alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BEFORE THE COMMISSION OF FIVE JUDGES APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

#### In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Jonathan P. Hein

Case No. 98-2388

STATEMENT OF COSTS AND INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING PAYMENT OF MONETARY SANCTIONS

The following is a statement of the costs incurred by the Commission of five judges appointed pursuant to Rule II, Section 5 of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary of *1492Ohio to review the report of the Hearing Panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline in the above-captioned case. These costs are in addition to the expenses certified by the Secretary of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline on November 10 and 25,1998. This statement of costs is entered pursuant to order of the Commission of five judges entered on February 5, 1999.

Dated: February 5,1999

Total Costs (Postage and Express Mail)

$143.75

The February 5, 1999 Commission order also directed the Secretary of the Commission to provide instructions to the respondent regarding the payment of all monetary sanctions. The respondent is hereby instructed to pay the fine of $2,500.00 and costs totaling $1,227.15 to the Supreme Court by certified check or money order on or before May 7,1999. The respondent is further instructed to pay attorney fees and expenses totaling $3,869.57 to the complainant by certified check or money order on or before May 7, 1999 and certify payment to the Secretary of the Commission. If the monetary sanctions are not paid in full on or before the required dates, interest at the rate of ten percent per annum shall accrue on the balance of unpaid sanctions, the respondent will be found in contempt, and the matter will be referred to the office of the Attorney General for collection.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.

Richard A. Dove Secretary to the Commission
Bob Cumbie 

38 Applecross Rd 

Weav~rville, NC 28787-9203 

March 5,2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Delta Air Lines Haneda Application 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

Delta Air Lines has submitted an application to provide new nonstop service from the U.S. to Tokyo's 

Haneda airport. I enthusiastically support this application. 

Under the new aviation agreement with Japan, Haneda will be reopened to U.S. carriers for the final time 

since 1976. Because of its convenient location near central Tokyo, Hanecla is the preferred airport for 

business travelers. 

Delta has a strong record of competitive trans-Pacific service. But the reopening of Haneda will put that 

investment and I:)elta jobs at risk if they are unable to compete. 

Delta's major competitors, the Star and oneworld alliances, have Japanese partners that dominate service 

at Haneda. Delta, which does not have a Japanese partner, would be at a serious disadvantage unless it 

is given the opportunity to compete at Haneda. 

If Delta is provided with the Haneda slots they need, all three of the major airline alliances - SkyTeam, 

Star and oneworld - will be able to compete on a level playing field. That new competition would provide 

tremendous benefits for air travelers. 

I urge you to approve Delta's application and provide the frequencies proposed to serve Haneda from 

Seattle, Detroit,· Los Angeles and Honolulu. 

Sincerely, 

Bob Cumbie
# EUR-Lex - 52002DC0434 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 52002DC0434

**Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Sapard annual report - Year 2001 /* COM/2002/0434 final */ **

*

*

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS - SAPARD ANNUAL REPORT - Year 2001

>TABLE POSITION>
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending December 4, 2010

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21




                          SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Percentage       State of
                                                                          of         Incorporation
          Parent                           Subsidiary                  Ownership    or Organization
--------------------------           --------------------------       ----------    ---------------

<S>                               <C>                                  <C>           <C>                  
D&N Financial Corporation            D&N Bank                            100%          Federal

D&N Bank                             D&N Enterprises, Inc.               100%          Michigan

D&N Bank                             D&N Holdings, Inc.                  100%          Michigan

D&N Bank                             D&N Funding I Corp.                 100%          Delaware

D&N Bank                             D&N Mortgage Corporation            100%          Michigan

D&N Bank                             D&N Capital Corporation             100%          Delaware

D&N Holdings, Inc.                   Quincy Insurance Co.                100%          Michigan
</TABLE>
# Transfer of Funds from Prior Year Independent States Account to the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Account To Support the Women's Justice and Empowerment Initiative

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including section 610 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (the “Act”), I hereby determine that it is necessary for the purposes of that Act that $1.8 million in prior year Independent States funds made available under chapter 11 of part I of the Act be transferred to, and consolidated with, funds made available under chapter 8 of part I of the Act, and such funds are hereby so transferred and consolidated. 

                    You are authorized and directed to report this determination to the Congress and to arrange for its publication in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. 07-3473

Billing code 4710-10-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Manfred F. Dyck, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of Hydromer, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the nine months
ended March 31, 2005 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 Hydromer,
Inc.



Date: May 16, 2005                 By: /s/ Manfred F. Dyck
                                   -------------------------
                                   Manfred F. Dyck
                                   Chairman, President and Chief
                                    Executive Officer
#### Elizabeth A. Greer, Respondent, *v.*Lucius E. Chittenden and others, *Appellants*.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion

*Per Guriam.*
#### JOSEPH ROE, Respondent, *v.*HENRY HALLETT, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.

*Note*— one *who signs his name on the book of a non-negotiable note is liable asa maleen' or gua/rantor, and not as an indorser.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court affirming a justice’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

■ The action was upon a promissory note which was accidentally destroyed before maturity. According to the testimony on the part ■of the plaintiff it was made in the latter part of May, 1880, for thirty dollars, payable to L. A. Hallett, at the Rank of Canisteo, with use, ninety days from date. It was signed by the defendant Travis, on the face, and the defendant Hallett wrote his name upon the back, before its delivery. The note'was assigned to the plaintiff before suit. The only defense was. that the appellant was not charged as an indorser.

The court at General Term said: *“*The note being payable to L. A. Hallett, and not to his order or to bearer, was not negotiable. (Story on Pr. Notes, § 128.)

*“*It is well settled in this State that a person who signs his name on the back of a non-negotiable note, before delivery, does not, in .a commercial sense, become an indorser of it with the rights and liabilities of a simple indorser. But he can be held as a maker of the note or as a guarantor of its payment. *{Griswold*v. Slocum, 10 Barb., 402; *Bicharás*v. Warring, 39 id., 42; S. C. affirmed, 1 Keyes, 576; *Paine*v. *Noelke,*53 How. Pr., 273; S. O. affirmed, 54 id., 333; *Cromwell*v. Hewitt, 40 N. Y., 491; *McMullen*v. *Rafferty,.*89 id., 456.)

*129“ The complaint in this case properly charged the appellant as a maker, and as such-he showed no defense.”

The judgment should be affirmed.

P. *J.*Hallett, for the appellant.

*Eli*Soule, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Smith, P. J.;

Barker, Haight and Bradley, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of' County Court affirmed.
December 1, 2016

Ms. Kelly Neubecker

Counsel for Spoke Enterprise

UASolutions Group, Inc.

5651 Talbot Boulevard

Cocoa, FL 32926

Re: FAA-2016-2957

Dear Ms. Neubecker:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov.

Sincerely,

/s/

Dan Ngo

Program Analyst
Appendix B

EPA Guidance Document

“Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonc lassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas”
Provisional grant of request from Roopal for exemption from Section 4 Test 

Rule for CASRN 68187-84-8

Paul Campanella to: Sunil Shah 05/30/2012 01:44 PM

From: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US

To: Sunil Shah <sunil@roopalpackaging.com>

Mr. Shah, based on the information provided in your request ( reference pdf of 5/22/12) the EPA is 

granting Roopal Packaging Inc. a provisional exemption from testing of CASRN 68187-84-8. The testing 

for all required endpoints on this chemical is being conducted by the Vertellus Corporation.

Roopal Application for Exemption from TSCA 4 Test Rule for CASRN 68187-84-8.pdf

Paul J. Campanella, Ph.D.

Chemical Information and Testing Branch

Chemical Control Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 

202-564-8091
§ 176.205 Under deck stowage requirements. ( a ) When a Class 2 (compressed gas) material is stowed below deck, it must be stowed in a mechanically ventilated cargo space with no source of artificial heat and clear of living quarters. No bulkhead or deck of that hold or compartment may be a common boundary with any boiler room, engine room, coal bunker, galley or boiler room uptake.
( b ) When Division 2.1 (flammable gas) materials are stowed below deck, they must be stowed in a hold or compartment which complies with paragraph (a) of this section and the following requirements: ( 1 ) Each hold or compartment must be ventilated.
( 2 ) Each hold or compartment must be equipped with an overhead water sprinkler system or fixed fire extinguishing system.
( 3 ) Each electrical power line in the hold or compartment must be protected by a strong metal covering to prevent crushing by cargo being stowed against it.
( 4 ) Except when fitted with electrical fixtures of the explosion-proof type, each electrical circuit serving the hold or compartment must be disconnected from all sources of power. No circuit may be energized until the Division 2.1 (flammable gas) cargo and any vapors have been removed from the hold or compartment. Explosion-proof portable lighting may be used if the source of power is from electrical outlets outside the hold or compartment and above the weather deck.
( 5 ) Any opening in a common bulkhead of an adjacent hold or compartment must be securely closed off and made gas-tight, unless the adjacent hold or compartment is also used for the stowage of Division 2.1 (flammable gas) materials.
( 6 ) Full and efficient hatch covers must be used. Tarpaulins, if fitted, must be protected by dunnaging before overstowing with any cargo. Each tarpaulin must be in one piece and free of rents, tears, and holes.
( 7 ) A fire screen must be fitted at the weather end of each vent duct leading from the hold or compartment. The fire screen must completely cover the open area. It must consist of two layers of corrosion-resistant metal wire of 20 × 20 mesh or finer, spaced not less than 1 cm (0.4 inch) or more than 4 cm (1.6 inches) apart. The screen may be removable if means for securing it in place when in service are provided.
( 8 ) The hold or compartment may not be fitted with any gooseneck type vent trunk head.
( 9 ) Any electrical apparatus located in the hold or compartment must be capable of being disconnected from its power source by a positive means located outside the hold or compartment.
[Amdt. 176-30, 55 FR 52704, Dec. 21, 1990, as amended at 56 FR 66282, Dec. 20, 1991]
#### § 1520.3 Terms used in this part.

In addition to the terms in § 1500.3 of this chapter, the following terms apply in this part:

*Administrator* means the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security referred to in 49 U.S.C. 114(b), or his or her designee.

*Coast Guard* means the United States Coast Guard.

*Covered person* means any organization, entity, individual, or other person described in § 1520.7. In the case of an individual, *covered person* includes any individual applying for employment in a position that would be a covered person, or in training for such a position, regardless of whether that individual is receiving a wage, salary, or other form of payment. *Covered person* includes a person applying for certification or other form of approval that, if granted, would make the person a covered person described in § 1520.7.

*Federal Flight Deck Officer* means a pilot participating in the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program under 49 U.S.C. 44921 and implementing regulations.

*Maritime facility* means any facility as defined in 33 CFR part 101.

*Rail secure area* means “rail secure area” as defined in 49 CFR 1580.3.

*Railroad carrier* means “railroad carrier” as defined in 49 U.S.C. 20102(2).

*Security contingency plan* means a plan detailing response procedures to address a transportation security incident, threat assessment, or specific threat against transportation, including details of preparation, response, mitigation, recovery, and reconstitution procedures, continuity of government, continuity of transportation operations, and crisis management.

*Security screening* means evaluating a person or property to determine whether either poses a threat to security.

*SSI* means sensitive security information, as described in § 1520.5.

*Threat image projection system* means an evaluation tool that involves periodic presentation of fictional threat images to operators and is used in connection with x-ray or explosives detection systems equipment.

*TSA* means the Transportation Security Administration.

[69 FR 28082, May 18, 2004, as amended at 70 FR 41599, July 19, 2005; 73 FR 72172, Nov. 26, 2008; 74 FR 47695, Sept. 16, 2009; 85 FR 16499, Mar. 23, 2020]
I 

Jeremy Ramone Bailey, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 

Warden Dawn E. Grounds et at., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

MAR 2 1 2011 

Clerk. u.s. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the District of Columbia 

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has submitted an application for a writ of habeas corpus 

along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to 

proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. 

Petitioner is a Texas state prisoner in New Boston, Texas, challenging a conviction 

entered by the 71 5t Judicial District Court of Harrison County, Texas. See Pet. at 2, 5-6. Federal 

court review of state convictions is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only after the exhaustion of 

available state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(1). Thereafter, "an application for a writ of 

habeas corpus [] made by a person in custody under the jUdgment and sentence of a State court .. 

. may be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the 

district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced 

[petitioner] and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the 

application." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner has no recourse here. A separate Order of 

dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

Un ed States DIstnct Judge 

Date: March~, 2011
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter
Ended September 30, 2009 (the "Report") by American Medical Alert Corp.
("Registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies that:





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
      Registrant.





Date:
November 16, 2009





/s/ Richard RalloRichard RalloChief
      Financial Officer





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to American Medical Alert Corp. and will be retained by American
Medical Alert Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### § 97.40-5 Hull markings.

Vessels shall be marked as required by parts 67 and 69 of this chapter.

[CGD 72-104R, 37 FR 14233, July 18, 1972]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, May 2, 1995 (60), Para 60.18 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 655]
[Page 626]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.60.18  providing for the consideration of h.r. 655

  Mr. QUILLEN, by direction of the Committee on Rules, called up the 
following resolution (H. Res. 136):

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 655) to authorize the hydrogen research, 
     development, and demonstration programs of the Department of 
     Energy, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Science. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Science now printed in the bill. Each section of the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions. 

  When said resolution was considered.
  After debate,
  On motion of Mr. QUILLEN, the previous question was ordered on the 
resolution to its adoption or rejection and under the operation thereof, 
the resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said resolution was agreed to 
was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
```