alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-1020 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CIVIL AVIATION 

Transport Services 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MALAYSIA 

Amending the Agreement of 

June 21, 1997 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Kuala Lumpur August 7 and 

October 20, 2006 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 MALAYSIA 

 Civil Aviation: Transport Services 

 Agreement amending the agreement 

 of June 21, 1997. 

 Effected by exchange of notes at Kuala Lumpur 

 August 7 and October 20, 2006; 

 Entered into force October 20, 2006.
No. 11-9123.

#### Gupta *v.*Holder, Attorney General, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9283.

#### Gordon *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 11-20.

#### Bruen *v.*LeGrand, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS AT AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          43,850
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,313
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,230
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,443
<PP&E>                                          70,573
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,140
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,902
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,617
<SALES>                                        298,609
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               298,609
<CGS>                                          254,076
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  254,076
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (126)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,173
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,835
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,338
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,497
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,497
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.64


</TABLE>
```

[House Report 106-38]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
1st Session              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                106-38
_______________________________________________________________________

 
PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 661, CONDITIONALLY PROHIBITING 
                  THE OPERATION OF SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT

                                _______
                                

   March 2, 1999.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 86]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 86, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

               brief summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 661, 
``Conditionally Prohibiting the Operation of Supersonic 
Aircraft,'' under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of 
general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
    The rule waives clause 4(a) of Rule XIII (requiring a 
three-day layover of the committee report) against 
consideration of the bill. The waiver is necessary because the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was not able to 
file its report until Tuesday, March 2 and the bill may be 
considered in the House on Wednesday, March 3. The rule also 
provides that the bill be considered as read.
    Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record 
prior to their consideration will be given priority in 
recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent 
with House rules. The rule allows for the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration 
of the bill, and to reduce voting time to five minutes on a 
postponed question if the vote follows a fifteen minute vote. 
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.

                                

```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 1, 2017

NO. 03-17-00086-CV

Stanley Asher Wigley, Appellant

v.

Shannon Medical Center a/k/a Shannon West Texas Memorial Hospital;

and Emmette Flynn, M.D., Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, FIELD, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the final judgment rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed the 

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellant shall pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439

PETER R. MARKSTEINER

CLERK OF COURT

CLERK’S OFFICE

202-275-8000

March 20, 2020

Notice of Modified Service Procedures for Pro Se Parties

Pursuant to the court’s March 20, 2020 Administrative Order, the Clerk’s Office has 

implemented the following temporary procedures for pro se/unrepresented parties. 

1. Consent to Service by Email. Pro se parties are now able to consent to 

service of documents by email. Please use the following procedures to consent to 

accepting service by email:

a. Register for a Federal Circuit Public Interested Person account 

through PACER. 

b. Complete the Consent to Electronic Service Form. Click Save to prepare 

the form for filing with the court.

c. Email the form to prose@cafc.uscourts.gov.

If a pro se party has more than one case with the court, the consent to 

electronic service will apply in all pending cases. Parties must notify 

the Clerk’s Office if they no longer wish to receive service by email.

2. In Forma Pauperis or USERRA Status. Pro se parties who have been 

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis or who have had fees waived under 

USERRA can email the Clerk’s Office at prose@cafc.uscourts.gov for a free copy 

of any document received through the court’s notification system. 

All other users are subject to applicable PACER fees for accessing documents, 

however all users are automatically exempt from the first $30 in fees charged 

per quarter. See Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule.

3. Questions. Please email prose@cafc.uscourts.gov with questions about these 

procedures.
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



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Quotemedia.com, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Keith J. Randall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | 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(a) 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 the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Keith J. Randall   
|    |  | Keith J. Randall       
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | February 17, 2004
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"Judgments - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0sps49Q2On\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/case-information\/case-filings\/judgments\/\">Judgments<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/case-information\/case-filings\/judgments\/embed\/#?secret=0sps49Q2On\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Judgments” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"0sps49Q2On\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Entry of Judgment When the court reaches a final decision in a case, the court enters judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 36.\u00a0 The Clerk’s Office enters a separate judgment whenever a case is disposed of by opinion.\u00a0 When no opinion is issued in a case and the case is disposed of by […]"}
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Hope Founders, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Gweneth Williams, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Phyllis K. Saxe, J.), dated February 5, 2015, which denied her motion to vacate a default final judgment of possession in a nonpayment summary proceeding.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Phyllis K. Saxe, J.), dated February 5, 2015, affirmed, without costs.</p><p>We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of tenant's motion to vacate the default possessory judgment issued against her in this nonpayment summary proceeding. Even assuming that tenant set forth a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear on the stipulated (October 14, 2014) adjournment date, she failed to show any meritorious defense to her failure to pay her portion of the rent arrears over an extended period. Moreover, in the absence of good cause, the judgment and warrant should not be vacated (<i>see New York City Hous. Auth. v Torres</i>, 61 AD2d 681 [1978]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.<i></i></p><p></p><br>I concurI concur I concur<br>Decision Date: May 03, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4387 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4387

To require that an application for a writ of habeas corpus be submitted 
    with the consent of the person for whose relief it is intended.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 1994

 Mrs. Bentley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require that an application for a writ of habeas corpus be submitted 
    with the consent of the person for whose relief it is intended.

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

SECTION 1. CONSENT FOR APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

    Section 2248 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting the following new section:
    ``(b) In any appeal of a person convicted of a felony for which 
that person previously has been determined to be capable of aiding in 
his or her own defense, no other person may present an application for 
a writ of habeas corpus without the convicted person's consent or 
without providing clean and convincing evidence of the convicted 
person's mental incompetence.''.

                                 <all>
```
---

---

Exhibit 15.3

|                                                     | 
|---------------------------------------------------- | 
|
|
|
|
|12 York GateRegents ParkLondon NW1 4QSUnited Kingdom | 

|                   |                                       
|------------------ | --------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|Board of Directors | Direct contact no. +44 (0)20 7544 8805
|Lumenis Ltd.       | Contact name: Mark Hart               
|P.O. Box 240       |                                       
|Yokneam 20692      |                                       
|Israel             |                                       

29 June 2009

Dear Sirs

# LUMENIS (UK) LIMITED 
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statement (333-148460) on Form S-8 of
Lumenis Limited, of our report dated 25 June 2008 with respect to the balance sheet of
Lumenis (UK) Limited as of 31 December 2007 and the related profit and loss account,
for both of the years in the two-year period ended 31 December 2007, which report
appears in the annual report on Form 20-F of Lumenis Limited for the year ended
31 December 2008.

Yours faithfully

/s/ Blick Rothenberg



---

---
AFS-15-3305-E

August 28, 2015

 Exemption No. 6853G

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2000-8153

Mr. Mark Loyd

Managing Director, Regulatory and Engineering Support

American Airlines

P.O. Box 582809

Tulsa, OK 74159

Dear Mr. Loyd:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 6853, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated June 29, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of American Airlines, Inc. (American) for an extension of Exemption No. 6853, as 

amended. That exemption from § 121.317(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows 

American to operate its Boeing 737 and 777 aircraft with “No Smoking” signs that are always 

illuminated.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to American.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 6853, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the 

FAA Administrator has delegated to me, American Airlines is granted an extension to 

Exemption No. 6853 for § 121.317(a) that allows American to operate its Boeing 737 and 777 

aircraft with “No Smoking” signs that are always illuminated.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 6853, as amended, to 

August 31, 2017 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/

John Barbagallo

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
No. 11-5062.

#### Bortz *v.*Cameron, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Cresson, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 E-LOAN, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Christian
A. Larsen, as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company,
hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable 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/ Christian A. Larsen Christian A. Larsen
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2003



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

---
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Nitin M. Amersey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this quarterly
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and


         c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;


5. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):


         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and


         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and


6. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: August 12, 2004

/S/ NITIN M. AMERSEY
--------------------
Nitin M. Amersey
Interim Chairman of the Board

                                       21


<PAGE>