alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2522.600 Who approves my performance measures? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 46034 , May 28, 2024.
Cross Reference
Link to a correction published at 89 FR 66615 , Aug. 16, 2024.
( a ) The Corporation will review and approve performance measures, as part of the grant application review process, for all non-formula programs. If the Corporation selects your application for funding, the Corporation will approve your performance measures as part of your grant award.
( b ) If you are a program submitting an application under the State formula category, the applicable State commission is responsible for reviewing and approving your performance measures. The Corporation will not separately approve these measures.
[70 FR 39603, July 8, 2005]
&ruutr nf tqr luttrb ~ttttrs NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

F S I Convened January 3, 1969 

lRS1 • ESSION [Ad d D b 2" 1969 fOUrne ecem er ,, 

S S {Convened January 19, 1970 

ECOND ESSION 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepared under the direction of FRANCIS R. V .A.LEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A. HACKETT, Executive aerk 

Wednesday, April 1, 1970 

PENDING EXECUTIVE BUSINESS 

Calendar No. 21. The nomination of George Harrold Carswell, of Florida, to be an Associate Justice of the 

l'!upteme Court of thP Uuited HtatP~ Th<•JH'ndinp, qtH•,twu i-. lh<' motion of the SE>natorfrom Indiana (Mr. Btwhl 

to rl'commit thl' nominAtion. 

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT 

Ordered, That effective on Monday, Apr 6, 1970 (w1th the Senate convening in executtve session at 10 a.m.), 

further debate on the nomination of G. Harrold Carswell to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, 

with the pending question on the motion of the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), to recommit the nomination 

to the Committee on the Judiciary, be limited to 3 hours to be equally divided and controlled by the Senator 

from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hruska), or whomever they may designate, 

with the vote coming at 1 o'clock, or following a vote on a motion to table the motion to recommit if such a 

motion should first be offered. Following the above vote or votes the Senate will proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination at 1 o'clock on Apr. 8, 1970, or followmg the vote on a motion to table the nomination 

should such motion be made, and if the nomination is still before the Senate. 

(Wednesday, Mar. S6, 1970) 

NOMINATION 

Date of I Calendar Message Name of nominee Ofll.ee Predecessor 

report No. No. 

SUPREME COURT OF 

THE UNITED STATES 

1970 

Feb. 27 21 1 George Harrold Carswell, An Associate Justice of Abe Fortas, resigned. 

of Florida. the Supreme Court of [Reported favorably 

the United States. by Mr. Eastland, 

from the Committee 

on the Judiciary, 

together with individual views. (See 

Ex. Rept. 91-14, 

91st Gong., 2d 

sess.)] 

-

U S IOVIRHIII.IT PRINTial OFPICit1170
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.5

                            AMENDMENT TO THE BY-LAWS
                                       OF
                              IRT PROPERTY COMPANY

         Pursuant to the due authorization and direction of the Board of
Directors of IRT Property Company ("IRT"), the By-Laws of IRT are hereby amended
to delete in its entirety Article II, Section 3 and substitute the following in
lieu thereof:

                  "Section 3.       Notice of Meetings. Written notice of every
         meeting of shareholders, stating the place, date and hour of the
         meeting shall be given personally or by mail to each shareholder of
         record entitled to vote at such meeting not less than 10 nor more than
         70 days before the date of the meeting. If mailed, such notice shall be
         deemed to be delivered when deposited in the United States mail with
         first class postage thereon prepaid addressed to the shareholder at his
         address as it appears on the corporation's record of shareholders.
         Attendance of a shareholder at a meeting of shareholder shall
         constitute a waiver of notice of such meeting and of all objections to
         the place or time of the meeting, or the manner in which it has been
         called or convened, except when a shareholder attends a meeting solely
         for the purpose of stating, at the beginning of the meeting, any such
         objection to the transaction of any business. Notice need not be given
         to any shareholder who signs a waiver of notice, in person or by proxy,
         either before or after the meeting."

         I, W. Benjamin Jones III, do hereby certify that: (i) I am the duly
authorized and empowered Secretary of IRT; and (ii) the foregoing Amendment to
the By-Laws of IRT, in the form and content set forth above, was duly approved
and adopted by the Board of Directors of IRT on March 31, 1999 and is now
lawfully in full force and effect.

                                             /s/ W. Benjamin Jones III
                                             ---------------------------------
                                                   W. Benjamin Jones III
                                                         Secretary
# CongressionalCandidate Table 5g
#### State *vs.*Harvey Badger.

October Term, 1896.

Present: Ross, C. J., Taft, Rowell, Tyler, Munson and Start, JJ.

*Evidence.*

In a prosecution for breach of the peace, declarations made after the affray by the party alleged to have been assaulted, *are*not admissible.

Indictment for breach of the peace. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury at the September Term, 1895, Washington County, *Thompson,*J., presiding.

Verdict, guilty. The respondent excepted.

*J. P. Lamson*for the respondent.

*Zed S. Stanton,*State’s Attorney, for the State.

Tyler, J.

Indictment for a breach of the peace. The State’s evidence tended to show that the respondent called one George Oderkirlc to the door of the latter’s house in the night time and assaulted him with an axe. The respondent’s evidence tended to show that no axe was used by him, and this was a material issue in the trial.

It appeared that after the affray one George W. Barnett went to Oderkirk’s house, was there the remainder of the *217night and had conversation with Oderkirk and his wife. The respondent’s counsel asked the witness this question:

> “I want you to state whether you yourself at that time said anything to Oderkirk whether the wound was or was not made with an axe ?”

It appeared that Oderkirk’s wife saw the whole affray, and the respondent’s counsel asked the witness Barnett:

> “Was anything said there that night by Oderkirk’s wife to George, whether Badger struck him with an axe or not ?”

Both questions were excluded, and the respondent excepted.

The conversation was not a part of the *res gestae*of the affray, and it is not claimed that the' answers, if given, would have had any tendency to contradict the testimony which the witness had given in the trial. Counsel suggest in their brief no ground upon which the evidence was admissible and there was none.

*Judgment that there was no error in the proceedings, and that the respondent take nothing by his exceptions.*
BILLING CODE: 6715-01-M

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE:

THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2022 AT 10:00 A.M.

PLACE:

HYBRID MEETING: 1050 FIRST STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. (12TH FLOOR) 

AND VIRTUAL. NOTE: DUE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THE FEC’S HEARING 

ROOM REMAINS CLOSED TO VISITORS FOR THE NEAR TERM AS WE 

IMPLEMENT PROCEDURES FOR THE PUBLIC TO SAFELY ATTEND. IF YOU 

WOULD LIKE TO ACCESS THE MEETING, SEE THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW.

STATUS:

THIS MEETING WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. TO ACCESS THE VIRTUAL 

MEETING, GO TO THE COMMISSION’S WEBSITE www.fec.gov AND CLICK ON THE 

BANNER TO BE TAKEN TO THE MEETING PAGE.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Draft Advisory Opinion 2022-02: Congressman W. Gregory Steube and 

Greg Steube for Congress

Management and Administrative Matters

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer

Telephone: (202) 694-1220

Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b

Signed: _____________________________________

Laura E. Sinram 

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission

Submitted: April 20, 2022
AFS-11-269-E June 01, 2011

Exemption No. 10279 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2005-20708

Capt. William Yeager Vice President Flight Operations World Airways, Inc.

101 World Drive Peachtree City, GA 30269

Dear Capt. Yeager:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8547, as amended. It explains the basis fo r our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 5, 2011, y ou petitioned the Federal Avia tion Administration (FAA) on behalf of World Airways, Inc. (WA), for an extension of Exemption No. 8547, as amended. That exemption from §§ 121.665 and 121.697(a)(1), (b), and (c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows WA to substitute a computer application signature for the signed load manifest required by these sections. That exemption, however, expired on April 30, 2011; therefore, we will treat y our request as a new petition.

In your petition, you indicate that there has b een no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be de trimental to WA.2

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 8547 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that the automatic weight -and-balance system enhanced both the efficiency and the accuracy of loading the petitioner’s aircraft wit hout it adversely affectin g air safety and is, therefore, in the public interest.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 8547;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting th e enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 8547 also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justifi cation for the issuance of Exemption No. 8547 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 a nd 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

David Gillion Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5555 

To provide authority to use Defense Modernization Account funds for timesensitive equipment modernization. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 17 (legislative day, DECEMBER 16), 2024 

Mr. CORNYN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide authority to use Defense Modernization Account 

funds for time-sensitive equipment modernization. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO USE DEFENSE MODERNIZATION 

4 ACCOUNT FUNDS FOR TIME-SENSITIVE 

5 EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3136(d) of title 10, 

7 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

8 following new paragraphs: 

9 ‘‘(5) For procuring and integrating available 

10 commercial technologies and services to satisfy a 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5555 IS

1 joint urgent operational need, joint emergent oper2 ational need, or a validated service requirement. 

3 ‘‘(6) For providing infrastructure to support 

4 Department goals of accelerating the fielding and 

5 adoption of new capabilities.’’. 

6 (b) LIMITATION.—Paragraphs (5) and (6) of sub7 section (d) of section 3136 of title 10, United States Code, 

8 as added by subsection (a), shall apply only with respect 

9 to funds made available, and transferred to the Defense 

10 Modernization Account, on or after the date of the enact11 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund VIII, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: May 13, 2008                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                                                 
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                                                           
|Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                                                               
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer ofATEL Financial Services, LLC (Managing Member)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. CORRECTED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 97-60377

Summary Calendar

__________________

JUAN CARLOS CANAS,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

______________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

A70 566 443

______________________________________________

March 17, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Carlos Canas seeks to appeal the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ denial of his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial

of Canas’s motion to reopen depor tation proceedings. Canas was

ordered deported following an in abstentia deportation proceeding.2

Deportation orders following such proceedings may be rescinded only

if the alien shows exceptional circumstances for his failure to

appear, shows that he did not re ceive notice of the hearing, or

shows that he was in federal or state custody and did not appear at

the hearing through no fault of his own. 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3).

Canas failed to meet any of these requirements and, therefore, was

not entitled to have the in absentia deportation order rescinded.

Canas’s argument that he did not attend the hearing due to a dental

emergency does not meet the exceptional circ umstances standard,

since no evidence was presented to establish that such an emergency

existed. S ee 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Canas’s petition for review

is DENIED.
#### Joseph H. Rose et al., Appellants, *v.*John B. Rose, Individually and as Trustee under the Will of John C. Rose, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

*Bose*v. *Bose,*121 App. Div. 909, affirmed.

(Argued January 28, 1909;

decided February 9, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 26,1907, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action for an accounting and for the removal of the trustee herein.

*A. H. F. Seeger*and *John J. Beattie*for appellants.

*Charles F.*Brown, *Abram J.*Rose, *Alfred C. Petté*and *Howard Thornton*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.
§ 156.925 Motions. ( a ) Any request to the ALJ for an order or ruling must be by motion, stating the relief sought, the authority relied upon, and the facts alleged. All motions must be in writing, with a copy served on the opposing party, except in either of the following situations: ( 1 ) The motion is presented during an oral proceeding before an ALJ at which both parties have the opportunity to be present.
( 2 ) An extension of time is being requested by agreement of the parties or with waiver of objections by the opposing party.
( b ) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, any response or opposition to a motion must be filed within 20 days of the party's receipt of the motion. The ALJ does not rule on a motion before the time for filing a response to the motion has expired except where the response is filed at an earlier date, where the opposing party consents to the motion being granted, or where the ALJ determines that the motion should be denied.
Presidential Documents

70641 

Federal Register 

Vol. 71, No. 233 

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 

Title 3— 

The President 

Executive Order 13415 of December 1, 2006 

Assignment of Certain Pay-Related Functions 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, 

United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1. Assignment of Functions. The functions of the President under 

sections 4505a, 5305, and 5377 of title 5, United States Code, are assigned 

to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. 

Sec. 2. Revocations. (a) Sections 3 and 6 of Executive Order 12748 of 

February 1, 1991, as amended, are revoked. Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 

of Executive Order 12748 are renumbered as sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, 

respectively. 

(b) Section 2 of Executive Order 12828 of January 5, 1993, is revoked. 

Section 3 of Executive Order 12828 is renumbered as section 2. 

Sec. 3. General Provision. This order is not intended to, and does not, 

create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law 

or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, 

officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

December 1, 2006. 

[FR Doc. 06–9561 

Filed 12–4–06; 8:49 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ASHANTEE SINGLETON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 412 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 232 (Monday, December 4, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9515]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25180; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-19]


Establishment of Class E Airspace; Kokhanok, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the location name (Kokhanok) 
contained in a Final Rule that was published in the Federal Register on 
Tuesday, October 10, 2006 (71 FR 59372). Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-19.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, November 23, 2006. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual 
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; 
telephone number (907) 271-5898; fax: (907) 271-2850; e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5c2c4d7dc8bc6d1d78bd7cac9c3e5c3c4c48bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f196908388df928583df839e9d97b1979090df969e87">[email protected]</span></a>. Internet address: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Federal Register Document 06-8523, Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-19, 
published on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 (71 FR 59372), established Class 
E airspace at Kokhanok, AK. An error was discovered in the spelling of 
the airport name, Kokhanok. This action corrects that error.

Correction to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the airspace 
description of the Class E airspace published in the Federal Register, 
Tuesday, October 10, 2006 (71 FR 59372), (FR Doc 06-8523, page 59372, 
all references to Kokhanok) is corrected as follows:


Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Kokhanok, AK [New]

Kokhanok Airport, AK
    (Lat. 59[deg]26'00'' N., long. 154[deg]48'09'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface 
within a 6.9-mile radius of the Kokhanok Airport, and that airspace 
1 mile noth and 1 mile south of the 260[deg] bearing from the 
Kokhanok Airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 8.8 miles 
west of the Kokhanok Airport, and that airspace extending upward 
from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 49-mile radius of the 
Kokhanok Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on November 16, 2006.
Linda J. Couture,
Acting Director, Alaska Flight Service Information Office.
[FR Doc. 06-9515 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>