alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 570.106 “Ship or deliver for shipment in commerce”. ( a ) Section 12(a) forbids producers, manufacturers, and dealers to “ship or deliver for shipment in commerce” the goods referred to therein. A producer, manufacturer, or dealer may “ship” goods in commerce either by moving them himself in interstate or foreign commerce or by causing them to so move, as by delivery to a carrier.[7] Thus, a baker “ships” his bread in commerce whether he carries it in his own truck across State lines or sends it by contract or common carrier to his customers in other States. The word “ship” must be applied in its ordinary meaning. For example, it does not apply to the transmission of telegraphic messages.[8]
( b ) To “deliver for shipment in commerce” means to surrender the custody of goods to another under such circumstances that the person surrendering the goods knows or has reason to believe that the goods will later be shipped in commerce.[9] Typical is the case of a Detroit manufacturer who delivers his goods in Detroit to a distributor who, as the manufacturer is well aware, will ship the goods into another State. A delivery for shipment in commerce may also be made where raw materials are delivered by their producer to a manufacturer in the same State who converts them into new products which are later shipped across State lines. If the producer in such case is aware or has reason to believe that the finished products will ultimately be sent into another State, his delivery of the raw materials to the manufacturer is a delivery for shipment in commerce. Another example is a paper box manufacturer who ships a carton of boxes to a fresh fruit or vegetable packing shed within the same State, with knowledge or reason to believe that the boxes will there be filled with fruits or vegetables and shipped outside the State. In such case the box manufacturer has delivered the boxes for shipment in commerce.
Footnotes -
570.106
[7] Section 3(b) of the Act defines “commerce” to mean “trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or between any State and any place outside thereof.”
[8] *Western Union Telegraph Co.* v. *Lenroot,* 323 U.S. 490.
[9] *Tobin* v. *Grant,* N. D. Calif., 79 Sup. 975 which was a suit for injunction by the Secretary of Labor against a manufacturer of books and book covers employing oppressive child labor. The facts showed that the manufactured articles sold by defendant to purchasers in the same State had an ultimate out-of-State destination which was manifest to defendant. The court construed the words “deliver for shipment in commerce” as sufficiently broad to cover this situation even though the purchasers acquired title to the goods.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0734 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-SW-080-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: other

If other, explain: Required actions are incorrect and must be corrected.

Commenter(s): Luc Murphy, Airworthiness Office, Bell Helicopter Textron Canada

What change to the AD action is requested? Update required actions to mandate the upgrade of the 

222-382-001-107 to 222-382-001-111 regardless of the condition of the piston rod, as indicated 

in ASB 430-11-46 Rev. A, PART 1.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Revising step (2) of the AD will bring the AD in 

line with ASB for the corresponding helicopter model. 

Do we agree? Yes

If YES, we agree because this AD was intended to be a superseding AD, replacing the required 

actions of AD 2010-19-51, which only required a one time inspection. The intent of this 

superseding AD was to mandate the upgrade of the 222-382-001-107 to 222-382-001-111, 

but somewhere during the review cycle, the original AD requirements were inserted and 

the intent of the supersedure was lost. Make the following changes to the AD: reissue the 

AD to mandate upgrade of the 222-382-001-107 to 222-382-001-111. 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 
Page 2 of 3

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 2012-SW-080-AD

ASE Printed Name: Matt Wilbanks Date

Branch Manager Date
§ 38.114 Distribution of WIOA Title I financial assistance to an alternate recipient. When the Department withholds funds from a recipient or grant applicant under these regulations, the Secretary may disburse the withheld funds directly to an alternate recipient. In such case, the Secretary will require any alternate recipient to demonstrate: ( a ) The ability to comply with these regulations; and
( b ) The ability to achieve the goals of the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00355-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.K. AND P.K.,

CHILDREN

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 325th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (325-679575-20)

March 2, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

 Justice Dabney Bassel
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.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# AGENCY:

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207.

# TIME AND DATE:

Thursday, May 25, 2000, 2 p.m.

# LOCATION:

Room 410, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD.

# STATUS:

Part open to the public; part closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

### Open to the Public

1. CPSC Vice Chairman.

The Commission will elect a Vice Chairman.

### *Closed to the Public*

2. Compliance Status Report.

The staff will brief the Commission on the status of various compliance matters.

For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-0709.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207; (301) 504-0800.

Dated: May 15, 2000.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12551 Filed 5-15-00; 2:52 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
#### PRICE et v STATE ex MENTZER et

Ohio Supreme Court

No. 21292.

Decided Jan. 23, 1929

ALLEN, J

ELECTIONS

(240 C) Under Section 5162 et seq., General Code, when the notice of election contest, specifying the noints on which the contest shall be based, does not as a matter of law set forth allegations sufficient, if proved, to invalidate the election, a decision rendered by the jury of freeholders upon such points of contest is void and of no effect.

*77(240 C2) The corrupt practices act, Section 5175-26 et seq., Genial Code, was designed to prevent corruption and to guarantee purity of election, and not to prevent a candidate from defining his principles.

A promise made by candidates for the board of trustees of public affairs of a village which owns and operates a public water works, to “furnish without charge, clean wholesome well-water for the community swimming pool during the few summer months it is used rather than compel the children of our town to swim in filtered creek water,” does not constitute a corrupt practice under Section 5175-26, General Code.

Marshall, C J, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ, concur.
#### In the Matter of Joseph Halpert, Appellant, against Harris M. Murdock et al., Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, Respondents. Isabelle L. Lepke, Intervener, Respondent, and Others, Interveners.

Argued April 22, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*524
      *Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*and *David I. Shivitz*of counsel), for Board of Standards and Appeals, respondent.

*George J. Rudnick*for intervener, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
r^> 

•.•iS 

> 

_o 

C5 

fSi 

• • . - - - ! -

•- ,; ry^^> 

cr^m 2^5 Sm 

c/:> 

L A W OFFICE S 

A N N THOMA S 

e S a HCALDSBUR C AVENU E 

HCALDSBURG . CALIFORNI A 9544 6 

TELEPHON E <707 ) 433-426 8 

F A X (707 ) 433-S96 0 

EMAIL : ATOSONIC.NC T 

A N N THOMA S MAILIN G ADORCSS : 

ATTORNE Y AT LA W P O S T O F F1 C C B O X I 7 • 5 

HCALOSBURO , C A 0644S-I7O S 

August 28,2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington DC 20590-0001 

Re: Docket OST-201 0-0124 

Dear Secretary La Hood; 

r strongly support the. Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport aiq>lication for 

"a. graht'uiider.the Small Commmuty Air ^eryiQe Development PtOgram^ This grant along 

\OTfh local fields will provide for xnarketing and.advertising which \viU'result iil attitMng 

ihoite inbound^passenjgers to Sonoiiia County oil Horizon Air.. . ' 

I am an attorney in Sonoma County, California and work with inany seniors in 

matters related to Elder Law. 

I have heard many positive comments from my clients regarding the Horizon Air 

service that began in 2007 at tbe Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport At first 

they were thrilled when they heard that we would be getting service and knowing that 

their long, inconvenient, and expensive bus trips to the Oakland and San Francisco 

airports would not be necessary. 

Many have continually taken advantage of the nonstop flights to Los Angeles, Las 

Vegas, Portland, and iSeattle. The response fipm our senior community has been 

excellent. Some of their trips have been to visit grandchildren; some to try their luck on a 

weekend trip to Las Vegas; some to visit family members in Portland and Seattle. 

I understand, however, that the inbound passenger numbers have not been as large 

as expected anid it is^ltthat the-iSonpnia County Airport needs to get the word bttt that ' 

wie have air'service. .'Certainly, Sonoma County is well known as Wine Country and "^ -

giettihg the word out would encouxage. people in other areas of California to take ' 

advantage of our convenient nonstop air service to Sonoma County. Not only would 
SI 0-1 009 10-039 

L A W OFFICE S 

A N N THOMA S 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

August 28,2010 

Page 2 

incoming visitors enjoy their visits to the Wine Country but our local businesses, the 

tourism community, the airline, various vendors, and the traveling public would all feel 

the positive impact because it would help support our overall economy. 

The award of the requested grant will give the airport and its partners the funding 

that it needs to do an effective job of promoting Sonoma County. Higher load factors for 

Horizon Air can also mean more flights to not only existing markets but to new markets. 

Your support of our request is most appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

ANN THOMAS 

AT: ccm
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 130 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 130

 Designating July 28, 2007, as ``National Day of the American Cowboy''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 28, 2007

   Mr. Thomas (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Salazar, Mr. 
Ensign, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Baucus, 
 Mr. Allard, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
   Crapo, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Reid) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                              May 17, 2007

                Reported by Mr. Leahy, without amendment

                              May 21, 2007

                        Considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating July 28, 2007, as ``National Day of the American Cowboy''.

Whereas pioneering men and women, recognized as cowboys, helped establish the 
        American West;
Whereas that cowboy spirit continues to infuse the Nation with its solid 
        character, sound family values, and good common sense;
Whereas the cowboy embodies honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, respect, a 
        strong work ethic, and patriotism;
Whereas the cowboy loves, lives off of, and depends on the land and its 
        creatures, and is an excellent steward, protecting and enhancing the 
        environment;
Whereas the cowboy continues to play a significant role in the culture and 
        economy of the United States;
Whereas approximately 800,000 ranchers in all 50 States are conducting business 
        and contributing to the economic well-being of nearly every county in 
        the Nation;
Whereas rodeo is the sixth most-watched sport in the United States;
Whereas membership in rodeo and other organizations encompassing the livelihood 
        of a cowboy transcends race and sex and spans every generation;
Whereas the cowboy is an American icon;
Whereas to recognize the American cowboy is to acknowledge the ongoing 
        commitment of the United States to an esteemed and enduring code of 
        conduct; and
Whereas the ongoing contributions made by cowboys to their communities should be 
        recognized and encouraged: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates July 28, 2007, as ``National Day of the 
        American Cowboy''; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
#### BANKERS LIFE CO v WATERS, et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

107501⁄2.

Decided Oct. 20, 1930

David P. Bowden, Cleveland, for Bankers Life Co.

Howell, Roberts & Duncan, Cleveland, for Waters.

Bemon, Mulligan, Keeley & LeFever, Cleveland, for Clara H. Corlett, Admrx.

Judges WILLIAMS and RICHARDS (6th Dist) and CROW (3rd Dist) sitting.

RICHARDS, J.

In 1 Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, Sections 170 and 171, the author classifies exclusively equitable remedies and embraces • interpleader in one of the classes.

It seems clear that the original jurisdiction in interpleader was in chancery, but the proceeding has been regulated in part, by statute. Section 11265 GC, provides for interpleader upon affidavit of the defendant before answer, but this section is not broad enough to cover the entire field of interpleader and has no relation to an action brought by a plaintiff holding a fund to which claim is set up by different claimants. Interpleader is peculiarly an equitable remedy where various persons, whose ■•titles are connected by being derived from ’ a common source, claim the same thing from a third person, and authorizes such person to maintain an action requiring them to' interplead and set forth their claim. The equitable character of inter-pleader is clearly stated in 4 Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, Sections 1320 and 1329. See also 33 C. J., 466.

*743We. are not concerned in determining whether the method provided in the statute above cited is or is not of an equitable character, for the case under consideration is not brought under that statute but by a plaintiff and under equitable principles existing long before the enactment of the statute and still existing, for the statute is not broad enough to cover all classes of interpleader. As was said by Speer, J. in the course of the opinion in 1st National Bank v. Beebe, 62 Oh St, 41, 44:

> “that the equitable character of interpleader still survives, we think has been the common understanding of the bench and bar since the enactment of the code.”

This court is of the opinion that the action is in chancery and hence, under the Constitution as amended in 1912, appealable and that the motion to dismiss the appeal should be overruled.

Our attention is called to Union Trust Co. vs. Lessovitz, et al., decided by the Supreme Court May 21, 1930. (Syl 8 Abs 336; 171 NE 849; 122 Oh St 406), holding that when a motion to' dismiss an appeal is sustained the appellant has a right to prosecute error to the Supreme Court from the judgment of dismissal and that the pending error case should, in the meantime, be held in abeyance. But, in the instant case, the motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled and that is not a final order to which error will lie, and therefore this case on appeal will be forthwith assigned for trial. Motion to dismiss appeal overruled.

Williams and Crow, JJ, concur.
[No. 27341-1-II.

Division Two.

November 1, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jeffery Scott Woodward, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 97-1-00681-1, James E. Warme and Don L. McCulloch, JJ., entered April 24, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Hunt, C.J., and Armstrong, J.
#### § 458.28 Presumption of validity.

In any proceeding involving § 458.26, a trusteeship established by a labor organization in conformity with the procedural requirements of its constitution and bylaws and authorized or ratified after a fair hearing either before the executive board or before such other body as may be provided in accordance with its constitution and bylaws shall be presumed valid for a period of 18 months from the date of its establishment and shall not be subject to attack during such period except upon clear and convincing proof that the trusteeship was not established or maintained in good faith for purposes allowable under § 458.26. After the expiration of 18 months the trusteeship shall be presumed invalid in any such proceeding, unless the labor organization shall show by clear and convincing proof that the continuation of the trusteeship is necessary for a purpose allowable under § 458.26.
- 1 - 

Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

1212 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.842.4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

June 7, 2012 

via email and regulations.gov 

Esta Rosenberg 

Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Joint Application of Delta, Korean, Pinnacle and SkyWest 

 For a Statement of Authorization 

Docket DOT-OST-2003-14367 

 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg: 

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all carriers on the service list to the above 

referenced application and there are no objections. In these circumstances, we urge that the 

application be granted as soon as possible. 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alexander Van der Bellen
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Christopher J. Spencer, of Wizzard Software Corporation (the "small business issuer"), certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of the small business issuer;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.   Date:8/14/07By:/s/ Christopher J. SpencerChristopher J. SpencerChief Executive Officer and President