alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 65.31 Required credentials, certificates, and ratings or qualifications. No person may act as an air traffic control tower operator at an air traffic control tower in connection with civil aircraft unless he or she— ( a ) Holds an FAA Credential with a tower rating or an air traffic control tower operator certificate issued under this subpart;
( b ) Holds a facility rating for that control tower issued under this subpart, or has qualified for the operating position at which he or she acts and is under the supervision of the holder of a facility rating for that control tower; and
( c ) Except for a person employed by the FAA or employed by, or on active duty with, the Department of the Air Force, Army, or Navy or the Coast Guard, holds at least a second-class medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter.
[Doc. No. 10193, 35 FR 12326, Aug. 1, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 65-25, 45 FR 18911, Mar. 24, 1980; Amdt. 65-31, 52 FR 17518, May 8, 1987; Amdt. 65-56, 79 FR 74611, Dec. 16, 2014]
̈¦§15 

 ̈¦§15 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
 

HiLine District 

Visual Resource Management

Alternatives A & E
 

Map 2.16 

Glacier A Allb be e r rt t a a

National Park SSaass kka att cchheewwaa n n

Blackfeet Indian

Reservation

GLACIER 232 

89 2 

")

£¤ £¤

Browning 

Cut Bank 

HILL TOOLE 

Shelby 

LIBERTY
 VALLEY
 

¬
 

Non-Classified 

VRM Class 1 

VRM Class 2 0 30 60 1:1,750,000 

VRM Class 3 Miles 

VRM Class 4 

RMP Boundary

County

Interstate 

Highway or State Route 

Town 

Chester Havre 

Chinook 

Maps show the Visual Resource

Management (VRM) Classes for

Alternatives A & E. Alternative A

(Current Management) 

CHOUTEAU
 £¤191

Fort Benton 

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge 

£¤87 Ind

BLAINE 

Malta

Ft. Belknap

Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation

ian Reservation ")66 PHILLIPS
 Glasgow 

Created by the Malta Field Office in December 2012 

Albers Equal Area, NAD83, Meters 

Nat

Glaci

i

GLACIER
 

onal Park 

Browning 

er 

")

A Allb be e r rt t a a

SSaass kka att cchheewwaa nn

Blackfeet Indian

Reservation 

")232

2 

£¤

£¤

87 66 

£¤89

Cut Bank 

HILL
 

TOOLE LIBERTY 

Shelby 

Chester Havre Chinook 

BLAINE 

Malta

Rocky Boy's Ft. Belknap

Indian Reservation Indian Reservation 

Glasgow 

Alternatives B-E 

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty

is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or completness of these data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for 

purposes not intended by BLM. This map may not 

meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This poduct 

was developed through digital means and information 

may be updated without notification. 

Alternative E

(Preferred) 

CHOUTEAU 

Fort Benton 

£¤191 

VALLEY

PHILLIPS 

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge
#### § 1630.5 Limiting, segregating, and classifying.

It is unlawful for a covered entity to limit, segregate, or classify a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects his or her employment opportunities or status on the basis of disability.
#### § 1471.990 Preponderance of the evidence.

*Preponderance of the evidence* means proof by information that, compared with information opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Abraham Wolfe, Appellant.

Submitted January 4, 1937;

decided January 12, 1937.

Motion for reargument denied: The judgment affirmed the conviction of illegal parking in violation of article 2, section 4 (a), subdivision 15, of the New York City Zoning Resolution. (See 272 N. Y. 608.)
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980

              														Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, March 31, 1980.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1032,			accessed on September 10, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### Dice v. Marsolino

*Samuel J. Feigus,*for plaintiffs.

*Thomas A. Waggoner, Jr.,*for defendants.

March 7, 1958.

Carr, P. J.,

The question here raised is whether, in an action of trespass for personal injuries brought against two defendants as being jointly liable, the court should grant plaintiffs leave to enter a discontinuance as to one of defendants who, after the commencement of the action, was released pursuant to the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act of July 19, 1951, P. L. 1130, 12 PS §2082 et seq.

Plaintiffs are Ruth E. Dice and Chauncey W. Dice, her husband, and defendants Anthony J. Marsolino, trading as Marsolino Construction Company, and *458Hazel Rankin. It appears from the complaint that on November 2, 1955, at 6:30 p.m., Mrs. Dice was riding as a guest passenger in an automobile operated by Miss Rankin north on Route 119 in North Union Township in this county, and that at a point near Garner’s Dairy Farm, where the highway was being reconstructed by Marsolino, Miss Rankin drove into a large hole that he had left without warning lights or barriers of any kind, with the result that the car plunged off the highway and Mrs. Dice was injured. Suit was entered against defendants on October 30, 1957. Shortly thereafter Miss Rankin settled her liability to plaintiffs for $1,200 upon a joint tortfeasor’s release, and they now ask leave under Pa. R. C. P. 229 to discontinue the action against her.

Marsolino, however, objects to the elimination of Miss Rankin from the record. He protests that he is entitled to have her retained in the case until a jury can determine whether she was a joint tortfeasor because, if it should so find, his liability to plaintiffs would, under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act and the terms of the release that plaintiffs gave her, be cut in half. In our opinion, his position is sound; his right to have the question determined by the jury in the pending action is a valuable one which the court cannot justly deny: Davis v. Miller, 385 Pa. 348.

Plaintiffs argue that their discontinuance of the action against Miss Rankin would not prevent Marsolino himself from bringing her in as an additional defendant if he chose to do so. But in that view of the case it would obviously be idle for the court to approve a discontinuance that could not stand. Its only effect would be to add to his procedural burdens and subject him to unnecessary delay and expense.

*Order*

And now, March 7, 1958, plaintiffs’ petition for leave to enter a discontinuance as to defendant Hazel Rankin is denied and dismissed.
§ 1471.645 Do other Federal agencies know if the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service agrees to a voluntary exclusion? ( a ) Yes, we enter information regarding a voluntary exclusion into the *EPLS.*
( b ) Also, any agency or person may contact us to find out the details of a voluntary exclusion.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00419-CR

NATHAN ROSS RIEWE

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

2nd 25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 120-20-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by 

this Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 25, 2024
DOWNEAST LNG PROJECT 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Downeast LNG, Inc. Docket No. CP07-52-000 

Downeast Pipeline, LLC. Docket Nos. CP07-53-000 

 CP07-53-001 

 FERC\EIS: 0231F 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

Washington, DC 20426 

Cooperating Agencies 

 

May 2014 
Penalty for Private Use 

Official Business Washington, DC 20426 Routing Code: PJ-11.3 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
FERC\EIS: 0231F 

Docket Nos. 

CP07-52-000 

CP07-53-000 

CP07-53-001 

May 2014 Final Environmental Impact Statement DOWNEAST LNG PROJECT
## Befor e th e Unite d State s Departmen t o fTransportatio n

_Washington , D C Januar y6 , 201 0 DEPTOFTBANS. ^ iA;;.'".t:l o

Essentia l Ai rServic e at : SALINA , KANSA S unde r4 9 U.S.C

. 4173 1 et.seq
. Docl<etOST-2002-1137 6

Thi s documen t contain s Grea t Lal<es Aviation , Ltd.' s respons e t o Orde rRequestin g Proposal s 2009-11-25
. Grea t Lal<es Aviation , Ltd

. i s please d t o submi t thi s proposa l t o provid e essentia l ai rtransportatio n a t Salina , Kansas

. Grea t Lake s wil l continu e t o provid e servic e t o Kansa s Cit yInternationa l Airport o rDenve r Internationa l Airport a s a n alternativ e hub

. Grea t Lake s maintain s cod e shar e an d interlin e e-ticketin g agreement s wit h Unite d Airline s an d Frontie rAirlines

. Additionally , Grea t Lake s ha s Interlin e agreement s i n plac e wit h othe rcarrier s servin g Kansa s Cityan d Denver , includin g interlin e e-ticketin g agreement s wit h U.S

. Airway s an d Continenta l Airlines

. Th e propose d servic e i s submitte d withou t an yuplin e schedulin g restriction s fo reithe rou r curren t Kansa s Cit yhu b schedules , o rDenve ra s a n alternativ e hu b option

. W e contemplat e th e us e o f1 9 sea t Beechcraf t 1900 D airline requipment

. Question s an d comment s mayb e referre d to : Michae l O

. Matthew s Chie fFinancia l Office r Grea t Lake s Aviation , Ltd

. 102 2 Airport Parkwa y Cheyenne , W Y8200 1 (307)432-700 0

# Grea t Lake s Aviation , Ltd

. Annua l Compensatio n Requirements fo rEssentia l Ai rService a t 

## Salina , Kansa s t o Kansa s Gityo rDenve r

Two Roun d Trip s - B190 0 98.0 % completio n facto r Departures : Bloc k Hours : Revenu e Passenge rMiles : Availabl e Seat Miles : 

### 1,22 7 1,02 2 885,50 0 2,541,11 7 Operatin g Revenues :

Passenger : SL N 5,20 0 psgr s at $82.1 7 $427,28 4

other : (a

t 0.62 % ofpassenge rrevenue ) Tota l Operatin g Revenues : $2,64 3 $429,92 7 Operatin g Expenses :

Direct : Aircraft an d Hul l Insurance

Fue l an d Oi l Flyin g Operation s Maintenance Tota l Direc

t Expenses : Tota l Indirec

t Expenses : Tota l Operatin g Expenses : Operatin g Los s Profi t Elemen t (5.0 % ofTota l Operatin g Expenses ) Annua l Compensatio n Requirement : Representative Schedul e
Flt # Fre q FlowSchedul e 503 3 12345 6 SLN-MC I 620-71 0 509 6 12345 6 MCI-SL N 1230-132 0 509 7 12345. 7 SLN-MC I 1444-153 4 503 2 12345. 7 MCI-SL N 1955-204 5 $338,71 0 $540,21 2 $167,88 4 $301,80 2

Bloc k Tim e 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 Mile s

10 9 10 9 10 9 10 9 ASM S

207 1 207 1 207 1 207 1 Equi p

BE 1 BE 1 BE 1 BE 1 $1,348,60 8

$505,73 9 $1,854,34 7 ($1,424,420 ) $92,71 7 $1,517,13 8

N o Uplin e schedulin g restriction s fo reithe ra Kansa s Cit yo rDenve rHu b
Order entered May 17, 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00509

- CV

WAL

- MART ASSOCIATES, INC. , ET AL., Appellant s

V.

PEDRO GARCIA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 00329



### O RDER

Befor e the Court is appellants ’ May 16, 2019 first motion to extend time to file their brief

on the merits

. Because this is an accelerated appeal, we GRANT the m otion to the extent we

ORDER the brief be filed no later than Ju ly 1 , 2019.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1725

CHALTU ASSEFA WAKENE,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A77-892-871)

Submitted: May 22, 2003 Decided: June 4, 2003

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mikre-Michael Ayele, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D.

McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland,

Assistant Director, Ann Carroll Varnon, Office of Immigration

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Chaltu Assefa Wakene, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”). The order denied her motion to reopen the

Board’s dismissal of her appeal from the immigration judge’s order

denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We

have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and

find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying

Wakene’s motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003); INS v.

Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the

petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re:

Wakene, No. A77-892-871 (B.I.A. June 4, 2002). 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.

PETITION DENIED
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

I Forrest Travis, the Chief Executive Officer of Intrepid Capital Corporation
(the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

1.     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period
ended March 31, 2003 (the Periodic Report) fully
complies with
        the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and

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

|                    |  |                                                          
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 20, 2003 |  |                                                          
|                   
|                    |  |                                                          
|                   
|                    |  | /s/ Forrest TravisForrest Travis, Chief Executive Officer

A Signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Intrepid Capital Corporation and will be retained by Intrepid
Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
## 1996 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-22-1996 

# P iev sky v . R id ge

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 96-7206

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1996 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" P ie v sk y v . R id g e " (1996). 1996 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 49. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996/49

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 96-7206

MAX PIEVSKY, Appellant

v.
THOMAS J. RIDGE, in his capacity as th e Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylv ania

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvani a (D.C. No. 96-cv-00116)

Argued July 17, 1996 BEFORE: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, COWEN and ROTH Circuit Judges

ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case, filed October 16, 1996, be amended as follows : On page 2, counsel for appellee should read as follows: Paul A. Tufano (argued) General Counsel Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Office of General Counsel 225 Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, PA 17120

Stephanie A. Middleton Gregory E. Dunlap Eric L. Settle Gregg R. Melinson Deputies General Counsel Office of General Counsel 333 Market Street, 17th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

### /s/ Robert E. Cowen

United States Ci rcuit Judge

Dated: October 22, l996
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30612-30613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12048]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--United Technologies Research Center (``UTRC''): 
Open Software Tools for Condition Based Maintenance

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 19, 1999, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), United Technologies 
Research Center (``UTRC'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney

[[Page 30613]]

General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities 
of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to section 6(b) of the 
Act, the identities of the parties are United Technologies Corporation 
(``UTC''), Hartford, CT; and i2 Federal, Inc., Irving, TX. The nature 
and objectives of the venture are to engage in cooperative research and 
development in the area of Open Software Tools for Condition Based 
Maintenance pursuant to an Advanced Technology Program with the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-12048 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 63.42 Flight engineer certificate issued on basis of a foreign flight engineer license. ( a ) *Certificates issued.* The holder of a current foreign flight engineer license issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, who meets the requirements of this section, may have a flight engineer certificate issued to him for the operation of civil aircraft of U.S. registry. Each flight engineer certificate issued under this section specifies the number and State of issuance of the foreign flight engineer license on which it is based. If the holder of the certificate cannot read, speak, or understand the English language, the Administrator may place any limitation on the certificate that he considers necessary for safety.
( b ) *Medical standards and certification.* An applicant must submit evidence that he currently meets the medical standards for the foreign flight engineer license on which the application for a certificate under this section is based. A current medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter will be excepted as evidence that the applicant meets those standards. However, a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter is not evidence that the applicant meets those standards outside the United States unless the State that issued the applicant's foreign flight engineer license also accepts that medical certificate as evidence of the applicant's physical fitness for his foreign flight engineer license.
( c ) *Ratings issued.* Aircraft class ratings listed on the applicant's foreign flight engineer license, in addition to any issued to him after testing under the provisions of this part, are placed on the applicant's flight engineer certificate. An applicant without an aircraft class rating on his foreign flight engineer license may be issued a class rating if he shows that he currently meets the requirements for exercising the privileges of his foreign flight engineer license on that class of aircraft.
( d ) *Privileges and limitations.* The holder of a flight engineer certificate issued under this section may act as a flight engineer of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry subject to the limitations of this part and any additional limitations placed on his certificate by the Administrator. He is subject to these limitations while he is acting as a flight engineer of the aircraft within or outside the United States. However, he may not act as flight engineer or in any other capacity as a required flight crewmember, of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry that is carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.
( e ) *Renewal of certificate and ratings.* The holder of a certificate issued under this section may have that certificate and the ratings placed thereon renewed if, at the time of application for renewal, the foreign flight engineer license on which that certificate is based is in effect. Application for the renewal of the certificate and ratings thereon must be made before the expiration of the certificate.
(Sec. 6, 80 Stat. 937, 49 U.S.C. 1655)
[Doc. No. 8846, 33 FR 18614, Dec. 17, 1968, as amended by Amdt. 63-20, 45 FR 5673, Jan. 24, 1980]
###### Editorial Note on Part 221

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 221.61 Rules and regulations governing foreign air transportation.

Instead of being included in the fares tariffs, the rules and regulations governing foreign air transportation required to be filed by §§ 221.20 and 221.30 and/or Department order which do not govern the applicability of particular fares may be filed in separate governing tariffs, conforming to this subpart. Governing rules tariffs shall contain an index of rules.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of NetMeasure Technology Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter Laipnieks, President and acting CFO, certify, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: May 23, 2005

By:/s/ Peter Lipnieks

Name: Peter Laipnieks

Title:    President and Acting CFO