alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 301-72.101 What information should we provide an employee before authorizing the use of common carrier transportation? You should provide the employee: ( a ) Notice that the employee is accountable for all tickets, GTRs and other transportation documents;
( b ) Your procedures for the control and accounting of common carrier transportation documents, including the procedures for submitting unused, partially used, downgraded/exchanged tickets, refund receipts or ticket refund applications, and denied boarding compensation; and
( c ) A credit/refund address so the carrier can credit/refund the agency for unused tickets (when the tickets have been issued using an agency centrally billed account or by GTR).
[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15976, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12252, Feb. 16, 2024]
#### § 302-4.702 What PCS travel expenses must we pay for the employee's immediate family members?

Except as specifically provided in this chapter, the reimbursement limits in chapter 301 of this title govern payment of travel expenses you must pay for the employee's immediate family members.
Order entered February 18 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00037

- CR
JOHN KENNETH WEEKLEY , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. F

- 0955995

- H



### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s February 17, 2015 motion to reject counsel and proceed pro se. In the motion, appellant asserts that he is concerned appointed counsel will file

an Anders brief and that he will not have access to the trial record to prepare a response. We note that this is an appeal from the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for post

conviction DNA testing. No hearing was conducted on the motion; therefore, the only record
before this Court is the clerk’s record.

We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant desires to dismiss counsel and proceed pro se. The trial court shall first advise appellant that he does not have the right to court

appointed cou nsel of his choice. See Buntion v. Harmon , 827 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Sampson v. State , 854 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. App.

– Dallas 19 92, no pet.).

 The trial court shall next advise appellant of the dangers and disadvantages of self

representation. See Hubbard v. State , 739 S.W.2d 341, 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The trial court shall further advise appellant that he does not have the right to hybrid representation and that he will solely be responsible for filing appellant’s brief and will be subje ct to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in his filings and communications with the Court of Appeals.

 If the trial court determines appellant’s waiver of counsel is knowing and voluntary, it shall provide appellant with a statement in substantially th e form provided in article 1.051(g) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 1.051(g).

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record containing the written findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. If the trial court determines appellant’s waiver of counsel is knowing and voluntary, the supplemental record shall contain appellant’s signed, written waiver in substantially the form provided by article 1.051(g). The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received,
whichever is earlier. /s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
<Page>

EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
     and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
     undersigned officer of American Science & Engineering, Inc., a
     Massachusetts corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such
     officer's knowledge and belief, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
     for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company
     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
     Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
     condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Ralph S. Sheridan
---------------------------
Ralph S. Sheridan
Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2002


                                      -28-
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, (DOD). 

# ACTION:

Notice of evaluation for continued accreditation. 

# SUMMARY:

The Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) is seeking comments from the public about the Institute in preparation for its periodic evaluation by its regional accrediting agency. The Institute will undergo a comprehensive evaluation visit October 16-18, 2000, by a team representing the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The AFIT has been accredited by the Commission since 1960. The team will review the institution's ongoing ability to meet the Commission's Criteria for Accreditation and General Institutional Requirements. 

# DATES:

All comments must be received by September 15, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

The public is invited to submit comments regarding the Institute to: Public Comment on the Air Force Institute of Technology, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2400, Chicago, IL 60602. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. James M. Horner at 937-255-4808. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments must address substantive matters related to the quality of the institution or its academic programs. Comments must be in writing and signed comments cannot be treated as confidential. 

Authority:10 U.S.C. 9314. 

Janet A. Long, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 00-16218 Filed 6-26-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,231
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,743
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    276,806
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               342,600
<PP&E>                                         842,085
<DEPRECIATION>                                 474,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 784,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          291,803
<BONDS>                                        231,210
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     38,275
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                     189,375
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   784,185
<SALES>                                        564,774
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               564,774
<CGS>                                           31,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  208,850
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,355
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,018
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                341,569
<INCOME-TAX>                                        78
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            341,491
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   341,491
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY P. GRIFFIN.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary Nos. 629, 653)

(377 SE2d 157)

Per curiam.

Respondent, Anthony P. Griffin, was charged with violating the following standards of State Bar Rule 4-102.

Standard 4 - Conversion of a client’s funds, forgery, and wilful misrepresentation, thereby engaging in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and wilful misrepresentation.

Standard 45 - Settling a client’s case without permission, forging an endorsement of the draft received therefor and converting the proceeds therefrom to his personal use, thereby engaging in professional conduct in violation of this standard.

Standard 61 - Failing to notify his client of receipt of a settlement draft from Allstate Insurance Company and failing to transfer the funds to his client.

Standard 63 - Failing to maintain complete records of his client’s funds and failing to properly render an accounting to his client.

Standard 65 - Commingling his client’s funds with his own and failing to deposit and administer client’s funds from a trust account.

*72Decided March 15, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Joe David Jackson, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Standard 68 - Failing to respond to the investigation of the memorandum of complaint filed by his client.

As a result of the Standard 68 violation, the Special Master found each and every allegation of fact and each disciplinary infraction alleged in the State Bar Formal Complaint to be deemed admitted by Respondent.

The record supports the above violations of the Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of Georgia and this Court adopts the findings of the Special Master and the disbarment recommendation of the State Disciplinary Board. It is directed that respondent Anthony P. Griffin be disbarred.

In the proceeding in Supreme Court Docket No. 653: In the Matter of Anthony P. Griffin, the State Disciplinary Board, for the same and similar charges, recommended respondent Anthony P. Griffin be disbarred. In view of this Court’s disbarment order in Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 629, we direct that the proceedings in Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 653 be returned to the State Disciplinary Board to be placed upon the inactive docket and reactivated in the event Mr. Griffin ever petitions for reinstatement to the practice of law in the State of Georgia.

*All the Justices concur.*
# Mo b i l e So u r c e E m i ss i o n s I n v e n t o ry

T h i s pa g e l a s t u p da t e d o n F e bru a r y 0 3

, 2 01 6

T h e m ob i l e s ou r ce e m i ss i o ns i nv e n t o ry i s A R B ' s t o o l f o r a ss e ss i n g t h e p op u l a t i on , ac t i v it y , a n d

e m i s s i on s fr o m m o b il e so u rc e s

. T h e se i nv e n t o r i e s ar e c o ns t a n tl y b e i n g r e v i s e d a n d u pd a t ed t o

s u pp o rt t h e l a t e s t a i r q u a lit y p l an s an d r e gu l a ti o n s

. P er i od i c a ll y t h es e i n v en t o ri e s a r e c o m p il e d a n d

re l ea s ed t o t h e p ub l i c f o r u s e i n t r an s por t a ti o n a nd a ir q ua l it y a ss e ss m e n t s b o t h i n t er n a l a nd e x t e rn a l
t o t he ag e nc y

. M ob i l e s our c e i nv e n t o r i e s ar e d e ve l o pe d b y t h e M o b il e S o ur c e A na l y s i s B r an c h i n t h e A i r Q u a li t y P l an n i n g an d S c i e n ce D i v i s i o n.



### A n n o u n ce m e n ts
E M FA C 2 0 14 o ffi c i a ll y a p pr o ve d b y U S EPA - 12 / 1 4 / 2 01 5 E M FA C 2 0 14 o n li n e t r a i n i ng w e b i n a r s l i de s a n d v i de o s n o w av a il a b le - 06 / 26 / 2 01 5 T h e E M F A C 2 01 4 W e b D a t a ba s e i s n o w a va i l ab le - 0 5 / 1 5 / 2 01 5



### M o b i l e S o u rc e C at e g o ri es
I n d i v i d ua l ca t eg o ry

- sp e c ifi c e m i s s i o n s e s ti m a t e s a n d d oc u m e n t a t i o n ar e d e ve l o pe d f o r s p ec i f i c

a g en c y r e gu l a t o r

y a c ti v iti e s

. C a t e go r i es i n c l ud e c a rs/ l i gh t tr u ck a ss e ss m e n t s f

or e m i ss i o ns s t a n da r d d e ve l o p m en t

, h e av y d u t y t r uc k a n d i n -u s e o f f-r o ad e m i ss i o n s es t i m a t e s f o r i n- u s e d i e se l R u l es , an d

c a t eg o ry sp e c ifi c e m i s s i o n s e s ti m a t e s f o r o c e a n-g o i n g ve s s e l s , p l e a su r e c r a ft

, an d m an y o t h er t yp e s

o f ve h i c l e s.

O n

- R o a d M o t o r V eh i c l es O ff

- R o ad M o t or V eh i c l es



### R e s o u r c es J o i n o u r M SE I m a ili n g li st F o r m o re i n f o r m a ti o n o n M o b il e S o ur c e E m i s s i o ns I nv e n t o r i e s , p l e as e e m a i l us a t

m s e i @ a rb. c a

. g ov

. 

### P a g e 1 o f 1 M ob il e S ou r c e E m i ss i on I nv e n t o ry

10/ 14/ 2016 h tt ps : / / w w w

. ar b. c a .gov /m s e i/ m s e i .h tm
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
             (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)


     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of ITIS Holdings Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of ITIS
Holdings Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the third quarter of 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that:

     (1)     the 10-QSB 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 10-QSB Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ITIS
Holdings Inc.

Dated:  November 18, 2005                       ITIS Holdings Inc.


                                                /s/ Hunter M. A. Carr
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Hunter M. A. Carr
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                                /s/ Joanna Hoover
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Joanna Hoover
                                        Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

**Certification of the ConcernController**

 

I, Peter Blokhuis, certify that:

 

1.          I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Triple PN.V.;

2.          Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatement made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.          Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.          The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the company and have:

a)         Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)  [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SECtransition instructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986];

c)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

d)        Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annualreport that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.          The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)         All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and

b)        Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 
| Date: June 3, 2005 |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/ Peter Blokhuis      |   |
|                    |
|                    |
| Peter Blokhuis          |
| Concern Controller      |

 

----
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 796

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on

the amount of receipts attributable to military property which may be

treated as exempt foreign trade income.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. TANNER, Mr.

NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. CRANE, Mr. WELLER, Mr. HERGER, Mr.

HOUGHTON, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr.

HULSHOF, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. ENGLISH, Ms. DUNN, Mr.

MCKEON, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr. MCCRERY, and Mr. DREIER) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the limitation on the amount of receipts attributable

to military property which may be treated as exempt

foreign trade income.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defense Jobs and

5 Trade Promotion Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 796 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON RECEIPTS ATTRIB2 UTABLE TO MILITARY PROPERTY WHICH MAY

3 BE TREATED AS EXEMPT FOREIGN TRADE IN4 COME.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 923 of

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining exempt for7 eign trade income) is amended by striking paragraph (5)

8 and by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (5).

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

10 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

11 December 31, 1998.

Æ
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40883 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS TREJO-PALOMEQUE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-143-1

-------------------- April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus Trejo-Palomeque appeals the 46-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found in the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been charged in the indictment. Trejo-Palomeque acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issueNo. 00-40883 -2- for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 120 S. Ct. at 2362; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). TrejoPalomeque’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

W ASIDNGTON, D.C. 

Sound Aircraft Services, Inc. 

COMPLAINANT 

v. 

Town of East Hampton and East 

Hampton Airport 

RESPONDENT . 

. 

Docket No. 16-14-07 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced 

complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport 

Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CPR Part 16 (Rules of Practice). Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, 

§16.11(a), the date by which the Director, FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis will issue a Director's Determination in this matter is hereby extended to on or before 

May 24,2016. 

/') 

~ 

,JA~·· . .... L .·~<· ,'j!~:H:~ 

Acting Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

J):LVJl 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 25,2016, I placed in the United States mail (first class, 

postage paid), a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time addressed to: 

Counsel to the Complainant 

Paul A. Lange, Esq. 

Alison L. Squiccimarro, Esq. 

Law Offices of Paul A. Lange, LLC 

80 Ferry Boulevard 

Stratford, CT 06615 

pal@lopal.com 

als@lopal.com 

Counsel to the Respondent 

Elizabeth Vail, Esq. 

Town Attorney 

Town of East Hampton 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, NY 1193 7 

Mr. James Brundige 

Airport Manager 

Town of East Hampton Airport 

200 Daniels Hole Road 

Wainscott, NY 11937 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis