alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 100 % Owned Subsidiaries                            | State/Country of Incorporation |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| PIA Merchandising Co , Inc.                         | California                     |
| PIA Merchandising Limited                           | Nova Scotia, Canada            |
| Pacific Indoor Display Co , Inc.                    | California                     |
| SPAR Acquisition, Inc.                              | Nevada                         |
| SPAR All Store Marketing Services, Inc.             | Nevada                         |
| SPAR Canada Company                                 | Nova Scotia, Canada            |
| SPAR Wings & Ink Company                        | Nova Scotia, Canada            |
| SPAR Canada, Inc.                                   | Nevada                         |
| SPAR Group International, Inc.                      | Nevada                         |
| SPAR Incentive Marketing, Inc.                      | Delaware                       |
| SPAR International LTD                              | Cayman Islands                 |
| SPAR Marketing, Inc. (f/k/a SPAR Acquisition, Inc.) | Delaware                       |
| SPAR Marketing Force, Inc.                          | Nevada                         |
| SPAR Trademarks, Inc.                               | Nevada                         |
| SPAR Merchandising Romania, Ltd.                    | Romania                        |
| SPAR China Ltd.                                     | China                          |
| SPAR FM Japan, Inc.                                 | Japan                          |
| SPAR Solutions India Private Limited                | India                          |
| SPAR Shanghai                                       | China                          |
| NMS Retail Services, ULC                            | Nova Scotia, Canada            |
| National Assembly Services, Inc.                    | New Jersey                     |
|   51% Owned International Subsidiaries   | Country                        |
| SGRP Meridian (Pty), Ltd.                           | South Africa                   |
| SPAR Turkey Ltd.                                    | Turkey                         |
| UAB SPAR RSS Baltic                                 | Lithuania                      |
| SPARFACTS Australia (Pty), Ltd.                     | Australia                      |
| S.C. SPAR City S.R.L.                               | Romania                        |
| SPAR (Shanghai) Marketing Management Company Ltd.   | China                          |
800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

May 2, 2016

Mr. David Rude

772 Cedar Creek Drive

Wendell, NC 27591

Dear Mr. Rude:

This is in response to your letter dated December 30, 2015, posted to the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-8699) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate 

rulemaking to amend § 1.1 of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). In your 

petition, you request that the definition of light-sport aircraft contained in § 1.1 be 

amended to permit an aircraft to be defined as a light-sport aircraft if that aircraft met the 

parameters of the definition upon its original certification, was later modified to a 

configuration that did not meet the definition, and was subsequently returned to its 

original configuration. The current definition of light-sport aircraft specifies that the 

aircraft must continue to meet the parameters of the definition since its original 

certification. 

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73, the FAA must use the following criteria when 

making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition 

for rulemaking:

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise;

2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 

3) The resources we have available to address these issues.

Each year, the FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to 

the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers 

the most value to the aviation system. 

After reviewing your request based on the current priorities for the FAA and the 

guidelines found in § 11.73, we determined the issue you raised does not meet the criteria 

to pursue rulemaking at this time. However, your comments and arguments for the 

proposed rule change in your petition will be placed in a database, which we will 

examine when we consider future rulemaking. 
2

If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, you would be able to find 

out and track it through one of the two following websites:

 For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) website (http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report-onsignificant-rulemakings). 

 For non-significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT’s semiannual regulatory agenda, through the Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified 

Agenda website (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain). 

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 

14 CFR § 11.73.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu

Director, Office of Rulemaking
#### § 18.301 Operating frequencies.

ISM equipment may be operated on any frequency above 9 kHz except as indicated in § 18.303. The following frequency bands, in accordance with § 2.106 of the rules, are designated for use by ISM equipment:

| ISM frequency | Tolerance |
| --- | --- |
| 6.78 MHz | ± 15.0 kHz |
| 13.56 MHz | ± 7.0 kHz |
| 27.12 MHz | ± 163.0 kHz |
| 40.68 MHz | ± 20.0 kHz |
| 915 MHz | ± 13.0 MHz |
| 2450 MHz | ± 50.0 MHz |
| 5800 MHz | ± 75.0 MHz |
| 24.125 GHz | ± 125.0 MHz |
| 61.25 GHz | ± 250.0 MHz |
| 122.50 GHz | ± 500.0 MHz |
| 245.00 GHz | ± 1.0 GHz |

Table 1 to § 18.301

[85 FR 38740, June 26, 2020]
NARA Bulletin 2010-03

May 03, 2010

TO: Heads of Federal agencies

SUBJECT: Flexible Scheduling

EXPIRATION DATE: May 31, 2013

1. What is the purpose of this bulletin?

The purpose of this bulletin is to announce additional guidance to agencies that want to create

flexible "big bucket" or large aggregation schedules for their records or wish to use flexible retentions

for record disposition.

2. How does this bulletin differ from NARA Bulletin 2008-04?

NARA Bulletin 2008-04 expired on April 30, 2009, and is replaced by NARA Bulletin 2010-03. At the

issuance of NARA Bulletin 2008-04, NARA indicated that it would be reissuing the bulletin to agencies

on flexible scheduling to provide additional guidance for agencies. This bulletin provides notification

to agencies that a frequently asked questions document about flexible scheduling is available at

http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/faqs/flexible-scheduling.html. The Frequently Asked

Questions (FAQs) about Flexible Scheduling contains the basic information as found in NARA

Bulletin 2008-04 and additional details such as the characteristics of big bucket schedules and

implementation of big bucket schedules.

3. How do you determine if a big bucket schedule is the best approach for scheduling your

agency's records?

36 CFR part 1225 provides instructions for the scheduling of records created by Federal agencies,

including the determination of the scope of the records schedule items, e.g., individual series/system

component, work process, group of related work processes, or broad program area; and whether a

fixed or flexible retention period will be the best approach. The FAQs provide additional guidance for

agencies when determining if they want to use a big bucket schedule with fixed or flexible retention

periods or traditional schedules.

4. Is assistance available from NARA?

NARA's National Records Management Program staff can provide assistance. See the List of NARA

Contacts for Your Agency

DAVID S. FERRIERO Archivist of the United States

Contact Us Accessibility Privacy Policy Freedom of Information Act No FEAR Act USA.gov

The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration

1-86-NARA-NARA or 1-866-272-6272

NARA Bulletin 2010-03 http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2010/2010-03.html

1 of 1 10/1/2012 9:19 AM
#### BORCHARDT et al. v. DEMAS et al.

No. 10699.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Jan. 12, 1951.

Decided Feb. 8, 1951.

Marcus Borchardt, Washington, D. C., for appellants.

James M. Earnest, Washington, D. C., with whom J. Strouse Campbell, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellees.

Before PROCTOR, BAZELON, and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, decreeing specific performance against the vendor under an agreement granting an option for the purchase of stock in a closely-held corporation. We consider that the findings of fact of the trial court are supported by the evidence, and that the conditions of exercise of the option were met on a timely and adequate basis. Grice v. Jones, 33 App.D.C. 278; 3 Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence (5th ed.) § 965. As we find no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Bernard Ross, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Inncardio, 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 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 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 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 date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control
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.

6. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 my most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

                          Dated: November 15, 2005

                                                  /s/ Bernard Ross
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                  Bernard Ross
                                                  CEO, President and Director


(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17123]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Monday, July 10, 2000.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:  
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: June 30, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-17123 Filed 6-30-00; 3:13 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
794 A.2d 178

#### SPAULDING COMPOSITES COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, AND CALDWELL TRUCKING PRP GROUP, INTERESTED-PARTY MOVANT, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

March 20, 2002.

ORDER

Leave to appeal is granted.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4438

To provide for funding for Federal employee pay adjustments and comparability payments through reductions in agency spending on service contracts

for fiscal year 1995.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 17, 1994

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Post Office and Civil Service, Government Operations,

and Appropriations

A BILL

To provide for funding for Federal employee pay adjustments

and comparability payments through reductions in agency spending on service contracts for fiscal year 1995.

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

3 SECTION 1. FUNDING FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PAY AD4 JUSTMENTS AND COMPARABILITY PAYMENTS

5 THROUGH REDUCTIONS IN AGENCY SPEND6 ING FOR SERVICE CONTRACTS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Of the funds provided in appro8 priation Acts for fiscal year 1995 to all departments, agen-
2

•HR 4438 IH

1 cies, and instrumentalities in the executive branch of the

2 Federal Government—

3 (1) the total amount otherwise available for

4 purposes of entering into service contracts with pri5 vate entities is hereby reduced by $1,900,000,000;

6 and

7 (2) the total amount otherwise available for

8 purposes of pay schedule adjustments and locality9 based comparability payments under sections 5303

10 and 5304 of title 5, United States Code, is hereby

11 increased by such sum.

12 (b) ALLOCATION OF AMOUNTS.—The Director of the

13 Office of Management and Budget shall allocate the re14 ductions and increases required by subsection (a) among

15 the appropriate accounts, and shall submit to the Con16 gress a report setting forth such allocation.

17 (c) AGENCY CERTIFICATION.—Each department,

18 agency, and instrumentality in the executive branch of the

19 Federal Government shall submit to the Director of the

20 Office of Management and Budget, within 90 days after

21 the end of fiscal year 1995, a certification of compliance

22 with subsection (a) in accordance with the allocations

23 made pursuant to subsection (b). Not later than 120 days

24 after the end of fiscal year 1995, the Director shall submit

25 to the Congress a report setting forth the certifications
3

•HR 4438 IH

1 of compliance received by the Director under this sub2 section.

3 (d) SERVICE CONTRACTS.—For the purposes of this

4 section the term ‘‘service contract’’ has the meaning given

5 such term in part 37 of title 48 of the Code of Federal

6 Regulations.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 130 (Thursday, July 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17056]



[[Page 41653]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2616-004 New York]


Erie Boulevard Hydropower L.P.; Notice of Availability of 
Environmental Assessment

June 30, 2000.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) 
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new major license 
for the Hoosic River Hydroelectric Project located on the Hoosic River 
in Rensselaer and Washington Counties, New York, and has prepared an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed project. In the EA, the 
Commission's staff has analyzed the potential environmental effects of 
the proposed project and has concluded that approval of the proposed 
project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute 
a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment.
    Copies of the EA are available for review in the Public Reference 
Branch of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, 
Washington, DC 20426, and may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (please call (202) 208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-17056 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

MARCO D. PIERCE, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D22-939

LT Case No. 2008-CF-04873

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Decision filed June 21, 2022

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Seminole County, 

Donna L. McIntosh, Judge.

Marco D. Pierce, Graceville, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, WALLIS and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
Skip Navigation

USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Woods Hole Science Center

##### GIS of Selected Geophysical and Core Data in the Northern Gulf of    Mexico  Continental Slope Collected by the U.S. Geological Survey

----

Adobe Reader can be downloaded for free from   Adobe  .

Skip Navigation
AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey		URL: woodshole.er.usgs.gov/pubs/of2005-1071/htmldocs/catalog.htm		Page Contact Information: WHSC Webmaster		This page last modified on Tuesday, 25-Aug-2009 14:54:07 EDT
#### §§ 25.226-25.227 [Reserved]
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32



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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of MDI Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2003 (the "Periodic report"),
I, Todd A. Spence, Chief Executive Officer 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.   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 78 o (d);
          and
     2.   The information contained in the Periodic report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of the Company.


/s/ Todd A. Spence

Todd A. Spence
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2003








                                       19

<PAGE>

Exhibit 32



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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of MDI Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2003 (the "Periodic report"),
I, Thomas K. Andrew, Chief Executive Officer 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:

     3.   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 78 o (d);
          and
     4.   The information contained in the Periodic report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of the Company.


/s/ Thomas K. Andrew

Thomas K. Andrew
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003











                                       20
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-3113

___________________________

Raymond D. Elliott

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City

____________

Submitted: May 31, 2018

Filed: June 5, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Elliott appeals the district court’s1adverse grant of summary

judgment in his action seeking rescission of his home loan under the Truth in Lending

1The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of South Dakota. 
Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’

filings, see Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (grant of summary

judgment isreviewed de novo; record is viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving

party), we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s order. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

______________________________

-2-
#### § 0.304 Authority for determinations of exempt telecommunications company status.

Authority is delegated to the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau to act upon any application for a determination of exempt telecommunications company status filed pursuant to section 34(a)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended by section 103 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

[64 FR 5950, Feb. 8, 1999, as amended at 67 FR 13221, Mar. 21, 2002]