alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 91.1717 Operating requirements. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate a Mitsubishi MU-2B airplane in single pilot operations unless that airplane has a functional autopilot.
( b ) A person may operate a Mitsubishi MU-2B airplane in single pilot operations without a functional autopilot when— ( 1 ) Operating under day visual flight rule requirements; or
( 2 ) Authorized under a FAA approved minimum equipment list for that airplane, operating under instrument flight rule requirements in daytime visual meteorological conditions.
( c ) No person may operate a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane unless a copy of the appropriate Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU-2B Airplane Flight Manual is carried on board the airplane and is accessible during each flight at the pilot station.
( d ) No person may operate a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane unless an MU-2B series airplane checklist, appropriate for the model being operated and accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration MU-2B Flight Standardization Board, is accessible for each flight at the pilot station and is used by the flight crewmembers when operating the airplane.
( e ) No person may operate a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane contrary to the standards of this subpart.
( f ) If there are any differences between the training and operating requirements of this subpart and the MU-2B Airplane Flight Manual's procedures sections (Normal, Abnormal, and Emergency) and the MU-2B airplane series checklist incorporated by reference in § 91.1721, the person operating the airplane must operate the airplane in accordance with the training specified in this subpart.
#### In the Matter of the Final Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Jane May, Executrix, etc., App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department,*

*Filed June 22, 1889.)*

Surrogate—Power to change order of reference nunc pro tune to CONFORM TO ORIGINAL DIRECTION.

Where the form of an order of reference made on the final judicial settlement of the executrix’s accounts was that the referee should take the evidence adduced and report the same together with his opinion, but the surrogate intended, and did, decide to make an order for the hearing and determination of all questions arising upon the accounts, and the parties, as well as the referee, acted on the assumption that the latter, under the order made, had the power to hear and determine the issues, the surrogate is justified in so changing the order, *nune pro tune,*as to conform it to his original direction.

Appeal from an order of the surrogate of Monroe county refusing to entertain an application made by the appellant to settle and sign the case and exceptions on appeal from a decree entered on the report of a referee appointed to examine and settle her accounts, and to sign findings and amending order of reference *nue pro tune.*

*H. H. Woodward,*for app’lt; *Ivan Powers,*for certain infants, resp’ts.

Per Curiam.

The form of the order of reference was that the referee should take the evidence which should be adduced, and report the same to the surrogate with his opinion thereon. The surrogate, however, intended, and did actually, decide to make such order one for the hearing and determination of all questions arising upon such accounts. The parties, as well as the referee, have proceeded throughout, down to the time this application was made, on the assumption that the referee under the order had the power to hear and determine the issues.

The notice of appeal from the decree was made on that hypothesis, and as though it was an attempt only to recover the decision of the referee after confirmation of his report by the surrogate. Indeed the appellant’s attorney had procured a settlement of the case on appeal by the referee in accordance with the proper practice in cases of a reference of the whole of the issues. Code, § 2546.

Under these circumstances, the surrogate was justified in so changing the order of reference, *nunc pro tune,*as to conform it to his original direction.

We are of the opinion, therefore, that the order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

*888The question sought to be brought into this appeal, pertaining to the surrogate’s power to strike out the referee’s fourth conclusion of law, can only be properly presented when the appeal from the decree itself comes up.

All concur.
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0753 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0753

**96/753/EC: Council Decision of 6 December 1996 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the other part, on Protocol 2 to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway **

*
Official Journal L 345 , 31/12/1996 P. 0078 - 0078 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 6 December 1996 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the other part, on Protocol 2 to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway (96/753/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 228 (2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the other part, on Protocol 2 to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway (1) was negotiated in order to take account of the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union and the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement;

Whereas the Agreement should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the other part, on Protocol 2 to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

Detailed rules for the application of this Decision shall be adopted by the Commission assisted by the Committee referred to in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 (2) in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 16 of that Regulation.

Article 3

The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement referred to in Article 1 in order to bind the Community.

Done at Brussels, 6 December 1996.

For the Council

The President

D. SPRING

(1) OJ No L 171, 27. 6. 1973, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 318, 20. 12. 1993, p. 18.
[No. 48054-5-I.

Division One.

December 16, 2002.]

#### Kent Davis, *Appellant,*v. The City of Seattle, *Respondent.*Cindy L. Scott, *Plaintiff,*Ellen M. Norris, et al., *Appellants,*v. The City of Seattle, *Respondent.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 98-2-30744-7, Peter D. Jarvis, J., entered May 9, August 16, September 21 and 25, November 17, and December 29, 2000. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Appelwick, J., concurred in by Grosse and Agid, JJ.
JEB SMITH would like to amend his Section 333 exemption request, ID numbered FAA

-2015

-

3672

- 0001

. JEB SMITH seeks to expand his exemption to closed set motion picture and television filming. Seeing that all other conditions remain the same in his exemption, JEB SM ITH has attached his MPTOM for review. JEB SMITH would also like to add several aircraft to the approve d list of aircraft. All aircraft will be registered in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44103, Registration of Aircraft, as well as 14 C.F.R Part 47, Aircraft Registration, and marked in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Identification and Registration Marking. All relevant manuals, maintenance logs, etc. will be kept in accordance with his original Section 333 exemption request

. **DJI Phantom 3** The DJI Phantom 3 is a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aircraft (UA) with a Ground Control Station (GCS) u tilizing electronic tablet or smart phone systems. The DJI Phantom 3 has a maximum gross weight of approximately 2.8 pounds, while having a length of 16 inches width of 16 inches, height of 8.5 inches, and a maximum speed of approximately 31 knots. The DJI Phantom 3 is equipped with four main rotors; driven by Lithium Polymer battery powered electric motors. The DJI Phantom 3 that will be operated by JEB SMITH will be registered in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44103, Registration of Aircraft, as well as 14 C.F .R Part 47, Aircraft Registration, and marked in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Identification and Registration Marking. **Freefly A** **lta** The Freefly Alta is a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aircraft (UA) with a Ground Control Station (GCS) utilizing electronic remote control systems. The Freefly Alta has a maximum gross weight of approximately 25 pounds, while having a length of 39 inches width of 39 inches, height of 18 inches, and a maximum speed of approximately 30 knots
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Herbert Lindo, certifythat:

1.          I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 10-K of Kenilworth Systems Corporation;

2.          Based on my knowledge,this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements are made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.          Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisannual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report;

4.          The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I am responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)             Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b)            Evaluated theeffectiveness 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)             Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat 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; and

5.          The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a)             All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)            Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date:  April 25, 2007 | By:    | /s/ Herbert Lindo       |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                       |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00594

- CV

CITY OF HOLLYWOOD PARK

, Appellant

v.

PREFERRED HOSPITALITY, LTD.

, Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- CI

- 07343 Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE MARION , AND JUSTICE BARNARD

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, appellant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of appeal are taxed against Appellant City of Hollywood Park.

SIGNED December 31, 2014.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice
#### Jerome B. Waas, Resp’t, *v.*Benjamin F. Stephens, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed June 28, 1889.)*

Malicious prosecution—What acts will not authorize an arrest.

The defendant had permission at the will of the Brooklyn Park Commissioners to connect a system of water pipes with their main. They withdrew the permission, and directed plaintiff one of their officers, to disconnect the system. For this he was criminally arrested by defendant. *Held,*that if plaintiff did the work in a proper manner, and so as not to cause needless injury to defendant, there was no probable cause for the arrest.

Appeal from a judgment recovered in an action for malicious prosecution. It was tried in the Kings circuit before Justice Bartlett and a jury in January last, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $700. This appeal is brought to review the judgment perfected on that verdict.

*E. H. Kissam,*for resp’t; *Orlando L. Stewart,*for app’lt.

Barnard, P. J.

The defendant had an arrangement by which he was permitted to connect a system of water pipes with the main under the contract of the Brooklyn Park Commissioners. The permission was at the will of the park commissioners. They withdrew the permission and gave notice thereof to the defendant. The Board of Brooklyn Park Commissioners therefore gave notice to its officer, the plaintiff to disconnect the systems. He did so, and for this was criminally arrested by direction of the defendant.

After a hearing he was discharged. There was no cause for the arrest and none is pretended, except that the cut of the Stephens pipes from the park pipes could have been made in a different manner. This, if true,- would show a mere error in judgment and would not justify a criminal arrest.

The defendant had the benefit of the evidence. The jury were told that they could find probable cause for the complaint if the plaintiff was doing his work so as to cause needless injury to the defendant’s company. If the work was being done in a proper manner there was no probable cause for the arrest. The jury have found the cut properly made, and under such a finding no ordinarily prudent man could have supposed there was a criminal offense committed by plaintiff. He was doing a duty under the order of his superiors. They had the right and the power to make the order, and the plaintiff did the work without needless injury to the defendant. The case shows no error, and the judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.
# EUR-Lex - 31995R0686 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995R0686

**Council Regulation (EC) No 686/95 of 28 March 1995 extending Regulation (EEC) No 737/90 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power-station **

*
Official Journal L 071 , 31/03/1995 P. 0015 - 0015 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 686/95 of 28 March 1995 extending Regulation (EEC) No 737/90 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power-station

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 737/90 (1) fixed, for agricultural products originating in third countries and intended for human consumption, maximum permitted levels of radioactivity with which imports must comply and in connection with which checks are carried out by the Member States; whereas the said Regulation is to apply only until 31 March 1995;

Whereas the reasons prevailing when the said Regulation was adopted are still valid, because radioactive contamination of certain agricultural products originating in the third countries worst affected by the accident still exceeds the maximum permitted levels of radioactivity laid down in that Regulation;

Whereas Council Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87 (2) laid down maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and of feedingstuffs following a nuclear accident or any other case of radiological emergency; whereas it is necessary, in such situations, to ensure consistency of any measures implemented;

Whereas it is advisable to extend Regulation (EEC) No 737/90,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The second paragraph of Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 737/90 shall be replaced by the following:

'It shall expire:

1. on 31 March 2000, unless the Council decides otherwise at an earlier date, particularly should the list of excluded products referred to in Article 6 cover all the products fit for human consumption to which this Regulation applies;

2. upon the entry into force of the Commission Regulation provided for in Article 2 (1) of Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87, if such entry into force takes place before 31 March 2000.`

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of 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, 28 March 1995.

For the Council The President J. PUECH
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-269-000]

Take notice that on May 2, 2000, Discovery Gas Transmission LLC (Discovery) filed with the commission its annual cash-out report for the calendar year ended December 31, 1999.

Discovery states that the cash-out report reflects a net loss for this period of $277,063.64. The cumulative loss from cash-out transactions is $295,680.35. This loss will be carried forward to the subsequent reporting period.

Discovery states that copies of this filing are being mailed to its customers, state commissions and other interested parties.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protect with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before May 16, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12086 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Nos. 18559-1-III; 18769-1-III; 19671-2-III; 19672-1-III.

Division Three.

December 19, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Estate of*Herman L. Martin. *In the Matter of the Estate of*Penny D. Martin. Gregory C. Martin, *Respondent,*v. Penny D. Martin, et al., *Appellants.*

The unpublished opinion in this cause was *withdrawn*by order of the Court of Appeals dated April 10, 2003. Substitute opinion filed. See 116 Wn App. 1038.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 14.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the use of our report dated October 30, 2003, except for
paragraphs 4 and 5 of Note 12, as to which the dates are June 1, 2004 and March
5, 2004, respectively, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Amdocs Limited included in this Annual Report,
as amended on Form 20-F/A for the year ended September 30, 2003 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and incorporated by reference in the
following registration statements:

                              COMMISSION FILE NO.

                            Form S-8, No. 333-91847
                            Form S-8, No. 333-92705
                            Form S-8, No. 333-31506
                            Form S-8, No. 333-34104
                            Form S-8, No. 333-58454
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-39278
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-44994
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-57036
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-67572

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
September 17, 2004
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Exemption # 10177A