alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 413.3 Who must obtain a license or permit. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76726 , Sept. 19, 2024.
( a ) A person must obtain a license in accordance with this section, unless eligible for an experimental permit under paragraph (f) of this section.
( b ) A person must obtain a license to— ( 1 ) Launch a launch vehicle from the United States;
( 2 ) Operate a launch site within the United States;
( 3 ) Reenter a reentry vehicle in the United States; or
( 4 ) Operate a reentry site within the United States.
( c ) A person who is a U.S. citizen or an entity organized under the laws of the United States or any State must obtain a license to— ( 1 ) Launch a launch vehicle outside the United States;
( 2 ) Operate a launch site outside the United States;
( 3 ) Reenter a reentry vehicle outside the United States; or
( 4 ) Operate a reentry site outside the United States.
( d ) A foreign entity in which a United States citizen has a controlling interest must obtain a license to launch a launch vehicle from or to operate a launch site in— ( 1 ) Any place that is outside the territory or territorial waters of any nation, unless there is an agreement in force between the United States and a foreign nation providing that such foreign nation has jurisdiction over the launch or the operation of the launch site; or
( 2 ) The territory of any foreign nation, including its territorial waters, if there is an agreement in force between the United States and that foreign nation providing that the United States has jurisdiction over the launch or the operation of the launch site.
( e ) A foreign entity in which a U.S. citizen has a controlling interest must obtain a license to reenter a reentry vehicle or to operate a reentry site in— ( 1 ) Any place that is outside the territory or territorial waters of any nation, unless there is an agreement in force between the United States and a foreign nation providing that such foreign nation has jurisdiction over the reentry or the operation of the reentry site; or
( 2 ) The territory of any foreign nation if there is an agreement in force between the United States and that foreign nation providing that the United States has jurisdiction over the reentry or the operation of the reentry site.
( f ) A person, individual, or foreign entity otherwise requiring a license under this section may instead obtain an experimental permit to launch or reenter a reusable suborbital rocket under part 437 of this chapter.
[Doc. No. FAA-2006-24197, 72 FR 17017, Apr. 6, 2007]
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Allan R. Campbell et al., as Executors of Carolyn L. Casper, Deceased, Respondents. William F. Casper, Appellant; Joel Mencher, as Special Guardian, Respondent.

Argued May 20, 1937;

decided June 8, 1937.

*G. Joseph Danahy, James J. Delaney*and *George R. Leonard*for appellant.

*598
      *Allan R. Campbell*(in person) and *Sidney R. Fleisher*for executors, respondents.

*Joel Mencher,*as special guardian for Caroline Good, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs payable out of the estate; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### MINNICK v STATE ZIEGLER v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9427.

Decided March 4, 1929

A L Kearns, Cleveland and I L Siml, for plaintiff in errror.

Ray T Miller and E J Hopple, both of Cleveland, for State.

*302SULLIVAN, J.

It is claimed that the court committed error in changing the first sentence to the Reformatory to imprisonment in the Ohio State Penitentiary. It is well settled in Ohio that a court, during term time has control of its docket and its judgments and that the same may be changed if duly made upon good cause shown, without the court being guilty of the abuse of the exercise of sound discretion.

This authority is found in the case of Lee vs. State of Ohio, 32 Oh. St., page 113.

In the case of Antonio vs. Milliken, 29 Oh. St., page 305, we find similar authority.

It may be argued that the cases cited have reference only to misdemeanors, but in principle the question is the same as in felony cases, for each bears upon the right and authority of a court to change its entries and judgments made during the term and before the sentence goes into effect by the commencement of the serving of .time, as was laid down in 79 Mich. 320, 44 N. W. 615; 76 Mich. 223, 42 N. W. 1133.

Able counsel for the plaintiff in error argues that 13720 GC precludes a change of sentence like the.one at bar.

From an examination .of this section we do not find anything contained therein which destroys the principle universally established that a court has the power to change its judgment before actionable execution at least, any time during the term, for the reason that the term is considered as of a day, and under the principle of ancient law as well as of modern law, and consequently, legally speaking, the legal status is the same as if both sentences in the cases at bar were imposed the same day. There is a presumption of law that when a change of judgment is made by a court during term, that it is done in furtherance of justice and fpr good cause.

In the instant case we have a right to presume as a reviewing court, as a matter of law, that from the investigation made when the cases were held over for examination, that facts were discovered which made it unwarrantable to impose a sentence for confinement in the Reformatory, but which justified, by subsequent information received by the court, a sentence in the Penitentiary, in order to meet the demands of justice under the facts as they were made to appear before the court at the time of sentence. On the other hand, it might be discovered, after the imposition of sentence to imprisonment, that certain facts appeared which would warrant much lighter sentence, perhaps no'sentence at all, and the granting of a new trial, and to deprive the court of its inherent power to do justice under such circumstances as these, would be an unwarrantable curb upon the power of the courts.

Thus holding, it is our judgment that there is no basis for the assignment of error and the judgments in both cases are hereby affirmed.

Vickery, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.
(LOGO)

ERNST & YOUNG LLP

1300 Huntington Building
925 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1405

Phone: 216 861 5000

Report on Management's  Assertion on Compliance with Minimum Servicing Standards
Set Forth in the Uniform Single Attestation Program
for Mortgage Bankers

Report of Independent Accountants

Board of Directors
National City Mortgage Co.

We have examined  management's  assertion,  included in the accompanying  report
titled Report of Management, that National City Mortgage Co. (NCM) complied with
the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) during
the year ended December 31, 1998. Management is responsible for NCM's compliance
with  those  requirements.  Our  responsibility  is to  express  an  opinion  on
management's assertions about NCM's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  NCM's  compliance  with  those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on NCM's
compliance with specified requirements.

In  our  opinion,   management's   assertion,   that  NCM   complied   with  the
aforementioned  requirements  during the year ended December 31, 1998, is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

Ernst &Young LLP

January 29, 1999

Ernst &Young LLP is a member of Ernst &Young International, Ltd.
**Exhibit21.1**

**Subsidiariesof the Company**

The following is a listof subsidiaries of the Company as of February 28, 2006, omitting certainsubsidiaries that, when considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary,would not constitute a significant subsidiary. Each of the following subsidiaries does business under the name 24/7Real Media, except for K.K. 24-7 Search and Dentsu 24/7 Holdings B.V., each ofwhich does business under its respective name.

** **
| **Legal Name**                       | ** ** | **Law of Incorporation or Organization** |
|--------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------|
| 24/7 Real Media US, Inc.             |       | Delaware                                 |
| 24/7 Media Canada Holding Company    |       | Nova Scotia                              |
| 24/7 Real Media,  Inc.               |       | Ontario                                  |
| 24/7 Real Media Europe Holding S.A.  |       | Switzerland                              |
| 24/7 Real Media  France SARL         |       | France                                   |
| 24/7 Real Media  Germany GmbH        |       | Germany                                  |
| 24/7 Real Media  Italy S.r.L.        |       | Italy                                    |
| Real Media Spain  SA                 |       | Spain                                    |
| Real Media  Scandinavia              |       | Sweden                                   |
| 24/7 Real Media  Technology S.A.     |       | Switzerland                              |
| 24/7 Real Media  UK Ltd.             |       | United Kingdom                           |
| 24/7 Real Media, Inc.                |       | South Korea                              |
| Decide Holdings Pty Limited          |       | Australia                                |
| 24-7 Real Media  Pty Limited         |       | Australia                                |
| K.K. 24-7 Search (1)                 |       | Japan                                    |
| Dentsu 24/7 Search Holdings B.V. (2) |       | The Netherlands                          |

 

Except as noted above,the voting stock of each subsidiary is wholly-owned by the Company or awholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

(1) 51.0% owned by the Company and 49.0% owned by Dentsu, Inc., theCompany’s joint venture partner.

(2) 50.0% owned by theCompany and 50.0% owned by Dentsu, Inc., the Company’s joint venture partner.

 

----
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 19
- 00779
- CV

In re M2E3 LLC

OR I GINAL PROCEEDING FRO M FAYETTE COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator M2E3 LLC has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this mandamus

proce eding, i nforming the Court that the parties in the underlying proceeding have reached a settlement that disposes of all matters in controversy , and therefore , M2E 3 LLC no longer desires to prosecute this action. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss t h e pe tition fo r writ of mandamus.

____________ ______________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith
Filed: January 9, 2020
§ 420.45 Transfer of a license to operate a launch site. ( a ) Only the FAA may transfer a license to operate a launch site.
( b ) The FAA will transfer a license to an applicant who has submitted an application in accordance with 14 CFR part 413, satisfied the requirements of § 420.15, and obtained each approval required by § 420.17 for a license.
( c ) The FAA may incorporate by reference any findings made part of the record that supported a prior related licensing determination.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12332]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-950-7130-EU-9766; WYW-139340]


Realty Action; Direct Sale of Public Lands; Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of realty action; direct sale of public lands in 
Sweetwater County.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management has determined that the lands 
described below are suitable for public sale under section 203 of the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1713:

Sixth Principal Meridian

T. 18 N., R. 107 W., section 34, lot 1.

    The above lands aggregate 0.06 acre.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Heick, Realty Specialist, Bureau 
of Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office, 280 Highway 191 North, 
Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901, 307-352-0344.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau of Land Management proposes to 
sell the surface estate of the above land to Mr. David Palmer, an 
adjacent landowner, by direct sale, at fair market value. The disposal 
of this land will allow for the development of a subdivision lot, in 
which the 0.06 acre of land will provide the required set back 
distances for a dwelling.
    The proposed sale is consistent with the Green River Resource 
Management Plan and would serve important public objectives which 
cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly elsewhere. The lands contain 
no other known public values. The planning document and environmental 
assessment covering the proposed sale are available for review at the 
Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office Office, Rock 
Springs, Wyoming.
    Conveyance of the above public lands will be subject to:
    1. Reservation of a right-of-way to the United States for ditches 
and canals pursuant to the Act of August 30, 1890, 43 U.S.C. 945.
    2. Reservation of all minerals pursuant to section 209(a) of the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1719.
    There will be no decrease of federal acres or AUMs within the Rock 
Springs Grazing Allotment due to the small size of the subject parcel.
    Upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register, the above 
described land will be segregated from all forms of appropriation under 
the public land laws, including the general mining laws, except for 
leasing under the mineral leasing laws.
    For a period of 45 days after issuance of this notice, interested 
parties may submit comments to the Field Manager, Rock Springs Field 
Office, Bureau of Land Management, 280 Hwy. 191 North, Rock Springs, 
WY. Any adverse comments will be evaluated by the State Director who 
may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of 
any objections, this proposed realty action will become final.

    Dated: May 3, 2000.
Ted Murphy,
Acting Field Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-12332 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
#### § 1472.655 Individual.

*Individual* means a natural person.
PUBLIC LAW 113–129—JULY 25, 2014 128 STAT. 1723 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 255: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113–200 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 159 (2013): Dec. 3, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 160 (2014): July 9, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–129 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To amend certain definitions contained in the Provo River Project Transfer Act 

for purposes of clarifying certain property descriptions, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CLARIFYING CERTAIN PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS IN 

PROVO RIVER PROJECT TRANSFER ACT. 

(a) PLEASANT GROVE PROPERTY.—Section 2(4)(A) of the Provo 

River Project Transfer Act (Public Law 108–382; 118 Stat. 2212) 

is amended by striking ‘‘of enactment of this Act’’ and inserting 

‘‘on which the parcel is conveyed under section 3(a)(2)’’. 

(b) PROVO RESERVOIR CANAL.—Section 2(5) of the Provo River 

Project Transfer Act (Public Law 108–382; 118 Stat. 2212) is 

amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘canal, and any associated land, rightsof-way, and facilities’’ and inserting ‘‘water conveyance facility 

historically known as the Provo Reservoir Canal and all associated bridges, fixtures, structures, facilities, lands, interests in 

land, and rights-of-way held,’’; 

(2) by inserting ‘‘and forebay’’ after ‘‘Diversion Dam’’; 

(3) by inserting ‘‘near the Jordan Narrows to the point 

where water is discharged to the Welby-Jacob Canal and the 

Utah Lake Distributing Canal’’ after ‘‘Penstock’’; and 

(4) by striking ‘‘of enactment of this Act’’ and inserting 

‘‘on which the Provo Reservoir Canal is conveyed under section 

3(a)(1)’’. 

Approved July 25, 2014. 

Utah. 

July 25, 2014 

[H.R. 255] 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
**Exhibit 32**

 

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

 

TerryG. Roussel and Sharon C. Kaiser, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of CornerstoneRealty Fund, LLC on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended March 31, 2006fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of Cornerstone Realty Fund, LLC.

 
|               |  /s/  TERRY G. ROUSSEL                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: May 12, 2006 | Terry G. Roussel Chief Executive Officer (Principal  Executive Officer) of  Cornerstone Ventures, Inc., Managing Member of  Cornerstone Industrial Properties, LLC, the Managing Member of  Cornerstone Realty Fund, LLC |

 

 
|               | /s/ SHARON C. KAISER                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: May 12, 2006 | Sharon C. Kaiser Chief Financial Officer (Principal  Financial Officer) of  Cornerstone Ventures, Inc., Managing Member of  Cornerstone Industrial Properties, LLC, the Managing Member of  Cornerstone Realty Fund, LLC |

 

----
#### GULFPORT FERTILIZER CO. v. CHATMAN.

(Decided November 21, 1916.)

Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Samuel B. Browne.

Harry T. Smith & Caffey, for appellant.

Rickarby & Austill, for appellee.

Evans, J.

Reversed and remanded on the authority of *Gulfport F. Co. v. Jones, infra,*73 South. 145.
#### William H. H. Childs, Resp’t, *v.*William Mayer, as Executor, etc., App’lt.

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

*Filed May 13, 1889.)*

Reference—Compulsory—When not ordered.

Where from the pleadings it appears that an examination of a long account is not involved in the case, a compulsory reference will not he ordered.

Appeal from an order of reference made by Mr. Justice Pratt, at special term.

The action is brought to recover $882.10 for oil sold to defendant.

The defense is that there was an express warranty that the oil should be fit for the purpose for which plaintiff knew it was bought, and that in consequence of its inferior quality it was unfit for that purpose; the glass made therewith was unmerchantable; and defendant, by reason of the breach of warranty, has sustained $1,000 damages.

In response to mutual demands, bills of particulars of the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s counterclaim, were served, the former showing a number of deliveries of lots of uniform amount and price, and the latter a number of “items of damage.”

The cause was noticed for trial, placed on the jury calendar, and reserved, by consent, for a day certain, when this motion was made to refer on the ground that the trial ■would involve the examination of a long account.

In answer to this motion the defendant admitted that all the oil claimed in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars, except one lot, had been delivered.

*William B. Lynes,*for app’lt; *John L. Shirley,*for resp’t.

Dykmaw, J.

This is an appeal from a compulsory order of reference made upon the theory that the trial of the action will involve the examination of a long account.

An examination of the pleadings is sufficient to show that the result of the trial will be controlled by the question of warrantee involved in the case, but in any view there is no such account as the law requires to justify a compulsory reference.

*344The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten. dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., concurs; Dykman, J., not sitting.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Report of the DietaryGuidelines Advisory Committee on the dietary guidelines for Americans to theSecretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.**
 
1985 | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005| 2010
 
SuDoc Number:A 1.11/3-3:
Item Number:0011-C-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000937425
 
March 21, 2018
[No. 28088-4-II.

Division Two.

December 13, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Andre T. Mitchell, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pacific County, No. 01-8-00090-3, Joel M. Penoyar, J., entered November 1, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, J., concurred in by Morgan and Houghton, JJ.