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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 67344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27049]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting; New Time and Date of Proceeding

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting and Hearing; New Time and Date.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) published 
a document in the Federal Register of August 13, 2013, (78 FR 49262), 
concerning notice of intent to convene a public meeting and hearing on 
October 22, 2013, at the Knoxville Convention Center, 701 Henley 
Street, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 with regard to safety-related 
matters at defense nuclear facilities at the Y-12 National Security 
Complex. Due to the lapse in appropriations and subsequent federal 
government shutdown, the Board decided to postpone the meeting and 
hearing to a future date. The Board was unable to publish notice of the 
postponement in the Federal Register due to the shutdown. The Board has 
now decided on a new time and date for the proceeding. There is no 
change to the hearing location or the matters to be considered that 
were originally described in the Board's August 13, 2013, notice cited 
above.

NEW TIME AND DATE OF HEARING AND MEETING: Session I: 8:00 a.m.-12:00 
p.m., December 10, 2013; Session II: 2:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m., December 10, 
2013.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Mark Welch, Acting General 
Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue 
NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a 
toll-free number.

    Dated: November 6, 2013.
Peter S. Winokur,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2013-27049 Filed 11-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
```
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2010149EN.01002801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 15.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 149/28 |

---

Corrigendum to Directive 97/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles

(
[Official Journal of the European Communities L 226 of 18 August 1997](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_1997_226_R_TOC)
)

On page 287, Chapter 7, Anti-tampering measures for two-wheel mopeds and motorcycles, Annex, point 2.2:

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘2.2. | The manufacturer must declare that modifications of the following characteristics will not increase the maximum power of a motorcycle by more than 10 % or ...’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘2.2. | The manufacturer must declare that modifications of the following characteristics will not increase the maximum power of a category B motorcycle by more than 10 % or ...’. |

---
AAM-11-332-E 

June 29, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10302 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0581 

Mr. Dan Steiner 

President 

Aircraft Charter Services, Inc. 

17229 CR 42 

Goshen, IN 46526 

Dear Mr. Steiner: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated May 27, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Aircraft Charter Services, Inc. (ACS), Inc for an exemption from § 91.147 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). However, although you request an 

exemption from § 91.147, the FAA finds that you instead need an exemption from part 120 to 

the extent necessary to allow ACS to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing 

program while operating under separate parts of the regulation. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to ACS. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 
2 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Aircraft Charter Services, Inc. an exemption from 

14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow ACS to cover its safety-sensitive employees 

under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation, subject to 

the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Aircraft Charter Services are subject to the drug and alcohol 

regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Aircraft Charter Services part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

 

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
exhibit_10-2.htm

 




EXHIBIT 10.2

 






 

SCHEDULE B — PROMISSORY NOTE

 

1.      Names:

 

Investor:                                 Larry Powalisz, President

 K & L International Enterprises, Inc. 1

 375 State Road 436

 Casselberry, FL 32707

 

Issuer/Affiliate:                   Robert Atwell, President

 Camelot Entertainment Group, Inc. 

 8001 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 400 

 Irvine, CA 92618

 

2.     Promise to Pay.

 

In consideration of the debt listed in the "Wrap Around Agreement" (incorporated herein by reference), permitting the Issuer to fulfill debt obligations due and owed to the Affiliate, the Investor agrees to purchase the debt due and owed the Affiliate from the Issuer for $200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Dollars)

 

3.      Principal Payment.

 

Issuer will pay the principal in full on or before August 31, 2010 , together with any accrued interest. No interest shall accrue for the first 60 days from the date of this agreement. Outstanding principal will accrue interest at the rate of 15 % (fifteen percent) per annum.

 

4.      Collection Costs.

 

If Investor prevails in a lawsuit to collect on this note, Issuer will pay Investor's costs and lawyers' fees in an amount the court finds to be reasonable.





 

 



 



 







 



 

5. Notices.

 

All notices must be in writing. A notice may be delivered to Issuer or Investor at the address specified in Section I, above, or to a new address Issuer or Investor has designated in writing. A notice may be delivered:

 

(1) in person

 

(2) by certified mail, or 

 

(3) by overnight courier.

 

6. Governing Law.

 

This promissory note will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Florida.

 

7. Severability.

 

If any court determines that any provision of this promissory note is invalid or unenforceable, any invalidity or unenforceability will affect only that provision and will not make any other provision of this agreement invalid or unenforceable and such provision shall be modified, amended, or limited only to the extent necessary to
render it valid and enforceable.

 

Dated: August 3, 2009

 

By:/s/ Larry Powalisz

Larry Powalisz, President

K & L International Enterprises, Inc.

1375 State Road 436

Casselberry, FL 32707

 

By:/s/Robert Atwell

Robert Atwell, President

Camelot Entertainment Group, Inc.

8001 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 400

Irvine, CA 92618
IC 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 490 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2020 

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

AN ACT 

To designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana 

as ‘‘B–47 Ridge’’. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

S 490 RFH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘B–47 Ridge Designa3 tion Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF B–47 RIDGE, MONTANA. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—The unnamed mountain 

7 ridge located at 45°14′40.89′′ N., 110°43′38.75′′ W. 

8 that runs south and west of Emigrant Peak in the 

9 Absaroka Range in the State of Montana, which is 

10 the approximate site of a crash of a B–47, shall be 

11 known and designated as ‘‘B–47 Ridge’’. 

12 (2) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, 

13 map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of 

14 the United States to the ridge described in para15 graph (1) shall be deemed to be a reference to ‘‘B– 

16 47 Ridge’’. 

17 (b) AUTHORIZATION FOR PLAQUE.— 

18 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Agriculture 

19 may authorize the installation and maintenance of a 

20 plaque on B–47 Ridge that— 

21 (A) memorializes the 1962 crash of the B– 

22 47 aircraft at the site; and 

23 (B) may include the names of the victims 

24 of the crash. 

25 (2) AUTHORIZED TERMS AND CONDITIONS.— 

26 The Secretary of Agriculture may include any terms 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

S 490 RFH

1 and conditions in the authorization for a plaque 

2 under paragraph (1) that the Secretary of Agri3 culture determines to be necessary. 

4 (3) FUNDING.—No Federal funds may be used 

5 to design, procure, install, or maintain the plaque 

6 authorized under paragraph (1). 

Passed the Senate February 12, 2020. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Frances B. Hynes, Respondent, *v.*Title Guarantee and Trust Company, as Executor of Edward W. Browning, Deceased, et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.

Argued March 3, 1937;

decided March 23, 1937.

*615
      *Daniel A. Shirk,*as guardian *ad litem, Edwin R. Wolff*and *Milton A. Goldiner*for Dorothy B. Hood, an infant, appellant.

*Joseph V. McKee, Casimir J. F. Patrick*and *William T. Griffin*for Title Guarantee and Trust Co., Inc., as executor, et al., appellants.

*George J. Langley, Irving E. Burdick*and *John P. Courts*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and questions certified answered in the negative; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ. Dissenting as to Edbro Realty Co., Inc : Crane, Ch. J., and Finch, J.
#### EQUITABLE TRADING CO. v. WADDY.

(Decided March 4, 1916.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. C. B. Smith.

No counsel marked for appellant. H. K. White, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed by agreement.
#### § 102.51 Settlement or adjustment of issues.

At any stage of a proceeding prior to hearing, where time, the nature of the proceeding, and the public interest permit, all interested parties have an opportunity to submit to the Regional Director, with whom the charge was filed, for consideration, facts, arguments, offers of settlement, or proposals of adjustment.
#### § 91.857 Stage 2 operations outside of the 48 contiguous United States.

An operator of a Stage 2 airplane that is operating only between points outside the contiguous United States on or after November 5, 1990, must include in its operations specifications a statement that such airplane may not be used to provide air transportation to or from any airport in the contiguous United States.

[Doc. No. FAA-2002-12771, 67 FR 46571, July 15, 2002]
#### § 1602.26 Additional reporting requirements.

The Commission reserves the right to require reports, other than that designated as Report EEO-3, about the membership or referral practices or other procedures of labor organizations, whenever, in its judgment, special or supplemental reports are necessary to accomplish the purposes of title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA. Any system for requirement of such reports will be established in accordance with the procedures referred to in section 709(c) of title VII, section 107 of the ADA, section 207(a) of GINA, or section 104 of the PWFA, and as otherwise prescribed by law.

[32 FR 10651, July 20, 1967, as amended at 56 FR 35755, July 26, 1991; 74 FR 63983, Dec. 7, 2009; 89 FR 11170, Feb. 14, 2024]
Extension of Purchase Agreement



 Exhibit 10.45 
 

 
 August 28, 2009 
 Steve Singer 
 Hansen Medical, Inc. 
 380 North Bernardo Avenue 
 Mountain View, CA 94043 
  

	Re:	Extension of Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) 

 Agreement No. SS02AUG2007 
 Dated: September 21, 2007 
 Dear Steve: 
 As you may know, the Purchase
Agreement, which is the basis of our manufacturing relationship, is set to expire on September 21, 2009, per section 1 of the Agreement. The Agreement permits the parties to extend the relationship by mutual agreement. Therefore, as our
manufacturing relationship is set to continue, we need to extend the terms of this Agreement, which is the purpose of this letter. 
 As such,
the parties to the Agreement agree to extend the terms of the Agreement for an additional twenty-four (24) months or until September 21, 2011. If Hansen agrees to this extension, please have the appropriate person sign both original
letters and return one to us. 
 We look forward to continuing a strong relationship. 
 /s/ Todd Kelsey 
 Todd Kelsey 
 Sr Vice President Customer Services 
 Plexus Corp.

  
 I, Frank Schembri, Jr. , on behalf of Hansen Medical, Inc.,
represent that I have authority to bind the company and so agree to the terms and conditions set forth in this letter. 
  

			
	
	
	/s/ Frank Schembri, Jr.
		 	Signature
	
	Frank Schembri, Jr. VP Mfg
		 	Print Name and Title
	
	9/17/09
		 	Date

 55 Jewelers Park Drive, P. O. Box 156, Neenah, WI 54957-0156 
 (920) 722-3451
#### PHILLIPS v. PHILLIPS.

No. 29288.

Feb. 20, 1940.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1940.

*100 P. 2d 850.*

*120Reuben M. Roddie and A. L. Beckett, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Whitten & Whitten, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, J.

This case is presented on appeal from the district court of Oklahoma county. Complaint is made of a judgment of that court allowing alimony to the wife, in connection with a decree of divorce granted by reason of the husband’s fault, in excess of the value of the husband’s real and personal property.

A. E. Phillips, defendant in the court below, plaintiff in error herein, is a school teacher. At the time of the divorce he was employed by the Oklahoma City school district and drawing a salary of $2,165 per annum. He also made about $25 per month teaching in a night school. During their married life the parties had acquired a meager amount of property consisting of an equity in a home, an undivided interest in 20 acres of rural property, and a Ford automobile.

According to the calculations of the plaintiff in error, the alimony awarded exceeded the value of the property by $7,300. In presenting this appeal he relies upon the single proposition that:

> “That part of the decree awarding alimony in excess of all the property in the approximate amount of $7,300 is void as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.”

It is asserted that under our statute (sec. 672, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 1278) alimony cannot be allowed in excess of an amount equivalent to the husband’s real and personal property. No other complaint concerning the amount obtained is herein made.

The question presented was cited by this court adversely to the contention of the plaintiff in error in Mathews v. Mathews, 186 Okla. 244, 96 P. 2d 1054, wherein we held that:

> “Although the statute (sec. 672, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 1278) provides that the wife shall be allowed alimony ‘out of the husband’s real and personal property,’ where a divorce is granted by reason of his fault, alimony may be allowed in a proper case where the husband has no estate.”

Upon authority of that case, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.

RILEY, CORN, GIBSON, and HURST, JJ., concur.
#### AMERICAN ROSE & PLANT CO v SQUILLOCOIT etc

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10114.

Decided October 28, 1929

Messrs. Rothenberg, Russo & Andrus, Cleveland, for Rose & Plant Co.

Messrs. Lombardo & Lo Presti, Cleveland, for Squillocoit etc.

BY THE COURT:

The main contention in this case is that the judgment below was and is against the weight of the evidence. It is evident, we think from the record, that there is substantial grounds for the claim of the defendant in error that he ordered growing instead of dormant plants and that he did not get what he intended to purchase under his order.

The evidence also tends to show that the plaintiff in error knew that it was not shipping what the defendant in error expected to receive under his order. While there is no direct evidence to this fact, it is significant that the plaintiff in error, when the defendant in error returned the plants, wrote the latter as follows:

> “Our local express office informs us that they have a shipment from you consigned to us, but .not having ordered anything from you, we have advised the express company to take this question up with you and secure instructions for disposal of this shipment.”

This letter is under date of J,an. 31, 1928, three. days after the defendant in error had wired plaintiff in error that he would not accept the shipment. We think this letter is a measure of the good faith and sincerity of plaintiff in, error in this transaction, and it is impossible for us to believe that it did not know the character of the shipment returned to it and referred to in its letter.

It is unnecessary to say that the judgment of the lower court herein is protected by the same rules that apply to the verdict of a jury, and that judgment may not be disturbed, unless it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

We think if this case had been submitted to us in the first instance that we would have reached the same conclusion as the lower court.

There is nothing in the record to warrant a reversal of the judgment, and it is affirmed.

Middleton, PJ, and Mauck, J, concur.
§ 450.161 Control of hazard areas. ( a ) *General.* The operator must publicize, survey, control, or evacuate each flight hazard area identified in accordance with § 450.133 prior to initiating flight of a launch vehicle or the reentry of a reentry vehicle to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with § 450.101.
( b ) *Verification.* The launch or reentry operator must perform surveillance sufficient to verify or update the assumptions, input data, and results of the flight safety analyses.
( c ) *Publication.* An operator must publicize warnings for each flight hazard area, except for regions of land, sea, or air under the control of the vehicle operator, site operator, or other controlling authority with which the operator has an agreement. If the operator relies on another entity to publicize these warnings, it must: ( 1 ) Determine whether the warnings have been issued; and
( 2 ) Notify the FAA if the warnings have not been issued so that the FAA can determine if the launch or reentry can be conducted in a manner that sufficiently protects the public. This notification must provide sufficient information to enable FAA to issue warnings to U.S. aircraft.
( d ) *Application requirements.* An applicant must submit— ( 1 ) A description of how the applicant will provide for day-of-flight surveillance and control of flight hazard areas, if necessary, to ensure that the presence of any member of the public in or near a flight hazard area is consistent with flight commit criteria developed for each launch or reentry as required by § 450.165(b);
( 2 ) A description of how the applicant will provide for any publication of flight hazard areas necessary to meet the requirements of this section; and
( 3 ) A description of how the applicant will establish flight commit criteria based on the results of its toxic release hazard analysis, toxic containment, or toxic risk assessment for any necessary evacuation of the public from any toxic hazard area.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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  Amendment  No. 1 to the  Annual  Report of  Hometown  Auto
Retailers,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending  December
31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Corey E. Shaker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Corey E. Shaker
-------------------------------------
Corey E. Shaker
President and Chief Executive Officer
September 20, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                             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, Randall D. Carney, Chief Financial 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:

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

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


                                                      /s/ Randall D. Carney
                                                      ---------------------
                                                      Randall D. Carney
                                                      Chief Financial Officer

Dated: March 31, 2003