements of the laws of the United States that apply to crew.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of Fortune
Entertainment Corporation, that, to his knowledge, the quarterly report of the
company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the company's financial condition and results of operations.


November 21, 2005


/s/ Phillip Verrill
Phillip Verrill, Chief Financial Officer
#### § 437.95 Inspection of additional reusable suborbital rockets.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76728, Sept. 19, 2024.

A permittee may launch or reenter additional reusable suborbital rockets of the same design under the permit after the FAA inspects each additional reusable suborbital rocket.
#### § 1600.101 Cross-reference to employee ethical conduct standards and financial disclosure regulations.

Employees of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are subject to the executive branch-wide Standards of Ethical Conduct at 5 CFR part 2635, the EEOC regulation at 5 CFR part 7201, which supplements the executive branch-wide standards, and the executive branch-wide financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634.

[61 FR 7067, Feb. 26, 1996]
#### ELWELL v INDUST COMM

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co

No 2167.

Decided Jan 28, 1929

J H Boyd, Toledo, for Elwell.

E C Turner, Atty Gen, Columbus, and G W Ritter, Toledo, for Comm.

*185LLOYD, J.

The right to file a petition in the court of common pleas in a case such as this, is governed by Section 1465-90, G. C. This section provides that if the Industrial Commission finds that it has no jurisdiction to inquire into the claim or, in other words, disallow the claim, the plaintiff may, within thirty days after receipt of notice of such finding, file an application with the Commission for a rehearing of his claim. It further provides for the, manner of introducing evidence. If the Commission again finds it has no jurisdiction of the claim, and no authority to inquire into the extent of disability or amount of compensation claimed, then a petition may be filed in the court of common pleas within sixty days after receipt of notice of such action of the Commission. The amended petition of plaintiff clearly shows that the application for rehearing was not filed within the thirty day period provided by statute. The plaintiff attempts to excuse the failure to file an application for rehearing within the time limited, on the ground that she was not aware that the same had to be filed within any particular time, but since one may not avoid the effect of a statutory provision simply by pleading, ignorance thereof, it is evident that this would not operate as a waiver of the explicit provisions in this regard of Sec. 1465-90 G. C. Since the application of plaintiff fqr re-hearing was filed more than thirty days after receiving notice from the Industrial Commission of the final disposition of the claim filed by her, the apDlication for a rehearing was properly denied by the Commission, and it is apparent that plaintiff lostjher right to file a petition on appeal in the court of common pleas, and that therefore the demurrer was properly sustained.

Judgment of the court of common pleas is .affirmed.

Richards’and Williams, JJ, concur.
§ 1410.5 Special procedures: Medical records. ( a ) If medical records are requested for inspection which, in the opinion of the Director of Administration, may be harmful to the requestor if personally inspected by him, such records will be furnished only to a licensed physician, designated to receive such records by the requestor. Prior to such disclosure, the requestor must furnish a signed written authorization to the Service to make such disclosure and the physician must furnish a written request to the Director of Administration for the physician's receipt of such records.
( b ) Verification of the requestor's signature will be accomplished by a comparison of signatures if such authorization is not executed within the presence of a Service representative.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. HYKEEM BOYD, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 787 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 31st day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.