alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 304-6.2 What should we do if a non-Federal source does not pay the full cost for expenses that an employee will incur during travel?

If you determine in advance of the employee's travel that payment from a non-Federal source will cover some but not all of the employee's allowable travel and subsistence expenses you should state on the employee's travel authorization that the employee will be reimbursed the difference between the full allowances and the payment from the non-Federal source. See chapter 301 of this Title, 6 Foreign Affairs Manual, Chapter 100, or the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), Chapter 4, as applicable to determine the applicable maximum allowances.

[FTR Amdt. 2003-02, 68 FR 12604, Mar. 17, 2003, as amended at 85 FR 39850, July 2, 2020]
§ 30.201 Equipment authorization. ( a ) Except as provided under paragraph (c) of this section, each transmitter utilized for operation under this part must be of a type that has been authorized by the Commission under its certification procedure.
( b ) Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in these services may request equipment authorization following the procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. Equipment authorization for an individual transmitter may be requested by an applicant for a station authorization by following the procedures set forth in part 2 of this chapter.
( c ) Unless specified otherwise, transmitters for use under the provisions of subpart E of this part for fixed point-to-point microwave and point-to-multipoint services must be a type that has been verified for compliance.
No. 11-9318.

#### Ross *v.*Chapman, Warden.

Sup. Ct. Ga. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### § 10.300 Alert aggregator. [Reserved]
No. 11-9893.

#### Quintero v. United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### W. Primo Lord, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. J. C. Bravo, et al., *Defendants in Error.*

143 So. 437.

En Banc.

Decision filed August 9, 1932.

Petition for rehearing denied September 27, 1932.

*453
      *Macfarlane, Pettingill, Macfarlane <$o Fowler,*for Plain- ' tiff in Error;

*G. Edmund Worth,*for Defendants in Error.

Per Curiam.

In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Buford, /Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Terrell are of opinion that the judgment of the Circuit Court should be reversed, while Mr. Justice Ellis, Mr. Justice Brown, and Mr. Justice Davis are of opinion that the said judgment should be affirmed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the judgment should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the judgment should be affirmed; therefore, it is considered, ordered and adjudged under the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. R. 51, that the judgment of the Circuit Court in this cause be and the samje is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
No. 11-9260.

#### Schuetz *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal, 4th App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

PUREWICK CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2024-1184

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:19-cv-01508-MN, Judge 

Maryellen Noreika.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 24-1184 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 03/01/2024
2 PUREWICK CORPORATION V. SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

March 1, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 1, 2024

Case: 24-1184 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 03/01/2024
EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 10 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 Form 10-Q of Environmental Solutions
Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period March 14, 2008 (the
"Report"), David J. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, and President of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                               DATE: MAY 15, 2008


                               /S/ DAVID J. JOHNSON
                               --------------------
                               DAVID J. JOHNSON
                               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Environmental Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM  THE QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT  TO SECTION
               13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES  EXCHANGE  ACT  OF 1934 FOR
               THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED September 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              47,029
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          216
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    98,088
<PP&E>                                               4,037
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     181,762
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               54,013
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                42
<OTHER-SE>                                         124,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       181,762
<SALES>                                             14,390
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    14,390
<CGS>                                               15,744
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       15,744
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    47,545
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (48,543)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (48,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (48,543)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       ($2.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       ($2.21)



</TABLE>
No. 11-1074.

#### Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. *v.*Minnesota.

Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)/RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Analogic Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended
April 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Michael L. Levitz, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
June 9, 2010



| |  |  |  |                                                       
| |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | /s/ Michael L. Levitz                                 
| |  |  |  |                                                       
| |  |  |  | Michael L. Levitz                                     
| |  |  |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer
| |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.901 Basis and purpose.

This subpart is issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 *et seq.* The purpose of this subpart is to establish the requirements and conditions under which entities may be licensed in the Wireless Radio Services as described in this part and in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 of this chapter.

[89 FR 63314, Aug. 5, 2024]
§ 3.10 Basic qualifications. ( a ) Applicants must meet the requirements and conditions contained in these rules in order to be certified as an accounting authority. No individual or other entity, including accounting authorities approved by other administrations, may act as a United States accounting authority and settle accounts of U.S. licensed vessels in the maritime mobile or maritime mobile-satellite services without a certification from the Federal Communications Commission. Accounting authorities with interim certification as of the effective date of this rule must submit to the application process discussed in § 3.20. They will be “grandfathered”, i.e, granted permanent certification provided they demonstrate their eligibility and present a proper application.
( b ) U.S. citizenship is not required of individuals in order to receive certification from the Commission to be an accounting authority. Likewise, joint ventures need not be organized under the laws of the United States in order to be eligible to perform settlements for U.S. licensed vessels. See, however, § 3.11.
( c ) Prior experience in maritime accounting, general commercial accounting, international shipping or any other related endeavor will be taken into consideration by the Commission in certifying accounting authorities. The lack of such expertise, however, will not automatically disqualify an individual, partnership, corporation or other entity from becoming an accounting authority.
( d ) Applicants must provide formal financial statements or documentation proving all assets, liabilities, income and expenses.
( e ) Applicants must offer their services to any member of the public making a reasonable request therefor, without undue discrimination against any customer or class of customer, and fees charged for providing such services shall be reasonable and non-discriminatory. This requirement will be waived for applicants who settle their own accounts *only* and are eligible to be “grandfathered” during the initial application period. However, should the need for additional accounting authorities be proven, these accounting authorities will be required to offer their services to the public or relinquish their certification.
[61 FR 20165, May 6, 1996, as amended at 64 FR 40776, July 28, 1999]
#### Syed M.A. HASAN, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, U.S. Department of Labor, Respondent.

No. 03-1981.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

March 24, 2004.

Syed M.A. Hasan, on brief pro se.

Mary J. Rieser, Attorney, Office of the Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, Howard M. Radzely, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Steven J. Mandel, Associate Solicitor and Paul L. Frieden, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, on brief for respondent.

Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, CYR and STAHL, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we *affirm.*

The appellant argues that his complaint should not have been dismissed because it contained the short, plain statement of his claim required by *Swierkiewicz v. Sorema,*534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). However, *Swierkiewicz*is inappo-site. First, the appellant’s case was not *6dismissed solely on the basis of the allegations of his complaint. Secondly, the Energy Reorganization Act, unlike the statutes at issue in *Swierkiewicz,*includes a gatekeeping restriction. *See*42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(3)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 24.5(b); *Trimmer v. Department of Labor,*174 F.3d 1098 (10th Cir.1999).

Appellant’s argument that he was entitled to additional discovery is unavailing, as are his remaining arguments. The requested discovery would not have tended to rectify the defect in his case.

*Affirmed.*Loc. R. 27(c).
Docket Management Facility 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Petition for Deviation from FAR §121.438(b) 

To Whom it May Concern, 

The Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS, Order 8900.1) 

provides authorization to the administrator to approve deviations from certain 

requirements when the regulatory section stipul<;~.tes that such a deviation is 

permitted. 

In accordance with the Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS) 

8900.1, Change 234, Volume 3, Chapter 2, Allegiant Air, LLC would like to petition for 

deviation from FAR §121.438(b). Allegiant Air, LLC currently operates 10 Airbus 

319/320 aircraft throughout our operation. Our current growth plan includes 

doubling the Airbus fleet size in the next 6-12 months, and establishing new domiciles 

for these aircraft in Bellingham, WA (KBLI), Fort Lauderdale, FL (KFLL), Oakland, CA 

(KOAK) and Punta Gorda, FL (.KPGD). Based on these accelerated aircraft deliveries in 

addition to establishing new bases for the Airbus, Allegiant anticipates that we will 

need to train approximately 80 pilots, and that the number of pilots needed will not 

have acquired the requisite 75 hours prior to the anticipated in-service dates. 

Allegiant Air, LLC is requesting approval for a deviation of FAR §121.438(b) for a 

period of 6 months in order for the additional pilots to acquire the hours required by 

this FAR. 

We appreciate your time and considering in this matter . 

• 

A .. 

'17\W 

is our deal. 

- 8360 S. Durango Drive · Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 702.851.7300 ,. 702.851.7301 al!egiant.com
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4571 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4571

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 20 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

  Received; read twice and referred to the committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the United States Post Office building located at 103-104 
   Estate Richmond in Saint Croix, Virgin Islands, as the ``Wilbert 
                        Armstrong Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Post Office building located at 103-104 Estate 
Richmond in Saint Croix, Virgin Islands, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Wilbert Armstrong Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the Wilbert Armstrong Post Office.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 19, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### § 105-53.130-1 [Reserved]
{"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":"17-2556: UMBANET, INC. v. EPSILON DATA MANAGEMENT, LLC [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"sewq9hN9Ks\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2018-17-2556-umbanet-inc-v-epsilon-data-management-llc-rule-36-judgment-17-2556-rule_36_judgment-12-10-2018-1\/\">17-2556: UMBANET, INC. v. EPSILON DATA MANAGEMENT, LLC [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2018-17-2556-umbanet-inc-v-epsilon-data-management-llc-rule-36-judgment-17-2556-rule_36_judgment-12-10-2018-1\/embed\/#?secret=sewq9hN9Ks\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“17-2556: UMBANET, INC. v. EPSILON DATA MANAGEMENT, LLC [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"sewq9hN9Ks\" 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":"Opinions\/Orders posted: UMBANET, INC. v. EPSILON DATA MANAGEMENT, LLC [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 17-2556 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             178
<SECURITIES>                                       276
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,216
<ALLOWANCES>                                        21
<INVENTORY>                                        156
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,844
<PP&E>                                           2,654
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,492
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,604
<BONDS>                                            272
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            8,307
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (76,154)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (3,006)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,503
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,017
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    137
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                137
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       137
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 30, 2009

1217 

# Order

December 30, 2009

138091

MICHAEL C. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138091 COA: 274530 Wayne CC: 05-502988-CD CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On December 9, 2009, the Court heard or al argument on the ap plication for leave to appeal the December 4, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY 

### , C.J., and H ATHAWAY 

### , J., would grant leave to appeal.
#### § 22.603 488-494 MHz fixed service in Hawaii.

Before filing applications for authorization of inter-island control and/or repeater stations, applicants must coordinate the planned channel usage with existing licensees and other applicants with previously filed applications, using the procedure outlined in § 22.150. Applicants and licensees shall cooperate fully and make reasonable efforts to resolve any channel usage conflicts. In situations where technical solutions to such conflicts cannot be devised, the FCC may select a channel or channels to assign or may designate the application(s) for hearing. To be acceptable for filing, applications and major technical amendments must contain a certification that coordination has been completed and an exhibit listing the name(s) of the licensees and applicants with which the planned channel usage has been coordinated.
No. 10-11030.

#### Thomas *v.*Zakhoria et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.