alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ZUCKERf SCOUfT 6- RASENBERGER, L.L.P 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

888 Seventeenth Street, NW; Washington, DC 20006-3309 

Telephone [202) 298-8660 Fax [202) 342-0683 

www.zsrlaw.com 

MALCOLM L. BENGE 

Mr. Paul Gretch 

Ms. Esta Rosenberg 

Office of International Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

United States of America 

December 28, 2009 

DIRECT DIAL (202) 973-7904 

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com 

Re: Joint Application of US Airways, Inc. and EVA Airways Corporation 

for Statements of Authorization 

(Dockets OST-2007-27352 and OST-2009-0349) 

Dear Mr. Gretch and Ms. Rosenberg: 

We have polled the air carriers on the attached service list regarding the above-referenced 

Joint Application. We received no objections. 

Accordingly, we respectfully request expedited consideration of this Joint Application. 

Enclosure 

Very truly yours, 

Malcolm L. Benge 

Jonathon H. Foglia 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on December 28,2009, I caused a copy of the foregoing letter to be served 

by email on the parties listed below: 

john.allen@,faa.gov 

byerlyjr@state.gov 

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov 

ro bett.finamore@dot.gov 

george. wellington@,dot.gov 

thuy.cooper@,dot.gov 

sascha. vanderbell en@delta.com 

sametta.c. bamett@delta.com 

j eff.morgan@delta.com 

carl.nelson@aa.com 

hkamen@coair.com 

dan. weiss@coair.com 

jeffrey.manley@united.com 

anbird@fedex.com 

dvaughan@kelleydrye.com 

dfisher@kelleydrye.com
§ 105.295 Additional requirements-Certain Dangerous Cargo (CDC) facilities. ( a ) At all MARSEC Levels, owners or operators of CDC facilities must ensure the implementation of the following security measures in addition to the requirements of this part: ( 1 ) Escort all visitors, contractors, vendors, and other non-facility employees at all times while on the facility, if access identification is not provided. Escort provisions do not apply to prearranged cargo deliveries;
( 2 ) Control the parking, loading, and unloading of vehicles within a facility;
( 3 ) Require security personnel to record or report their presence at key points during their patrols;
( 4 ) Search unmanned or unmonitored waterfront areas for dangerous substances and devices prior to a vessel's arrival at the facility; and
( 5 ) Provide an alternate or independent power source for security and communications systems.
( b ) At MARSEC Level 2, in addition to the requirements for MARSEC Level 1, owners or operators of CDC facilities must ensure the implementation of the following security measures: ( 1 ) Release cargo only in the presence of the Facility Security Officer (FSO) or a designated representative of the FSO; and
( 2 ) Continuously patrol restricted areas.
( c ) At MARSEC Level 3, in addition to the requirements for MARSEC Level 1 and MARSEC Level 2, owners or operators of CDC facilities must ensure the facilities are continuously guarded and restricted areas are patrolled.
[USCG-2003-14732, 68 FR 39322, July 1, 2003, as amended at 68 FR 60542, Oct. 22, 2003]
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 139

_____________________________
K ELVIN B ERNARD W ILLIS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark Borello , Judge

. August 17 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J.
, and O STERHAUS and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App . P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Victor D. Holder, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Steven Edward Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, fo r Appellee.
PROMISSORY NOTE



$500.00                                                           June 25, 1998


        The undersigned, Navis Technologies, LTD ("Payor"), promises to pay to
John R. Varsames ("Payee") or order the principal sum of five hundred and 00/100
DOLLARS ($500.00) 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:      6/9/99
     ----------------------

Signature:   /S/
          -----------------
#### § 97.1 Purpose and scope of this part.

This part establishes uniform administrative rules for Federal grants and cooperative agreements and subawards to State, local and Indian tribal governments.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ESM ER ALDA M A R ISOL M UNOZ, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-72937 Age n c y No. A099-828-392 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Esm e ra lda

M arisol M unoz , a

native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva d or, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) sum m ary dism issa l of he r a ppe a l from an im

m i gration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng he r a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture .



# FIL ED MAY19 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion theB IA’ s sum

m ary dism issa l of a

n a ppe a l. Singh v . Gonzale

s , 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in sum m arily dism issing M

unoz ’ s a ppe a l be c a

use she fa ile d to file a

brie f or sta

te m e nt a s she indic ate d on he r Notic e of Appe a l, a

nd the Notic e of Appe a l itse lf la c ke d suffic ie nt spe c ific ity re ga rding the g rounds for a

ppe a l. S e e Singh v . Ashc roft , 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ The B IA sim

ply c annot e v a luate the m e rits of a n a ppe a l unle ss the pe titione r c le arly e xpre sse s wha

t he c o n side rs to be the fa c tua l a nd/or le ga l ina de qua c ie s of the IJ’ s c ha lle nge d de c ision.” ). W e re je c t M unoz ’ s c onte ntion tha t the B IA fa ile d to suffic ie ntly

artic ulate the re a sons for its de c ision. W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w M unoz ’ s c onte ntions re ga rding them e rits of he r c la im s. Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

2 1 2 - 7 2 9 3 7
#### § 780.100 Scope and significance of interpretative bulletin.

Subpart A of this part 780, this subpart B and subparts C, D, and E of this part together constitute the official interpretative bulletin of the Department of Labor with respect to the meaning and application of sections 3(f), 13(a)(6), and 13(b)(12) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. Section 3(f) defines “agriculture” as the term is used in the Act. Section 13(a)(6) provides exemption from the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Act for certain employees employed in “agriculture,” as so defined. Section 13(b)(12) provides an overtime exemption for any employee employed in agriculture. As appears more fully in subpart A of this part 780, interpretations in this bulletin with respect to the provisions of the Act discussed are official interpretations upon which reliance may be placed and which will guide the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator in the performance of their duties under the Act.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

We , Danong Chen, Chief Executive Officer of Tanox, Inc. and Gregory P. Guidroz, Vice President of
Finance of Tanox, Inc. certify, pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Tanox, Inc. for the annual period ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tanox, Inc.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                   |  | 
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: April 30, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Danong Chen                                   |  | 
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Danong Chen President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|                     |  |  |  |    
|Date: April 30, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Gregory Guidroz                               |  | 
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Gregory Guidroz Vice President of
Finance         |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Tanox, Inc. and will be retained by Tanox, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 35 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 35

        Expressing support for prayer at school board meetings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 22, 2007

   Mr. Vitter (for himself and Mr. Grassley) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
                          Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
        Expressing support for prayer at school board meetings.

Whereas the freedom to practice religion and to express religious thought is 
        acknowledged to be a fundamental and unalienable right belonging to all 
        individuals;
Whereas the United States was founded on the principle of freedom of religion 
        and not freedom from religion;
Whereas the framers intended that the first amendment to the Constitution would 
        prohibit the Federal Government from enacting any law that favors one 
        religious denomination over another, not prohibit any mention of 
        religion or reference to God in civic dialogue;
Whereas in 1983, the Supreme Court held in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, that 
        the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part 
        of the fabric of our society and invoking divine guidance on a public 
        body entrusted with making the laws is not a violation of the 
        Establishment Clause of the first amendment, but rather is simply a 
        tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of the 
        Nation;
Whereas voluntary prayer in elected bodies should not be limited to prayer in 
        State legislatures and Congress;
Whereas school boards are deliberative bodies of adults similar to a legislature 
        in that they are elected by the people, act in the public interest, and 
        hold sessions that are open to the public for voluntary attendance; and
Whereas voluntary prayer by an elected body should be protected under law and 
        encouraged in society because voluntary prayer has become a part of the 
        fabric of our society, voluntary prayer acknowledges beliefs widely held 
        among the people of the Nation, and the Supreme Court has held that it 
        is not a violation of the Establishment Clause for a public body to 
        invoke divine guidance: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes that prayer before school board meetings is 
        a protected act in accordance with the fundamental principles 
        upon which the Nation was founded; and
            (2) expresses support for the practice of prayer at the 
        beginning of school board meetings.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of Modtech Holdings, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on his knowledge:



| |  | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: November 12, 2004

/s/ Dennis L. ShogrenDennis L. ShogrenChief Financial Officer
§ 825.700 Interaction with employer's policies. ( a ) An employer must observe any employment benefit program or plan that provides greater family or medical leave rights to employees than the rights established by the FMLA. Conversely, the rights established by the Act may not be diminished by any employment benefit program or plan. For example, a provision of a CBA which provides for reinstatement to a position that is not equivalent because of seniority (e.g., provides lesser pay) is superseded by FMLA. If an employer provides greater unpaid family leave rights than are afforded by FMLA, the employer is not required to extend additional rights afforded by FMLA, such as maintenance of health benefits (other than through COBRA), to the additional leave period not covered by FMLA.
( b ) Nothing in this Act prevents an employer from amending existing leave and employee benefit programs, provided they comply with FMLA. However, nothing in the Act is intended to discourage employers from adopting or retaining more generous leave policies.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT (12)

              THE MEAD CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

                      RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                       (All dollar amounts in millions)


<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                   Year Ended December 31
                                      ------------------------------------------------
                                       1997       1996      1995      1994       1993
                                      -------    -------   -------   -------    ------
<S>                                   <C>        <C>       <C>       <C>        <C>
Earnings:
 The Mead Corporation earnings
  from continuing operations
  before income taxes                  $222.5     $294.6    $487.7    $ 52.4    $135.0
 Mead's share of earnings of
  investees before income taxes          15.3        8.2      63.4      95.7      30.3
 Interest and debt expense              116.2       73.3      86.0     113.4     107.5
 Amortization of capitalized interest:
   The Mead Corporation                   5.0        4.8       4.5       4.6       6.5
   Mead's share of investees               .7         .7        .7       1.3       1.4
Portion of rental payments deemed
  to be interest                         20.1       18.6      16.9      18.0      16.5
                                      -------    -------   -------   -------    ------
                                       $379.8     $400.2    $659.2    $285.4    $297.2
                                      =======    =======   =======   =======    ======

Combined fixed charges:
 Interest and debt expense:
   The Mead Corporation               $  98.2     $ 57.7   $  69.4   $ 101.1    $ 94.6
   Mead's share of investees             18.0       15.6      16.6      12.3      12.9
                                      -------    -------   -------   -------    ------
                                        116.2       73.3      86.0     113.4     107.5
                                      -------    -------   -------   -------    ------

 Capitalized interest-
   The Mead Corporation                   9.2        6.9       2.0       5.7       2.6
                                      -------    -------   -------   -------    ------

 Portion of rental payments deemed
  to be interest:
   The Mead Corporation                  19.7       18.2      16.4      17.6      16.2
   Mead's share of investees              0.4         .4        .5        .4        .3
                                      -------    -------   -------   -------    ------
                                         20.1       18.6      16.9      18.0      16.5
                                      -------    -------   -------   -------    ------

                                      $ 145.5    $  98.8   $ 104.9   $ 137.1    $126.6
                                      =======    =======   =======   =======    ======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges        2.6        4.1       6.3       2.1       2.3
                                      =======    =======   =======   =======    ======
</TABLE>
Exhibit
23.1














Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms
S-8 Nos. 333-57484, 333-67485, 333-87380, 333-90170, 333-105533, 333-115335,
333-124740 and 333-153002) pertaining to certain stock award, stock option,
stock incentive, and stock bonus plans of McMoRan Exploration Co. and in the
Registration Statements (Forms S-3 Nos. 333-144496 and 333-121779) of
McMoRan Exploration Co., and in the related Prospectuses of our reports dated
February 26, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
McMoRan Exploration Co. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of McMoRan Exploration Co. included in this Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008.




/s/ Ernst & Young
LLP





New
Orleans, Louisiana


February
26, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13114]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2383-000]


California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of 
Filing

May 19, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 3, 2000, the California Independent System 
Operator Corporation (ISO), tendered for filing an correction regarding 
a proposed amendment (Amendment No. 29), to the ISO Tariff, which had 
been filed in the above-referenced docket on May 2, 2000. The 
correction provided tariff sheets containing Tariff sections that were 
``rolled over'' to subsequent pages of the Tariff, as a result of 
changes and additions made in the Amendment No. 29 filing, and 
corrected an error in the section numbering on a certain Tariff sheet 
that was included in the Amendment No. 29 filing.
    The ISO states that this filing has been served upon the Public 
Utilities Commission of California, the California Energy Commission, 
the California Electricity Oversight Board, and all parties with 
effective Scheduling Coordinator Service Agreements under the ISO 
tariff.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance 
with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests 
should be filed on or before May 30, 2000. Protests will be considered 
by the Commission to determine 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. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13114 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Number of Persons 65+

# Marital Status

# Living Arrangements

# State Percent 65+

# State Increase 65+

# Pop by State

# Family Income

# Personal Income

# Poverty

# Employment

# Education

# Health Insurance

# Physical Functioning

# Unemployment by Disability

# Anxiety or Depression