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



$5,000.00                                                      February 2, 1999


        The undersigned, Navis Technologies, LTD ("Payor"), promises to pay to
John R. Varsames ("Payee") or order the principal sum of five thousand and
00/100 DOLLARS ($5,000.00) with interest accruing on the unpaid principal
balance at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, the entire principal
balance plus accrued interest being due and payable on demand.

        Such payment(s) shall be made at Payee's residence located at
Burlington, Vermont, or at such other place as the Payee hereof may designate in
writing, and such payments and any other sum due hereunder shall be made in
lawful money of the United States of America.

        This Note may be prepaid without penalty.

        In the case of default, the Payor agrees to pay the reasonable cost of
collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

        Every maker, guarantor and endorser waives presentment, demand, protest,
and notice and agrees that the time of payment may be extended without notice or
previous consent.

                                                 Navis Technologies, LTD




ATTEST:    /S/                                   By:  /S/
       ---------------------------                  ---------------------------
       Peter M. Doremus, Secretary                  John R. Varsames, President




Paid in Full

Date:      3/29/99
     ---------------------

Signature:    /S/
          ----------------
SERVED AUGUST 24, 2011 

iHANSPORWION 

:.'^'Ki:TOPERAT!Gi-iS 

m\ /-ijo ;Hi P 2^ f 

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AERO MECHANICAL INDUSTRIES, INC, 

FAA DOCKET No. |TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penally Action) 

Fr:)MS FAA 2011-0068 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On March 11, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed a 

Complaint. Respondent Aero Mechanical Indnstrics, Inc. ("Respondent") had on March^ 

8. 2011 filed a Request for Hearing. 

On June 2, 20II, Respondent withdrew its Request for Hearing. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaim or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative.lawjudge.lfan agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the ^'y 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this^-^^ 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the .within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing.is hereby granted; and 
2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissccf with prcjucfice. 

SO ORDERED. 

C 

Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FDMS No. FAA-20n-0068 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

James M. Llewellyn, Jr., Respondent's Counsel 

Thompson and Llewellyn 

Attorneys at Law 

412 South 18"^ Street 

P.O. Box 818 

Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 

TEL: 479-785-2867 

FAX: 479-782-8046 

Gregory S. Lander, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Safety Enforcement Branch 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 MeachamBlvd. 

Fort Worth, TX 76137-0007 

TEL: 817-222-5083 

FAX: 817-222-5945 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

EastJBuiLding-Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

-Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following 

address: Federal Aviation Adjtiini strati on, 600 Independence Avenue. S.W., Wilbur Wright Building— 

Suite 2W1000, Washingtoa DC 2059U AttenUon: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 24.04


POWER OF ATTORNEY


     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Director and/or
officer of Kinark Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby
constitutes and appoints Paul R. Chastain the true and lawful agent and
attorney-in-fact of the undersigned with full power of substitution and
authority to sign for the undersigned, as Director or an officer of the
Company, or as both, the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the period ended
December 31, 1996, and any and all exhibits and amendments thereto to be filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C. pursuant to
Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; hereby
ratifying and confirming all acts taken by such agent and attorney-in-fact as
herein authorized.

                              DATED:  March 25, 1997.

                              /s/ Joseph J. Morrow  
                                   Joseph J. Morrow
#### Richard et al. *v.*Carrie.

[No. 17,765.

Filed May 12, 1896.]

Tax *Title.*— Regularity *of Sale.*— Evidence.—Burden *of Proof Of*.— *Statute Construed.*— Under the provisions of section 6480, R. S, 1881, and also section 8624, Bums’ R. ¡3. 1894, a tax deed is *prima facie*evidence of the regularity of the sale of the premises described in the deed, and of the regularity of all of the proceedings; and the holder of a tax deed is not required to support it with proof that the delinquent had no personal property at the time of the sale from which the tax might be collected.

From the Knox Circuit Court.

*Affirmed.*

*W. A. Cullop*and *C. B. Kessinger,*for appellants.

*H. S. Cauthorn,*for appellee.

*50Hackney, C. J.

— This suit was by the appellee, who sought the ejectment of the appellants from lands, the title to which he claimed under a tax sale and deed. The sale was made in 1885, the deed was made in 1894, and the trial was had in 1895. There is but one question in the case: Did the burden rest upon the appellee to prove that at the time of the sale the delinquent owner had no personal property subject to sale for the payment of the taxes? In affirming that the burden so rested upon the appellee the appellants cite *Earle*v. *Simons,*94 Ind. 573, involving a sale under the tax law of .1872.

In that case it was held that the holder of a tax deed was required to support it with proof that the delinquent had no personal property, at the time of the sale, from which the tax might be collected. This holding, it is urged by counsel for the appellee, was *obiter dictum.*The argument proceeds upon the erroneous assumption that the opinion discloses the presence of evidence in that case proving that the delinquent held personal property at the time of the sale. The evidence was of his having property at the time of the delinquency only. But, in our opinion, the overthrow of that case is not essential to the correctness of the lower court’s holding, that the tax deed should stand without support from such evidence. In the tax law of 1881, that in force at the time of the sale in question, B. S. 1881, section 6480, and in the tax law of 1891, R. S. 1894, section 8624, that in force when the deed in question was made, and when the trial of this case was had, it was provided, that “Such deed shall be *prima facie*evidence of the regularity of the sale of the premises described in the deed, and of the regularity of all prior proceedings, and *prima facie*evidence of a good and valid title in fee-simple in the grantee of said deed.” No like provision was found in *51tlie law of 1872 and its effect was not considered in *Earl*v. *Simons, supra.*The power of the Legislature to so enact is not a question here, nor is it suggested that the language above quoted is not plain, and ample to cover the question in this case.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
#### § 500.77 Accuracy of information furnished.

No farm labor contractor, agricultural employer or agricultural association shall knowingly provide false or misleading information on the terms, conditions or existence of agricultural employment and housing required to be disclosed by the Act and these regulations to any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker.
Heritage of Eagles Air Museum 

Preserving History Through Education 

7000 Merrill Avenue Suite 19 Chino, California 91710 Phone (909) 597-4020 FAX (909 393-0074

October 19, 2015

The Rules Docket (AGC-200)

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue SW

Washington, DC. 20591

Re: Petition for Exemption from Federal Aviation Regulations

 91.315, 119.5(g), and 119.21(a) for the Operation of the

 Heritage of Eagles Air Museum North American B-25 aircraft.

To Whom It May Concern:

The Heritage of Eagles Air Museum currently holds FAA Exemption No. 8744E to allow 

Living History Flights (an LHFE). The museum wishes to renew this exemption, which expires 

on November 30, 2015, for the operation of the Heritage of Eagles Air Museum's North 

American B-25 aircraft.

Very Truly yours,

Carl W. Scholl

President
132 STAT. 1510 PUBLIC LAW 115–195—JULY 7, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2229: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115–337, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform). 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 115–229 (Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 163 (2017): Oct. 11, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 164 (2018): June 12, considered and passed Senate, amended. 

June 22, House concurred in Senate amendment. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–195 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide permanent authority for judicial 

review of certain Merit Systems Protection Board decisions relating to whistleblowers, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘All Circuit Review Act’’. 

SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

DECISIONS RELATING TO WHISTLEBLOWERS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7703(b)(1)(B) of title 5, United States 

Code, is amended by striking ‘‘During the 5-year period beginning 

on the effective date of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement 

Act of 2012, a petition’’ and inserting ‘‘A petition’’. 

(b) DIRECTOR REVIEW.—Section 7703(d)(2) of such title is 

amended by striking ‘‘During the 5-year period beginning on the 

effective date of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act 

of 2012, this paragraph’’ and inserting ‘‘This paragraph’’. 

(c) RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

this section shall take effect as if enacted on November 26, 2017. 

Approved July 7, 2018. 

5 USC 7703 note. 

5 USC 101 note. 

All Circuit 

Review Act. 

July 7, 2018 

[H.R. 2229] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
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 the Quarterly Report of Visualant, Incorporated on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley E. Sparks, Chief
Executive Officer, President and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief:
 
 (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 results of
operations of the Company.
 
   /s/
Bradley E. Sparks
 Bradley
E. Sparks
 Chief
Executive Officer, President and Director
   Date:  May
20, 2008
§ 4044.51 Benefits to be valued. ( a ) *Form of benefit.* The plan administrator shall determine the form of each benefit to be valued in accordance with the following rules: ( 1 ) If a benefit is in pay status as of the valuation date, the plan administrator shall value the form of the benefit being paid.
( 2 ) If a benefit is not in pay status as of the valuation date but a valid election with respect to the form of benefit has been made on or before the valuation date, the plan administrator shall value the form of benefit so elected.
( 3 ) If a benefit is not in pay status as of the valuation date and no valid election with respect to the form of benefit has been made on or before the valuation date, the plan administrator shall value the form of benefit that, under the terms of the plan, is payable in the absence of a valid election.
( b ) *Timing of benefit.* The plan administrator shall value benefits whose starting date is subject to election using the assumption specified in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section. ( 1 ) *Where election made.* If a valid election of the starting date of a benefit has been made on or before the valuation date, the plan administrator shall assume that the starting date of the benefit is the starting date so elected.
( 2 ) *Where no election made.* If no valid election of the starting date of a benefit has been made on or before the valuation date, the plan administrator shall assume that the starting date of the benefit is the later of— ( i ) The expected retirement age, as determined under §§ 4044.55 through 4044.58, of the participant with respect to whom the benefit is payable, or
( ii ) The valuation date.
[61 FR 34059, July 1, 1996, as amended at 89 FR 48300, June 6, 2024]
#### § 1989.101 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*Assistant Secretary* means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health or the person or persons to whom the Assistant Secretary delegates authority under TFA.

*Business days* means days other than Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

*Complainant* means the person who filed a TFA complaint or on whose behalf a complaint was filed.

*Employee* means an individual presently or formerly working for, an individual applying to work for, or an individual whose employment could be affected by, another person.

*IRS* means the Internal Revenue Service of the United States Department of the Treasury.

*OSHA* means the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States Department of Labor.

*Person* means an individual, partnership, company, corporation, association (incorporated or unincorporated), trust, or estate.

*Respondent* means the person named in the complaint who is alleged to have violated TFA.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Labor.

*TFA* means section 1405(b) of the Taxpayer First Act (TFA), Public Law 116-25, 133 Stat. 981 (July 1, 2019) (codified at 26 U.S.C. 7623(d)).
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3551 — CD&R FUND VI/CULLIGAN)

(2004/C 234/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 15 September 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
p. 1


# OAR Box 1778 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 85 ) ll-C-2 7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:50:55AM

Sheet 85of 276y ^ 0 " ^ 

# A-S3-0 6 P. 2

/ n t TM n " c

- 2 7 | ^f^ 7 | UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y 

# \~«y REGIO NI I 2 8 FEDERA L PLAZ A N E WYOR K NE WYOR K 10278 , ?F D 7 

### 1908 " • n i v Mobi l Oi l Corporation / Paulsbor o Refinery Paulsboro , Ne wJerse y0806 6 fi • •r» j t« x\ ¥ ¥• art f - i n n M i I*l a T o P . rTio a t - , R o f1n«r vMariAno r ! 1 Dea r

Mr . Choate : ' / Thi s memorandum.i s writte nin respons e t o you r reques t date d February26 , 198 8 concernin g EPA' s concurrenc e o n th e schedule d replacemen t o f the regenerato r cyclone s i n the Flui d Catalyti c •-taOKiu yuni c irvu; , a t che raulsbui O reii'.iery . Additiona l informatio n concernin g thi s projec t wa s submitte d t o Mr . William J . O'Sullivan , Assistan t Director , o f th e Ne wJerse yDepartmen t o f Environmenta l Protectio n("NJDEP") , o n May23 , 1988 . EPA , Regio nII,'ha s reviewe d thi s information , togethe r wit hthe informatio nprovide d i n you r Februar y26 , 198 8 submitta l an d ha s determine d tha t the replacemen t o f the regenerato r cyclone s doe s constitut e routin e maintenance . Durin g thi s turnaround , repair s an d replacemen t o f FC C component s a t th e Paulsbor o refinery , ar e no t considere d modification s unde r §60.14(e)(1) , therefore , thi s uni t i s no t subjec t t o Ne wSourc e Performanc e Standard s ("NSPS" ) for sulfu r oxide s ("S0 X ") . I f yo u hav e an

yfurthe r questions , Rodrigue z a t (212)-264-6686 . pleas e contac t Jos e A . Sincerely ,

inethEng , Chi e Ai r Complianc e Br 1

cc : W . O'Sullivan , Assistan t Directo r Ne wJerse yDepartmen t o f Environmenta l Protectio n
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5128

ROBERT J. DAVISON and EVELYN M. DAVISON,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 04-CV-1112, Judge Lawrence

J. Block.

ON MOTION

ORDER 

The appellants move without opposition for a 6-day extension of time, until April

21, 2009, to file their response to the court's November 7, 2008 order.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

APR 16 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk COURIPSIP. PEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL ciRcuff

cc:	Sallie W. Gladney, Esq.

Deborah K. Snyder, Esq.

s20

APR 16 2009

JhF flurtohur

CLERK
**MEMBERSHIP INTEREST PURCHASE AGREEMENT**

THIS MEMBERSHIP INTEREST PURCHASE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into as of the 18th day of December, 2007 by and among TC Websites LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with offices at 12481 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, CA 92130 (the “Company”), Chaotic USA Entertainment Group, Inc., with offices at 3830 Valley Center Drive, Suite 705-405 San Diego, CA 92130 (“Seller”) and 4Kids Websites, Inc., a Delaware Corporation with offices at 1414 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019 (“Purchaser”).  The Company, Purchaser and Seller are individually herein referred to as a “Party” and collectively, the “Parties”).

In consideration of the mutual promises, representations, warranties, covenants, and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the parties to this Agreement mutually agree as follows:  

**ARTICLE I**

**PURCHASE AND SALE OF MEMBERSHIP INTERESTS**

|   | **1.01** | **Purchase and Sale of Membership Interests.**  |
|--------|----------|------------------------------------------------------|

 (a)       Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Purchaser, agrees to purchase at the Closing, and Seller agrees to sell, at the Closing, five (5) units of its Membership Interest in the Company (the “Interests”) for an amount equal to $650,000 (the “Purchase Price”) representing the forgiveness of certain debts owed by Seller to Purchaser.  For the avoidance of doubt, all amounts due or to become due (other than said $650,000) with respect to expenses previously incurred or to be incurred by Company shall be paid as is provided in Article 3 of the Company Operating Agreement.

(b)       The Parties hereby waive their respective rights and obligations pursuant to Article 8 of the Company Operating Agreement solely with respect to the transaction contemplated herein. The Parties hereby consent to the transfer by Seller to Purchaser of the five (5) units of its Membership Interest in the Company.

(c)       The Parties agreed to execute and deliver any and all documents that may be necessary or desirable to vest in Purchaser all right, title and interest in and to the five (5) units of its Membership Interest in the Company been transferred from Seller to Purchaser, including, without limitation, a revised Exhibit A to the Company Operating Agreement (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A) and the Assignment and Acceptance of Assignment and Agreement to Be Bound (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B).

(d)       The Parties further agree to amend Article 5 of the Company Operating Agreement so that it is equivalent to the Article 5 contained in the Operating Agreement for TC Digital Games LLC.

**1.02**          **Closing.**          The closing of the purchase and sale of the Interests to be acquired by Purchaser from Seller under this Agreement shall take place on December 18, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. (the “Closing”).

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7086

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JAMAR L. JONES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District 

Judge. (5:03-cr-00964-l) 

Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: April 30, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Jamar L. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Jamar L. Jones appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Jones argues that the district 

court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based upon 

Amendment 706 of the Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706. 

As we recently observed, “Amendment 706 . . . amended § 2D1.1 of 

the Sentencing Guidelines by reducing the offense levels 

associated with crack cocaine quantities by two levels.” United 

States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir. 2009). Jones’s 

guideline range, because of a statutory mandatory minimum 

sentence, was 120 to 135 months. He was sentenced to 120 

months, a sentence later reduced to 108 months for substantial 

assistance, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) and USSG § 5K1.1. 

The district court correctly concluded that, on 

account of the statutory mandatory minimum, Amendment 706 “does 

not have the effect of lowering” Jones’s guideline range. USSG 

1B1.10, p.s., cmt. n.1(A). Accordingly, a reduction in Jones’s 

sentence is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2). Further, the 

fact that the district court reduced Jones’s sentence for 

substantial assistance is irrelevant to the applicability of 

Amendment 706. Hood, 556 F.3d at 234. Accordingly, we affirm 

the decision of the district court. We dispense with oral 

2 
3 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED