alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 60994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8491]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``In Grand Style: Celebrations in Korean Art During the 
Joseon Dynasty''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``In Grand Style: Celebrations in Korean Art 
during the Joseon Dynasty,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the Asian Art Museum, San Francisco, CA, from on or 
about October 25, 2013, until on or about January 12, 2014, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: September 26, 2013.
Lee Satterfield,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-24109 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 115 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 115

    Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed license 
amendment for the export of certain defense articles, defense services, 
                     and technical data to Israel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2024

 Mr. Sanders (for himself, Mr. Welch, and Mr. Merkley) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
                     Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed license 
amendment for the export of certain defense articles, defense services, 
                     and technical data to Israel.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the issuance of a license 
amendment to export with respect to the following proposed export to 
Israel is prohibited:
            (1) The export of the following defense articles, defense 
        services, and technical data described in Transmittal No. DDTC 
        23-100, which was submitted to Congress pursuant to section 
        36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(c)) and 
        communication of which was published in the Congressional 
        Record on September 18, 2024 (Executive Communication 5937): 
        defense articles, defense services, and technical data to 
        support procurement of Boeing Direct Attack Weapons (Joint 
        Direct Attack Munition variants and Small Diameter Bomb 
        Increment I variants).
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0141
SAMANTHA VULLES, SHERI ESTENSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. THIES & TALLE MANAGEMENT, INC., THIES & TALLE ENTERPRISES, INC., ALMANOR INVESTORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and JOHN DOES 1-4,

Defendants and Appellees. ORDER 

# FILED OCT 1 9 2021 Bowen Cirtenwoocl Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana Appellees have filed a motionto strike the affidavit ofPatience Woodill andrelated exhibitsattachedtoAppellants' reply brieffiledon September29,2021. Appelleessupport their motion by arguing that Appellants cannot introduce new evidence to supplement the record for the first time on appeal. They further contend that the affidavit is inadmissible hearsay under M. R. Evid. 801 and 802. Appellants oppose the motion and respond that Appellees accused them of

-forurn-shopping" in their response brief; therefore, Woodill's affidavit and related exhibits are the "only course ofaction to refute those unsubstantiated claims." We conclude it is appropriate to take the motion to strike under advisement and consider it in conjunction with consideration ofthe merits ofthe appeal. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to strike the affidavit of Patience Woodill and related exhibits, attached to Appellants' reply brief, as well as all references thereto, is TAKEN UNDERADVISEMENT. The Clerk ofthe Supreme Court is directed to send a copy ofthis Order to counsel ofrecord. DATED this aay ofOctober, 2021. 10/19/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0141

# /2- )-,47L,,, ChiefJustice

Justices
§ 261.11 Which recipients must have an assessment under TANF? ( a ) The State must make an initial assessment of the skills, prior work experience, and employability of each recipient who is at least age 18 or who has not completed high school (or equivalent) and is not attending secondary school.
( b ) The State may make any required assessments within 30 days (90 days, at State option) of the date an individual becomes eligible for assistance.
#### § 704.1 Films selected for inclusion in the National Film Registry.

After the reauthorization of the National Film Registry Act, only the list of films selected for the year of publication will be printed. For a complete list of films included in the National Film Registry, see *http://lcweb.loc.gov/film/nfrchron.html.*

#### Authority:

Pub. L. 102-307, 106 Stat. 267 (2 U.S.C. 179).

[69 FR 39843, July 1, 2004]
§ 1351.14 What is the period for which a grant will be awarded? ( a ) The initial notice of grant award specifies how long HHS intends to support the project without requiring the project to recompete for funds. This period, called the project period, will not exceed five years.
( b ) Generally the grant will initially be for one year. A grantee must submit a separate application to have the support continued for each subsequent year. Continuation awards within the project period will be made provided the grantee has made satisfactory progress, funds are available, and HHS determines that continued funding is in the best interest of the Government.
[43 FR 55635, Nov. 28, 1978, as amended at 65 FR 50141, Aug. 17, 2000]
Direct Dial: 435.634.3530 Direct Fax: 435.634.3505 e-mail: temerson@skvwest.com


### VIAFEDERALEXPRESS Federal Aviation Administration August 23, 2012 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2Wl000 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 

### Re: Case No. 2010NM060081 FDMS No. FAA-2011-0782 

# ----- Dear Sir/Madam: 

# RECEIVED AUG 2**~** 

## 2012 

# HEAR\NG DOCKET

l U1 

## LJ

SkyWest Airlines has designated Craig Louis Fabian as its ExpertWitness inthe above-referenced matter. Attachedplease find Mr. Fabian's CV. ?5cerely, 

# ta.Yc-L Todd C. Emerson Director- Government and Legal Affairs TCE/jb cc: Kyle E. Lomazow

444 South River Road II St. George, Utah 84790 II Phone 435.634.3000 I! www.skywest.com
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 of BlueFire Ethanol Fuels, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of BlueFire Ethanol Fuels, Inc. does hereby certify, pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.








Dated:   March 29, 2010

/s/ Arnold KlannArnold KlannChief Executive Officer

Principal Executive Officer
1 

### Ogulei, David

From: **Garnett, Kim** Sent: **Thursday, June 27, 2013 6:46 AM** To: **Ogulei, David** Subject: **FW: response to Veolia** Attachments: **CES Response to Veolia Incinerator Comments May 28 2013.docx; 301 Report Body updated**  **7-28-05.pdf**



### Per your request.

From: John Cooper [mailto:jacooper@cooperenvironmental.c om] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:14 PM To: Bivins, Dan; Garnett, Kim Cc: andreag@cooperenvironmental.com; Krag_Petterson@pa ll.com; troyp@cooperenvironmental.com Subject: response to Veolia



### Dan/Kim, Attached are our responses to the four comments you sent. Much of our response is based on Section 7. 0 of the Lilly 301 report. This section discusses the range of ap plication or robustness of the technology. Please let us know if you have further questions. Thanks again for giving us an opportunity to addres s these concerns. John

John A. Cooper, Ph. D. President Cooper Environmental Services LLC 10180 SW Nimbus Ave. Suite J6 Portland, OR 97223
[Civ. No. 12737.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

November 18, 1940.]

#### OLAF JOHNSTON, Petitioner, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Respondent.

Allan Macdonald Carson for Petitioner.

Donald Gallagher and Roy Weisensel for Respondent.

McCOMB, J.

This is an original application for a writ of *mandamus*to require respondent to pay petitioner a sum alleged to be due him pursuant to an award of the Industrial Accident Commission.

The facts so far as material are:

June 28, 1937, the Industrial Accident Commission found that petitioner was permanently and totally disabled as a result of an industrial accident and made an award against respondent predicated upon a policy of industrial accident insurance which it had issued. The award provided that respondent should pay to petitioner beginning October 25, 1934, $21.61 a week for 240 weeks, and thereafter for life $13.30 a week. Respondent complied with the aforesaid order until on or about February 23, 1938. Thereafter, respondent failed *517and refused to pay petitioner any additional compensation pursuant to said award.

This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:

*Is a writ of mandamus a proper remedy for recovery of sums of money from the State Compensation Insurance Fund alleged to be due pursuant to an award of the Industrial Accident Commission for injuries resulting from an industrial accident?*

This question must be answered in the negative and is governed by the following established principles of law:

> (1) Every contract or policy of insurance issued by respondent (State Compensation Insurance Fund) must contain a clause to the effect that respondent will be directly and primarily liable to any proper claimant for payment of any compensation for which the employer is liable (sec. 11651 and see. 11631, Ins. Code).

> (2) Respondent may be sued upon an obligation arising from any contract which it has entered into in connection with its business (sec. 11783, subd. (a), Ins. Code).

(3) *Mandamus*may not be invoked where there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (sec. 1086, Code Civ. Proc.; *Northrup*v. *Haynes,*15 Cal. App. (2d) 665, 666 [59 Pac. (2d) 1056]).

Applying the foregoing rules to the facts of the instant ease, it is apparent that petitioner could have filed an action in the proper court against respondent to recover any sum that may be due him, pursuant to the award of the Industrial Accident Commission and the contract of insurance issued by respondent. In such action any defense which respondent may have to petitioner’s claim could be fully litigated and properly settled. Therefore, since petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law by suing respondent in the proper court, which remedy was equally convenient, beneficial, and effective as a proceeding by *mandamus,*the later remedy is not available to him.

For the foregoing reasons the alternative writ heretofore issued is dismissed and the application for a peremptory writ of *mandamus*is denied.

Moore, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.
§ 287.155 What reports must a grantee file with the Department about its NEW Program operations? ( a ) Each eligible Tribe must submit an annual report that provides a summary of program operations.
( b ) The Secretary has developed an annual operations report (OMB clearance number 0970-0174). The report specifies the data elements on which grantees must report, including elements that provide information regarding the number and characteristics of those served by the NEW Program. This report is in addition to any financial reports required by law, regulations, or Departmental policies.
( c ) The report form and instructions are distributed through ACF's program instruction system.
( d ) The program operations report will be due September 28th, 90 days after the close of the NEW Program year.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Bobba Venkatadri, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Trans-India Acquisition Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Trans-India Acquisition Corporation.



|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  |                                         
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: February 27, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/ BOBBA VENKATADRI
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Bobba Venkatadri Chief Executive
Officer

I, Cliff Haigler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Trans-India Acquisition Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Trans-India Acquisition Corporation.



|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  |                                      
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: February 28, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/ CLIFF HAIGLER
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  | Cliff Haigler Chief Financial
Officer
§ 286.105 What limitations concerning vocational education, job search and job readiness assistance exist with respect to the work participation rate? ( a ) Tribes are not required to limit vocational education for any one individual to a period of 12 months.
( b ) There are two limitations concerning job search and job readiness: ( 1 ) Job search and job readiness assistance only count for 6 weeks in any fiscal year.
( 2 ) If the Tribe's unemployment rate in the Tribal TANF service area is at least 50 percent greater than the United States' total unemployment rate for that fiscal year, then an individual's participation in job search or job readiness assistance counts for up to 12 weeks in that fiscal year.
( c ) If job search or job readiness is an ancillary part of another activity, then there is no limitation on counting the time spent in job search/job readiness.
#### Trustees of College Point v. Dennett.

*Wminent domain—Measure of damages—Miidenee.*

Upon an appraisal of a pond, taken as a source of water supply for a village *held,*that the owner was entitled to show upon the question of value that there was not a pond within a radius of six miles that could be made a source of supply for cities or villages. The measure of value was not limited to its use as a mill or ice pond, but the owner was entitled to receive its value for any use. ,

Appeal by Albion K. P. Dennett, and others, from an order at special term confirming the report of commissioners of appraisal in proceedings to acquire title to the lands of the appellants.

The proceedings mentioned were taken under the provisions of chap. 609 of the Laws of 1873, which is entitled *“*An act to provide for supplying the village of College- Point, Queens county, with pure and wholesome water.” By that act the trustees were authorized to acquire real estate for the purpose named, and to institute proceedings therefor, when the necessary property could not be obtained by agreement. In pursuance of this authority, proceedings were instituted to acquire an easement in a pond of water owned by appellants, and known as Kissena Lake, and commissioners of appraisal were appointed to ascertain the value of such easement. The commissioners examined the premises, heard the parties, and the witnesses produced, and, on the *20th day*of November, 1873, made their report, awarding the sum of $4,000 to the appellants. During the taking of the testimony appellants offered to show the value of the pond as a source of water supply for cities or villages, and asked a preliminary question to show that but one other pond suitable for such a supply existed within the radius of six miles. This was objected to on the ground that no evidence of *218the value of the pond for such a purpose was competent, which objection was sustained.

*L. Bradford Prince,*for appellants.

*E. B. Hinsdale,*for respondents.

Barnard, P. J.

We think the commissioners erred in rejecting the evidence offered by the land owners, as to there being no other pond, except the one in question, within a radius of six miles, which could be made a source of supply for cities or villages. It was not offered for the purpose of showing that the applicants improperly selected the pond in question, but upon the question of value.

It was not for the applicant to limit the value of the pond proposed to be taken, as a mill pond or as an ice pond. If it had a value for any purpose, in excess of values for such purposes, it would be the right of the land owners to receive such value by the award of the commissioners.

For the purposes of this appeal, we must assume that the value' was greater as a fresh water pond to supply water for villages,' than for any other purpose. Such being the case, the commissioners proceeded upon an erroneous principle, and their report must be set aside and a new appraisal ordered.

*Ordered accordingly.*
March 9, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Sir or Madam 

Attached please find Front Door Photos request for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation 

Regulations to allow commercial operation of its Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“sUASs”) for 

aerial photo shoots of real estate and businesses in Western Michigan. All photo shoots will be for 

the purpose of photographing a specific property with the owners written permission to do so. All 

Pilots of UAS for this purpose will belong to the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics or a FAA 

Certified Pilot). The exemption request is exclusively for the use of the sUASs and technology 

manufactured by DJI, an international manufacturer of sUASs headquartered in Shenzhen, China.

Also attached to this letter is the DJI Inspire 1 and the DJI Phantom 2 Vision (“Manual”), which 

outlines the operating requirements, limitations, and technical specifications for the DJI system as 

well as its accessories. Front Door Photos has reviewed both DJI Manual's and its online resources 

and has found it to be acceptable for sUAS operations for the purpose of photo shoots of real estate 

property. Applicant submits this Manual as proprietary information pursuant to 14 CFR 11.35(b). 

Thank you for your time and consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions. 

Sincerely,

Taylor Bloom

Owner

Frontdoorphotos

4717 West Terry Circle

Holland, Michigan 49424

616-283-9294

Taylor@frontdoorphotos.net

PT/Taylor Blom