alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Sl()-l(M)329-()3: 

REGIONAL AIRPORT 

March 25, 2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-t» 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

Thank you for the opportunity to express our support for the application for antitrust 

immunity and proposed joint business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan 

Airlines. The proposed alliance between these two airlines is vital for oneworld to 

compete effectively with the Star and SkyTeam alliance. This increased interalliance 

competition will in turn enhance the benefits of the Department's Open Skies policy -

first by solidifying U.S.-Japan Open Skies, then by serving as a foundation for further 

liberalization across Asia. 

After a thorough review, we encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this 

application as it would enable these oneworld alliance airlines to work closely together to 

deliver highly competitive air transportation services. Approval for AA/JAL alliance will 

have a positive impact on air travel by offering customers more service, scheduling and 

pricing options and v^ll help to ensure that customers continue to benefit fi^om having 

three competitive air alliances to choose fi-om. 

We urge you to quickly approve this application. 

Sincerely, 

Ralph p. Hamilton, Chair 

Fayetteville Regional Airport Commission 

P.O. Box 64218 

(910^)433-1160 

bwhited@ci.fay.nc.us 

FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT 

P.O. 80X64218 

FAYETTEVILLE. NO 28306 

(910) 433-1619/FAX (910) 433-1765 

www.flyfay.coin 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
iSiiilifc-: 

ilii 

Express 

Sl()-l()()329-()35 

fi7D7 5035 4l:.fil jRKtf 

1 Fir m •{!;;:'- ^ ••:'',•••••' 

MEK.Ttw-tinjNlsntor. 

fl7D72D3S4b61. 

Gmidn't ' 

Coiffpflffy' '' ; 

M^yw* 

'iM\'l: 

• I 

||870 7 2035 4681 

XC XSMA 

20590 

OC-tIS 

DCft 

2 Your Intoiml Billing Rtlwcnco 

3 To v-i J 1 I I ( i ' "• •>"'* 235406 26n«W10 1B:41 

LjJltiL!iiLi_J ikim'MUsiiyi^Om-^t*' 

IndrectSknutiiN 

ip*A*rjinEH 

Don MstktpnmlCfltiitln donooniiB |o«b? 

AJrfmu 

I n 

m 

L 8707 2039 4081 

iw >«a i«#n/tBiN'«in<-tMr*4Ci''«aini piu) «<K 

ST 

CO 

P: 

6CZ" 

ssGJdxg 

ry 

:..-'-.j 

S 

;.-,) 

E.*5 

•is* *
Exhibit 32.1



CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

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 First Place Financial Corp.
(First Place) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven R. Lewis, Chief Executive Officer of First Place, 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) 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 First Place.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  | 
|----------------- |  |  | 
|November 14, 2003 |  |  | 
|                  |  |  | 



19
EXHIBIT 31.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                    UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:
1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
   required to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
   10-K of RFMSI Series 2006-SA2 Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");
2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
   do 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 report;
3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
   information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
   this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
   based on my knowledge and the compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
   servicer  compliance  statements  required in this report  under Item 1123 of
   Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
   the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
   in all material respects; and
5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
   asset-backed  securities and their related  attestation reports on assessment
   of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
   be included in this report in accordance  with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
   Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
   report,  except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
   of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
   on Form 10-K.

In giving the  certifications  above,  I have  reasonably  relied on information
provided  to me by  the  following  unaffiliated  parties:  U.S.  Bank  National
Association.

Date:  March 26, 2007

By:     /s/ Anthony N. Renzi

        --------------------
        Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
        Title: Managing Director
Case 1:22-cv-00502-ABJ Document 25 Filed 09/13/22 Page 1 of 2 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

45COMMITTEE, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00502 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Plaintiff 45Committee, Inc. voluntarily dismisses this action without prejudice, with 

each party to bear its own costs and fees. 

Lisa J. Stevenson (D.C. Bar No. 457628) 

Acting General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Associate General Counsel 

Harry J. Summers 

Assistant General Counsel 

/s/ Greg J. Mueller 

Greg J. Mueller (D.C. Bar. No. 462840) 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1050 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

September 13, 2022 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Brett A. Shumate 

Brett A. Shumate (D.C. Bar No. 974673) 

E. Stewart Crosland (D.C. Bar No. 1005353) 

JONES DAY 

51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Telephone: (202) 879-3939 

Facsimile: (202) 626-1700 

Counsel for Plaintiff 
Case 1:22-cv-00502-ABJ Document 25 Filed 09/13/22 Page 2 of 2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 13, 2022, I electronically transmitted the 

attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and 

distribution to all registered participants of the CM/ECF system, which will serve all 

counsel of record. 

/s/ Brett A. Shumate 

Brett A. Shumate 

Counsel for Plaintiff
§ 2519.710 Are there limits on the use of funds? Yes. The following limits apply to funds available under this part: ( a ) ( 1 ) Not more than six percent of the grant funds provided under this part for any fiscal year may be used to pay for administrative costs, as defined in § 2510.20 of this chapter.
( 2 ) The distribution of administrative costs between the grant and any subgrant will be subject to the approval of the Corporation.
( 3 ) In applying the limitation on administrative costs the Corporation will approve one of the following methods in the award document: ( i ) Limit the amount or rate of indirect costs that may be paid with Corporation funds under a grant or subgrant to six percent of total Corporation funds expended, provided that— ( A ) Organizations that have an established indirect cost rate for Federal awards will be limited to this method; and
( B ) Unreimbursed indirect costs may be applied to meeting operational matching requirements under the Corporation's award;
( ii ) Specify that a fixed rate of six percent or less (not subject to supporting cost documentation) of total Corporation funds expended may be used to pay for administrative costs, provided that the fixed rate is in conjunction with an overall 15 percent administrative cost factor to be used for organizations that do not have established indirect cost rates; or
( iii ) Utilize such other method that the Corporation determines in writing is consistent with OMB guidance and other applicable requirements, helps minimize the burden on grantees or subgrantees, and is beneficial to grantees or subgrantees and the Federal Government.
[63 FR 18138, Apr. 14, 1998, as amended at 74 FR 46506, Sept. 10, 2009]
#### Martin Bernreither, Appellant, *v.*The City of New York, Respondent.

*Bernreither*v. *Oity of New York,*123 App. Div. 291, affirmed.

(Argued June 11, 1909;

decided October 5, 1909.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Erst judicial department, entered January 10, 1908, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and granting a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant’s negligence in permitting an accumulation of ice to remain upon the sidewalk of one of its streets.

*Andrew G. Morgan*for appellant.

*Framéis K. Pendleton, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Cormoly*and *Clarence L. Barber*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts, upon the ground that the notice of intention to sue required by the act of 1886, and the demand required by the provisions of the city charter are concurrent in their obligations, both being conditions precedent to the right to maintain the action; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Yann, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ. Taking no part: Haight, J.
IIA 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 27 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs of the Department of Labor relating to ‘‘Rescission 

of Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal Opportunity 

Clause’s Religious Exemption Rule’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 11, 2023 

Mr. BUDD introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 

of the Department of Labor relating to ‘‘Rescission of 

Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal 

Opportunity Clause’s Religious Exemption Rule’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Of4 fice of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the De5 partment of Labor relating to ‘‘Rescission of Imple6 menting Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal OpporVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:12 May 12, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ27.IS SJ27

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SJ 27 IS 

1 tunity Clause’s Religious Exemption Rule’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 

2 12842 (March 1, 2023)), and such rule shall have no force 

3 or effect. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50647

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FABIO JUNIOR MARRIEL,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CR-1243-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Government appeals the district court’s grant of Defendant-Appellee 

Fabio Junior Marriel’s motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with

illegal reentry following removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court

determined that the notice to appear in Junior Marriel’s removal proceedings 

failed to specify a time and date for the removal hearing and ruled that the 

immigration court therefore lacked jurisdiction and that the removal order 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 3, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50647 Document: 00515220992 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2019
No. 19-50647

2

underlying the § 1326 charge in the indictment was void. The Government 

filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition, contending that the 

district court’s dismissal of the indictment was erroneous in light of United 

States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019). 

In Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 492-93, this court reversed the district 

court’s dismissal of an indictment charging the defendant with violating § 

1326. The district court had concluded that (1) the notice to appear was 

defective because it did not specify a date and time for the removal hearing and

(2) the removal order was thus void. Id. We determined that (1) the notice to 

appear was not deficient, (2) in any event the alleged deficiency would not 

deprive an immigration court of jurisdiction, and (3) § 1326(d) barred PedrozaRocha from collaterally attacking his notice to appear when he failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. at 496-98. The instant case is 

indistinguishable from Pedroza-Rocha.

The Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that 

there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of [this] case,” so 

summary disposition is appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 

F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). We GRANT the Government’s motion for 

summary disposition, REVERSE the judgment of the district court, and 

REMAND this matter for further proceedings consistent herewith.

 Case: 19-50647 Document: 00515220992 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2019
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1662 

To amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to 

require child care providers to provide to parents information regarding 

whether such providers carry current liability insurance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2009 

Mr. BARROW introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant 

Act of 1990 to require child care providers to provide 

to parents information regarding whether such providers 

carry current liability insurance. 

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 ‘‘Anthony DeJuan 

5 Boatwright Act’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1662 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

2 Section 658e(c)(2) of the Child Care and Develop3 ment Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858c(c)(2)) 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) in subparagraph (E)(i) by adding at the end 

6 the following: ‘‘The State shall include as part of its 

7 regulatory process for issuance and renewal of li8 censes to providers of child care services, a rec9 ommendation to each provider that it carry current 

10 liability insurance covering the operation of its child 

11 care business.’’, and 

12 (2) in subparagraph (F)— 

13 (A) in clause (ii) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

14 end, 

15 (B) in clause (iii) by striking the period at 

16 the end and inserting a semicolon, 

17 (C) by inserting after clause (iii) the fol18 lowing: 

19 ‘‘(iv) a requirement that each licensed 

20 child care provider— 

21 ‘‘(I) post publicly and conspicu22 ously in the service area of its prem23 ises a notice specifying whether or not 

24 such provider carries current liability 

25 insurance covering the operation of its 

26 child care business; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1662 IH

1 ‘‘(II) provide to parents of chil2 dren to whom it provides child care 

3 services a written notice stating 

4 whether or not such provider carries 

5 current liability insurance covering the 

6 operation of its child care business, 

7 including the amount of any such cov8 erage; 

9 ‘‘(III) obtain the signature of at 

10 least 1 parent of each such child on 

11 such written notice acknowledging 

12 that such parent has received such no13 tice; and 

14 ‘‘(IV) maintain such notice (or a 

15 copy of such notice) as signed by such 

16 parents (or a copy of the signed no17 tice) in such provider’s records during 

18 the period in which the child receives 

19 such services.’’, and 

20 (D) in the last sentence by inserting 

21 ‘‘clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of’’ after ‘‘Nothing in’’. 

22 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

23 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

24 take effect on October 1 of the 1st fiscal year that begins 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
4 

•HR 1662 IH

1 more than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

2 Act. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Time and Date:

11 a.m., Friday, January 19, 2007.

# Place:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

Surveillance Matters.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Catherine D. Daniels,

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 06-9799 Filed 12-18-06; 11:32 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
§ 261.65 Under what circumstances will we impose a work verification penalty? ( a ) We will take action to impose a penalty under § 262.1(a)(15) of this chapter if: ( 1 ) The requirements under § 261.64(a) and (b) have not been met; or
( 2 ) We determine that the State has not maintained adequate documentation, verification, or internal control procedures to ensure the accuracy of the data used in calculating the work participation rates.
( b ) If a State fails to submit an interim or complete Work Verification Plan by the due dates in § 261.64(a), we will reduce the SFAG payable for the immediately succeeding fiscal year by five percent of the adjusted SFAG.
( c ) If a State fails to maintain adequate internal controls to ensure a consistent measurement of work participation, we will reduce the adjusted SFAG by the following percentages for a fiscal year: ( 1 ) One percent for the first year;
( 2 ) Two percent for second year;
( 3 ) Three percent for the third year;
( 4 ) Four percent for the fourth year; and,
( 5 ) Five percent for the fifth and subsequent years.
( d ) If a State complies with the requirements in this subpart for two consecutive years, then any penalty imposed for subsequent failures will begin anew, as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
( e ) If we take action to impose a penalty under § 261.64(b) or (c), we will reduce the SFAG payable for the immediately succeeding fiscal year.
Exhibit 13.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended
March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:          June 28, 2008/s/  Kuldip Kumar KauraName:
    Kuldip Kumar KauraTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
9. c on t t ac s. With I w h om ou , . • tsd th FAAh as th' 1s proposa een 1scusse I b d. d? 

Organization Person Contacted Date 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 4/25/13 

Regional Airline Association 4/25/1

Aircraft Ownc1·s & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 4/2511

ATA Joe White 4/2511
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 230 (Thursday, November 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69204-69205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9465]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of Defense


Meeting of the DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a 
closed session meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held at 0900, Tuesday, December 5, 2006.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at ITS Noesis Business Unit, 4100 
N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22203.

[[Page 69205]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Vicki Schneider, ITS Noesis 
Business Unit, 4100 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22203, 
703-741-0300.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Advisory Group is to 
provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics to the Director of Defense Research and 
Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in 
planning and managing an effective and economical research and 
development program in the area of electron devices.
    The AGED meeting will be limited to review of research and 
development efforts in electronics and photonics with a focus on 
benefits to national defense. These reviews may form the basis for 
research and development programs initiated by the Military Departments 
and Defense Agencies to be conducted by industry, universities or in 
government laboratories. The agenda for this meeting will include 
programs on molecular electronics, microelectronics, electro-optics, 
and electronic materials. Due to unforeseen circumstances, this 
announcement does not give the standard 15-day notification.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, (5 
U.S.C. App. 2), it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting 
concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly, 
this meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: November 21, 2006.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 06-9465 Filed 11-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M