alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Paul f-lostings ATIORNEY$

Manta Beijing Brussels Hong Kong london Los Anuetes Milan Nuw York orange CGunty Pillo Alto f>arls. San Diego san Fraoclt:co Shanghai Stamford Tokyo Washington, DC Paul, Hastings, J<'lnofsky &Walker tLP 515 South Flower Slreet ·25th

**Floor~** Los Angeles., CA900n-2228 telephone 213 663 6000 •

**lac.o;lmlh:~** 213 627 0705 •\VWW.paulhaslings.com

(213) 633-6253 robettspan@paulhastings.com April 21, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. JY!AIL Carlene V. Mcintyre, Esq. Cbief, Opinions and Appeals Division The PortAuthority ofNew YorkandNewJersey 225 ParkAvenue South, 15th Floor NewYork, NY 10003 Re: EWR.Rntes and Charges Dear Carlene: 

### 19978.00005

Itwas by letter dated October 11, 2005 thatI flrst requested information on behalf of ContinentalAirlines, Inc. ("Continental") in connection withits review ofrates and charges at Newark Liberty International .Allport (''EWR"), At that time, I expressed Continental's concern that rates and charges at EWRwere unreasonably high and that the methodology used to arrive at those charges

**~as** not b:ansparent Since that first letter, we have .exchanged other correspondence. The PortAuthorityhas taken the position that it

### will notprovide much ofthe infortnation I requested, but in your December 23, 2005 letter to me, you promised to provide additional details ofthe actual costs and expenses that form the basis for the Public Aircraft Facilities ("PAF") and Ailport Services Factor ("ASF") components ofthe flight activity fee atEWR. In a subsequent letter dated January 18, 2006, you changed your position, and instead referred my request to the PortAuthority's Freedom ofinformation Administrator. In that same letter, however, you stated "Ifyou should flnd that you need more information afteryou receive d1e records of the Port Authority available to you under d1e FOI Policy, we 

### will workwith you to insure thatyou have the information you needwithin the constraints we have outlined. Accordingly, I will wait to hear from you after you review the records that are available to you under the PortAuthority's Freedom oflnforrnation policy." I have now received some lin1ited documents from the PortAutho.rity's Freedom of Information Administrator, almost all ofwhich were non-responsive to the questions originally posed last October, and none ofwbich contained any details ofthe PAF and ASF costs. So, I hereby repeat my request, and ask dtat the Port Authority immediately provide the detnil promised in December. ·

LEGAL_US_W # 53511291.1 EXHIBITYY

## Paul

## Hastings

**AHOI!N~** Carlene V. Mcintyre, Esq. April21, 

### 2006 Page2 In making 

### this request, I do not 

### in any way mean to imply that I agree with the Port Authority)s refusal to provide the othe.r .inforrnation requested. On the contraryJ I continue to hope that the PortAuthority will reconsider its position and provide 

### all the lnfo.rmatjon Continental has been seeking since October.



# Since~~~)'



# ;~' Robe:t S. Span 

### ofPAUL,HASTINGS,JANOFSKY &WAUffiRLLP RSS:tnc

**LEGAL_U~UYfi/53511291.1**
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2062 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2062

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to provide for penalties and 
 enforcement for intentionally taking protected avian species, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Migratory Bird Treaty Act Penalty 
and Enforcement Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT.

    Section 6 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 707) is 
amended by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e), and by 
inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:
    ``(d)(1) Except in the case of hunting and other activity allowed 
under section 3, whoever in violation of this Act kills or wounds a 
migratory bird in an aggravated manner shall, in lieu of any penalty 
for such violation--
            ``(A) for the first violation, be fined under title 18, 
        United States Code, imprisoned for not more than one year, or 
        both; and
            ``(B) for the second and any subsequent violation, be fined 
        under title 18 of the United States Code, imprisoned for not 
        more than 2 years, or both.
    ``(2) The authority under section 3(k) of the Fish and Wildlife 
Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 742l(k)) applies with respect to a 
violation described in paragraph (1).
    ``(3) For the purposes of this subsection the term `aggravated 
manner' means deliberately and in a manner that--
            ``(A) demonstrates indifference to the pain and suffering 
        of the bird; or
            ``(B) involves actions that would shock a reasonable 
        person.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 7, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2062

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to provide for penalties and 
 enforcement for intentionally taking protected avian species, and for 
                            other purposes.
```
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of

-- John C. Grimberg Co., Inc. Under Contract No. N40080-10-D-0492 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60142
Joseph H. Kasimer, Esq.

Kasimer Pierce & Schaecher PC Tysons Comer, VA Ronald J. Borro, Esq.

Navy ChiefTrial Attorney Matthew D. Bordelon, Esq.

Trial Attorney DISMISSAL OF APPEAL WITH PREJUDICE Appellant has movedto dismiss this appeal, with prejudice, due to a settlement that it reached with the government. This is consistent with a 30 September 2016 filing with the Board explaining that the matterhad settled and that a motion to dismiss would be filed shortly. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 18 October 2016

J. REID PROUTY Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 60142, Appeal ofJohn C. Grimberg Co., Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder,**Arm~d** Services Board ofContract Appeals
§ 84.93 Existing medical diagnostic equipment. ( a ) *Accessibility.* A recipient shall operate each program or activity offered through or with the use of MDE so that the program or activity, in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This paragraph (a) does not— ( 1 ) Necessarily require a recipient to make each of its existing pieces of medical diagnostic equipment accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; or
( 2 ) Require a recipient to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity, or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the recipient believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the program or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a recipient has the burden of proving that compliance with this paragraph (a) would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of the recipient or their designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the program or activity and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, the recipient shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the recipient.
( 3 ) A recipient meets its burden of proving that compliance with this paragraph (a) would result in a fundamental alteration under paragraph (a)(2) of this section if it demonstrates that compliance with this paragraph (a) would alter diagnostically required structural or operational characteristics of the equipment, and prevent the use of the equipment for its intended diagnostic purpose.
( b ) *Methods.* A recipient may comply with the requirements of this section through such means as reassignment of services to alternate accessible locations, home visits, delivery of services at alternate accessible sites, purchase, lease, or other acquisition of accessible MDE, or any other methods that result in making its programs or activities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. A recipient is not required to purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire accessible medical diagnostic equipment where other methods are effective in achieving compliance with this section. In choosing among available methods for meeting the requirements of this section, a recipient shall give priority to those methods that offer programs and activities to qualified individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate.
#### § 116.920 Storm rails.

Suitable storm rails or hand grabs must be installed where necessary in passageways, at deckhouse sides, and at ladders and hatches.
**Exhibit 99.3**

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

I, Frank A. D’Amelio, Chief Financial Officer of Lucent Technologies Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002 (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 78o(d)); 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: December 12, 2002

|        |   |   |                                          |
|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ Frank A. D’Amelio                    |
|   |   |   | Frank A. D’AmelioChief Financial Officer |

** **
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1588 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1588

To ensure that an employer has the freedom to implement English in the 
                          workplace policies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 2009

    Mr. Price of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Akin, Mr. Bartlett, Mrs. 
   Biggert, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Bilirakis, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Broun of 
  Georgia, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Franks of 
Arizona, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Heller, Mr. Herger, 
Mr. Jones, Mr. Jordan of Ohio, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. 
Latta, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Marchant, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. 
 Paul, Mr. Petri, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. 
    Shuster, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. 
 Westmoreland, and Mr. Wolf) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure that an employer has the freedom to implement English in the 
                          workplace policies.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Common Sense English Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) throughout the history of the United States, English 
        has been the common thread to unify the American people much as 
        they are united under one flag;
            (2) Americans overwhelmingly believe that it is very 
        important for people living in the United States to speak and 
        understand English;
            (3) there is vast support among the American people to 
        allow a company the freedom to implement English in the 
        workplace policies; and
            (4) when a group of employees speaks a language other than 
        English in the workplace, it may cause misunderstandings, 
        create dangerous circumstances, and undermine morale.

SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE PERMISSIBLE.

    Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(o) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall 
not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to require 
employees to speak English while engaged in work.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Sanford v. Sanford, appellant.

*Action*— *when deemed commenced—Statute of limitation—claim against estate*" *of idiot—when statute runs.*

The filing of a stipulation to refer a claim against the estate of a deceased person, and entry of order of reference is to be deemed the commencement of an action. *Bucklin*v. *Ohapin,*1 Lans. 443, .449; *Tracy*v. *Suydam,*30 Barb. 110, 111.

The fact of an outstanding decree of idiocy against a person at the time of his death ; *held*not to prevent the statute of limitation running after that time. Six years after the death of an intestate an administrator of his estate was appointed. Two years thereafter plaintiff brought action for services to testator in his life-time and for funeral expenses. *Held,*that the claim was barred by the statute.

Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee appointed by the surrogate of Schuyler county, pursuant to statute, to hear and determine a claim against an estate. The claim was made by Myra Sandford against Bela Sandford, administrator of the estate of Warren Sandford, deceased, for services in taking care of intestate, who was an idiot, during his lifetime, and for his funeral expenses.

*8. 0. Keeler,*for appellant.

*B. W. é O. M. Woodward,*for respondent.

James, J.

The head-note- states sufficiently the only points passed upon in the opinion, which is not believed of sufficient general importance to publish at length.

*Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.*
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, David L. Murfin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of MV Partners, LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  April2, 2007
|        | By:    | /s/ David L. Murfin            |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | David L. Murfin                |
|   | Title: | Co-Principal Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Miller v. Irish.

*Evidence*— *of employment—commissions —for sale of real- estate.*

In an action to recover of the vendor commissions upon the sale of a farm, the defense was that plaintiff had not heen employed to sell the farm. *Held,*that evidence that plaintiff was in the employ of the purchaser of the farm was admissible on behalf of defendant.

There was a question as to the fact of plaintiff’s employment, and also as'to its extent in time. *Held,*that under such a question defendants were entitled to show all that he did bearing upon the subject of the sale up to the delivery of the deed.

But if plaintiff was only employed to find a purchaser, he would have earned his compensation when the contract of sale was executed, and evidence of his subsequent conduct would be inadmissible. *Knapp*v. *Wallace,*41 N. Y. 477; *Barnard*v. *Mannett,*3 Keyes, 203; *Redfield v. Tegg,*38 N. Y. 212; *Lloyd*v. *Matthews,*51 id. 477. But he was bound to show employment; the extent of it, and that he had performed his part of the contract. *Sundorf v. Schmidt,*55 N. Y. 319; *Moses*v. *Burlong,*31 id. 462.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The action was, brought by Jacob P. Miller against William Irish, and another to recover commissions upon the sale of a farm.

*W. C. Benton,*for appellant.

*Gaul & Esselstyn,*for respondents.

Bockes, J.

The head-note states fully the only points passed upon in the opinion.

*Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2008121EN.01001201.xml

| 17.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/12

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92

Modification by Italy of the public service obligation in respect of scheduled air services between Crotone-Rome-Milan

(2008/C 121/09)

In accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, the Italian Government has decided to modify the public service obligation in respect of the scheduled air services between Crotone-Rome-Milan, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 225 of 14 September 2005, and amended in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 141 of 26 June 2007.

Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

| Route | Revised fare (excluding VAT) |
| --- | --- |
| Crotone-Rome or vice versa | EUR 71,05 |
| Crotone-Milan or vice versa | EUR 101,15 |

Route

Revised fare (excluding VAT)

Crotone-Rome or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 71,05

Crotone-Milan or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 101,15

The other requirements of the public service obligations published in OJ C 225 of 14 September 2005 remain unchanged.

---
§ 115.650 Alternative Hull Examination (AHE) Program options: Divers or underwater ROV. To complete your underwater survey, you may use divers or an underwater remotely operated vehicle (ROV). ( a ) If you use divers to conduct the underwater survey, you must— ( 1 ) Locate the vessel so the divers can work safely under the vessel's keel and around both sides. The water velocity must be safe for dive operations;
( 2 ) Provide permanent hull markings, a temporary grid system of wires or cables spaced not more than 10 feet apart and tagged at one-foot intervals, or any other acoustic or electronic positioning system approved by the OCMI to identify the diver's location with respect to the hull, within one foot of accuracy;
( 3 ) Take ultrasonic thickness gaugings at a minimum of 5 points on each plate, evenly spaced;
( 4 ) Take hull plating thickness gaugings along transverse belts at the bow, stern, and midships, as a minimum. Plating thickness gaugings must also be taken along a longitudinal belt at the wind and water strake. Individual gaugings along the transverse and longitudinal belts must be spaced no more than 3 feet apart;
( 5 ) Ensure the third party examiner observes the entire underwater examination process;
( 6 ) Record the entire underwater survey with audio and video recording equipment and ensure that communications between divers and the third party examiner are recorded; and
( 7 ) Use appropriate equipment, such as a clear box, if underwater visibility is poor, to provide the camera with a clear view of the hull.
( b ) You may use an underwater ROV to conduct the underwater survey. The underwater ROV operating team, survey process and equipment, quality assurance methods, and the content and format of the survey report must be accepted by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) prior to conducting the survey. If you choose this option, you must— ( 1 ) Locate the vessel to ensure that the underwater ROV can operate effectively under the vessel's keel and around both sides;
( 2 ) Employ divers to examine any sections of the hull and appurtenances that the underwater ROV cannot access or is otherwise unable to evaluate; and
( 3 ) If the OCMI determines that the data obtained by the ROV, including non-destructive testing results, readability of the results, and positioning standards, will not integrate into the data obtained by the divers, then a third party examiner must be present during the divers portion of the examination.
[USCG-2000-6858, 67 FR 21081, Apr. 29, 2002, as amended by USCG-2000-6858, 69 FR 47383, Aug. 5, 2004]
#### § 108.629 Fire extinguishing system branch line valve.

Each branch line valve of each fire extinguishing system must be marked with the name of the space or spaces it serves.