alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BOLICK-GILLMAN COMPANY, a Nevada corporation, Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL BAKING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Appellee.

No. 16650.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

May 2, 1960.

*650Morton Galane, Las Vegas, Nev., for appellant.

G. William Coulthard, Las Vegas, Nev., Loeb & Loeb, Francis G. Stapleton, Lawrence Parke Watkin, Robert A. Holtzman, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before POPE, BARNES and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This action is brought under § 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 15, to secure treble damages for violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1, and § 2(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 13. The District Court dismissed with prejudice the amended complaint of plaintiff for failure to state a claim upon which relief might be granted. Upon this appeal by plaintiff, we have concluded that such action was a premature disposition of the case in the light of the pleading and the potentials of proof.

Plaintiff alleged that it was a distributor of bakery products in Las Vegas, Nevada; that defendant was a manufacturer of bakery products operating out of Salt Lake City, Utah, maintaining a distributor in Las Vegas with whom plaintiff was in competition; that defendant maintained other distributors in communities in Utah and Eastern Nevada; that in prices charged to its distributors during the period from June 30, 1955, to April 15, 1956, defendant discriminated in favor of its Las Vegas distributor and against its other distributors and that the higher prices charged to the other distributors were used by defendant to make up for the lower prices charged to the Las Vegas distributor; that such favorable price discrimination enabled the Las Vegas distributor to maintain the existing price level of bakery products in Las Vegas, while plaintiff, in attempting to compete at such price level; was compelled to incur losses in excess of the credit allowed it by its manufacturer; that plaintiff’s distributorship accordingly was cancelled on December 31, 1955, to plaintiff’s loss and damage.

Plaintiff also alleged in a separate count that the direct and necessary result of an agreement between defendant and its Las Vegas distributor was the fixing of a maximum resale price.

Appellee asserts that no causal connection is shown between the acts of defendant and the fact that plaintiff was put out of business. It may also be said that other allegations of the complaint serve to obscure such causal connection and to render unclear the purpose of defendant in its alleged discrimination and agreement.

It cannot be said, however, that it “appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 1957, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80. Dismissal of the action upon this pleading was not warranted. See 2 Moore, Federal Practice, § 1218 (2d Edition, 1948).

Reversed and remanded with instructions that the order dismissing the complaint with prejudice be set aside and for further proceedings.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4551 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4551

      To provide a cause of action for persons injured by rioting.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 9, 2020

  Mr. Cotton (for himself and Mrs. Loeffler) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To provide a cause of action for persons injured by rioting.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rioting Restitution Act''.

SEC. 2. CIVIL ACTION FOR INJURIES.

    (a) Cause of Action.--A person who suffers personal injury or whose 
property is damaged by a riot (as defined in section 2102 of title 18, 
United States Code) may bring a civil action in an appropriate district 
court of the United States against any person who--
            (1) caused the personal injury or property damage;
            (2) traveled in interstate or foreign commerce or used any 
        facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including the mail, 
        telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with the intent 
        to--
                    (A) incite the riot;
                    (B) organize, promote, encourage, participate in, 
                or carry on the riot;
                    (C) commit any act of violence in furtherance of 
                the riot; or
                    (D) aid or abet any person in inciting or 
                participating in or carrying on the riot or committing 
                any act of violence in furtherance of the riot; and
            (3) during the course of, or following, any such travel or 
        use performed or attempted to perform any other overt act for 
        any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of 
        paragraph (2).
    (b) Treble Damages.--A defendant in a civil action brought under 
subsection (a) shall be subject to treble damages.
                                 <all>
```
§ 65.16 Change of name: Replacement of lost or destroyed certificate. ( a ) An application for a change of name on a certificate issued under this part must be accompanied by the applicant's current certificate and the marriage license, court order, or other document verifying the change. The documents are returned to the applicant after inspection.
( b ) An application for a replacement of a lost or destroyed certificate is made by letter to the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Airman Certification Branch, Post Office Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. The letter must— ( 1 ) Contain the name in which the certificate was issued, the permanent mailing address (including zip code), social security number (if any), and date and place of birth of the certificate holder, and any available information regarding the grade, number, and date of issue of the certificate, and the ratings on it; and
( 2 ) Be accompanied by a check or money order for $2, payable to the Federal Aviation Administration.
( c ) An application for a replacement of a lost or destroyed medical certificate is made by letter to the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Aerospace Medical Certification Division, Post Office Box 26200, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, accompanied by a check or money order for $2.00.
( d ) A person whose certificate issued under this part or medical certificate, or both, has been lost may obtain a telegram from the FAA confirming that it was issued. The telegram may be carried as a certificate for a period not to exceed 60 days pending his receiving a duplicate certificate under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, unless he has been notified that the certificate has been suspended or revoked. The request for such a telegram may be made by prepaid telegram, stating the date upon which a duplicate certificate was requested, or including the request for a duplicate and a money order for the necessary amount. The request for a telegraphic certificate should be sent to the office prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, as appropriate. However, a request for both at the same time should be sent to the office prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section.
[Doc. No. 7258, 31 FR 13524, Oct. 20, 1966, as amended by Doc. No. 8084, 32 FR 5769, Apr. 11, 1967; Amdt. 65-16, 35 FR 14075, Sept. 4, 1970; Amdt. 65-17, 36 FR 2865, Feb. 11, 1971; Amdt. 65-52, 73 FR 43065, July 24, 2008]
§ 460.7 Operator training of crew. ( a ) *Implementation of training.* An operator must train each member of its crew and define standards for successful completion in accordance with § 460.5.
( b ) *Training device fidelity.* An operator must ( 1 ) Ensure that any crew-training device used to meet the training requirements realistically represents the vehicle's configuration and mission, or
( 2 ) Inform the crew member being trained of the differences between the two.
( c ) *Maintenance of training records.* An operator must continually update the crew training to ensure that it incorporates lessons learned from training and operational missions. An operator must— ( 1 ) Track each revision and update in writing; and
( 2 ) Document the completed training for each crew member and maintain the documentation for each active crew member.
( d ) *Current qualifications and training.* An operator must establish a recurrent training schedule and ensure that all crew qualifications and training required by § 460.5 are current before launch and reentry.
**Exhibit31.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David J. Moore, certify that:

     1.   Ihave reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of 24/7 Real Media, Inc.:

     2.   Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3.   Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

     4.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)                                  Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)                                 Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)                                  Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

     5.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)                                      Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)                                     Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: March 16, 2007
|        |   | /s/ DAVID J. MOORE                   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)        |

 

----
§ 67.203 Eye. Eye standards for a second-class airman medical certificate are: ( a ) Distant visual acuity of 20/20 or better in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses. If corrective lenses (spectacles or contact lenses) are necessary for 20/20 vision, the person may be eligible only on the condition that corrective lenses are worn while exercising the privileges of an airman certificate.
( b ) Near vision of 20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent, at 16 inches in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses. If age 50 or older, near vision of 20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent, at both 16 inches and 32 inches in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses.
( c ) Ability to perceive those colors necessary for the safe performance of airman duties.
( d ) Normal fields of vision.
( e ) No acute or chronic pathological condition of either eye or adnexa that interferes with the proper function of an eye, that may reasonably be expected to progress to that degree, or that may reasonably be expected to be aggravated by flying.
( f ) Bifoveal fixation and vergence-phoria relationship sufficient to prevent a break in fusion under conditions that may reasonably be expected to occur in performing airman duties. Tests for the factors named in this paragraph are not required except for persons found to have more than 1 prism diopter of hyperphoria, 6 prism diopters of esophoria, or 6 prism diopters of exophoria. If any of these values are exceeded, the Federal Air Surgeon may require the person to be examined by a qualified eye specialist to determine if there is bifoveal fixation and an adequate vergence-phoria relationship. However, if otherwise eligible, the person is issued a medical certificate pending the results of the examination.
Editorial Note on Part 380
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 380.40 Charter not to be performed unless in compliance with this part 380. ( a ) For all Public Charters other than foreign-originating charters organized by foreign charter operators: A direct air carrier shall not perform air transportation in connection with such a charter unless it has made a reasonable effort to verify that all provisions of this part have been complied with and that the charter operator's authority under this part has not been suspended by the Department.
( b ) For foreign-originating Public Charters organized by foreign charter operators: A direct air carrier shall not perform air transportation in connection with such a charter unless— ( 1 ) The charter is conducted in accordance with subpart B of this part and
( 2 ) The charter operator conforms to all requirements of this part that are applicable to charter operators within the Department's jurisdiction, other than §§ 380.25, 380.28, 380.30 through 380.36, and 380.50.
#### AKRON CANTON & YOUNGSTOWN RY CO v WHITTAKER

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1631.

Decided April 30, 1929

Waters, Andress, Hagelbarger, Wise & Maxon, Akron, for Ry Co.

Doolittle, Foust & Holden, Akron, for Whittaker.

*324WASHBURN, J.

A master owes a duty to his servants in reference to defects in the instrumentalities with which, and the place in which, the servants work, and that duty is not limited to such defects as the master knows about or such as have existed for such a time as that the master would likely know about, but includes such defects as the master, by the exercise of reasonable care, would know about. The master does not perform his full duty to his servents unless he exercises ordinary care and diligence in discovering defects, and it is the province of the jury to determine, in the first instance, whether, in a given case, the master, by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, should have discovered a given defect.

In this case the railway company was charged with notice of the defective condition of its track if it had existed “for such a length of time that it' would have observed its condition if it had exercised ordinary prudence on its part,” as the court charged in the general charge, rather than if it had existed for such a time that the railway company “would likely have known of such condition,” regardless of whether it made any inspection or exercised ordinary c,are in ascertaining the condition of its track, as the court was asked to charge in said request.

We hold that the refusal to give said request before argument w,as not error.

Funk, PJ, and Pardee, J, concur.
#### § 297.23 Waiver of sovereign immunity.

By accepting an approval registration form under this part, a carrier waives any right it may possess to assert any defense of sovereign immunity from suit in any action or proceeding instituted against the carrier in any court or other tribunal in the United States based upon any claim arising out of operations by the carrier under this part.
§ 91.1605 Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 77—Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Baghdad Flight Information Region (FIR) (ORBB). ( a ) *Applicability.* This section applies to the following persons: ( 1 ) All U.S. air carriers and U.S. commercial operators;
( 2 ) All persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and
( 3 ) All operators of civil aircraft registered in the United States, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.
( b ) *Flight prohibition.* Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, no person described in paragraph (a) of this section may conduct flight operations in the Baghdad Flight Information Region (FIR) (ORBB) at altitudes below Flight Level (FL) 320.
( c ) *Permitted operations.* This section does not prohibit persons described in paragraph (a) of this section from conducting flight operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB) at altitudes below FL320, provided that such flight operations occur under a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government (or under a subcontract between the prime contractor of the department, agency, or instrumentality, and the person described in paragraph (a) of this section) with the approval of the FAA, or under an exemption issued by the FAA. The FAA will consider requests for approval or exemption in a timely manner, with the order of preference being: first, for those operations in support of U.S. Government-sponsored activities; second, for those operations in support of government-sponsored activities of a foreign country with the support of a U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality; and third, for all other operations.
( d ) *Emergency situations.* In an emergency that requires immediate decision and action for the safety of the flight, the pilot in command of an aircraft may deviate from this section to the extent required by that emergency. Except for U.S. air carriers and commercial operators that are subject to the requirements of part 119, 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter, each person who deviates from this section must, within 10 days of the deviation, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays, submit to the responsible Flight Standards office a complete report of the operations of the aircraft involved in the deviation, including a description of the deviation and the reasons for it.
( e ) *Expiration.* This SFAR will remain in effect until October 26, 2024. The FAA may amend, rescind, or extend this SFAR, as necessary.
[Docket No. FAA-2018-0927, Amdt. No. 91-353A, 85 FR 65693, Oct. 16, 2020, as amended by Amdt. No. 91-353B, 87 FR 57390, Sept. 20, 2022]
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4762 

AN ACT 

To designate the airport traffic control tower located at 

Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro, 

North Carolina, as the ‘‘Senator Kay Hagan Airport 

Traffic Control Tower’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4762 ES

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The airport traffic control tower located at Piedmont 

3 Triad International Airport in Greensboro, North Caro4 lina, and any successor airport traffic control tower at that 

5 location, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Senator 

6 Kay Hagan Airport Traffic Control Tower’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the airport 

10 traffic control tower referred to in section 1 shall be 

11 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Senator Kay Hagan Air12 port Traffic Control Tower’’. 

Passed the Senate September 30 (legislative day, 

September 29), 2020. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4762 

AN ACT 

To designate the airport traffic control tower loKay Hagan Airport Traffic Control Tower’’. Greensboro, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Senator cated at Piedmont Triad International Airport in
EXHIBIT 32.1


                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

          In connection with this annual report of Ultrapetrol (Bahamas) Limited
          (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2004,
          as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
          hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the
          Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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 result of
               operations of the Company.

          This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.
          Section 1350, and not for any other purpose.

Dated:  May 1, 2005

/s/ Felipe Menendez Ross
--------------------------------
Felipe Menendez Ross

Director, Chief Executive
Officer, and President
KENNETH D. BARGAINEER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1838

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 3, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.

Kenneth D. Bargaineer, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.