alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The Matter Of: 

MOUNTAIN 

AIR CARGO, INC. 

Respondent 

SERVED: SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

) Docket No. FAA-2014-0111 

) 

) 

) Case No. 2013EA680043 

) 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE 

On July 28, 2014, an Order Suspending General Discovery and Directing Supplemental 

Filings on Good Cause Issue was filed. Among other things, this Order set September 4, 2014 as 

the FAA's deadline for filing a Reply to the Respondent's supplemental materials on a Motion 

involving good cause. 

On August 15, 2014, the Respondent filed Mountain Air Cargo Inc.'s Supplemental 

Memorandum in Support ofMotion to File Answer Out ofTime and Opposition to the FAA's 

Motion for Decision was filed. 

On September 2, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order, in 

which they agreed to extend the deadline for the FAA's Reply from September 4, 2014, to 

September 30, 2014. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.213(a), the parties' joint stipulation and request for a deadline 

extension is granted. The FAA's Reply to the Respondent's August 15,2014 

Supplemental Memorandum is extended from September 4, 2014, to September 30, 

2014. 

Attachment: Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. Zachery M. Berman 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FPC(: 718-995-5699 

Mr. Mark A. Dombroff 

Respondent's Counsel 

McKenna Long & Alderidge 

1676 International Drive PH 

McLean, VA 22102 

TEL: 703-336-8700 

FAX: 703-336-8750 . 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

ONE COPY 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FPC(: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. F AA-2014-0111 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
April 29, 1985


Board of Directors of
Connecticut Daily Tax Free
  Income Fund, Inc.

Gentlemen:

                  We hereby  subscribe  for 100,000  shares of the Common Stock,
$.001 par value per share,  of Connecticut  Daily Tax Free Income Fund,  Inc., a
Maryland  corporation (the  "Corporation"),  at $1.00 per share for an aggregate
purchase price of $100,000. Our payment in full is confirmed.

                  We hereby  represent  and agree that we are  purchasing  these
shares of stock for  investment  purposes,  for our own account and risk and not
with a view to any sale,  division  or other  distribution  thereof  within  the
meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 as amended, nor with any present intention
of  distributing  or selling such shares.  We further  agree that if any of such
shares are redeemed during the period that the deferred  organizational expenses
of the  Corporation are being  amortized,  we will reimburse the Corporation the
then  unamortized  organizational  expenses  in the same  ratio as the number of
shares  redeemed  bears  to the  number  of  such  shares  held  at the  time of
redemption.

                                                Very truly yours,


                                                 REICH & TANG, INC.


                                             By: ______________________________

Confirmed and Accepted:

CONNECTICUT DAILY TAX FREE
  INCOME FUND, INC.


By: ______________________________
#### Louis Halpern, Appellant, *v.*James M. Craig et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Others.

*Halpern*v. *Brooklyn Savings*Bank, 146 App. Div. 908, affirmed.

(Argued January 24,1913;

decided February 11, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 22, 1911, 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 to reinstate a mortgage on certain real property.

*Jacob W. Kahn*for appellant.

*J. Albert Lane*and *Ronald K. Brown*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Gray, Werner, Hiscock, Collin, Cuddeback and Miller, JJ. Absent: Cullen, Ch. J.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60124 Summary Calendar

JACQUELINE PRUETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOYCE P. DUMAS, DAN CAMP, BILL WEEKS, CATHERINE JONES, and DEBRA HICKS, individually, and in their official capacities as members of the Board of Trustees of the Starkville Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:95-CV-83-S-D

- - - - - - - - - - September 11, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM: * Jacqueline Pruett appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the defendants. Pruett contends that the defendants violated her substantive and procedural due process rights in suspending her employment as a public school teacher and in refusing to renew her annual contract. We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record. Essentially forNo. 96-60124 - 2 - reasons stated by the district court, we hold that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendants. See Pruett v. Dumas , 914 F. Supp. 133 (N.D. Miss. 1996). AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 63953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20230]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION NOTICE OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 88 FR 62358.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Thursday, September 
14, 2023 at 10:30 a.m.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: The September 14, 2023 Open Meeting has been 
canceled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

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

Vicktoria J. Allen,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-20230 Filed 9-14-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert E. Matthiessen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.
Date:	May 14, 2004

/s/ Robert E. Matthiessen
Robert E. Matthiessen
President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1368 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 254
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1368

                          [Report No. 110-769]

   Relating to the House procedures contained in section 803 of the 
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2008

  Mr. Hastings of Florida, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Relating to the House procedures contained in section 803 of the 
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

    Resolved, That section 803 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 shall not apply during the 
remainder of the 110th Congress.
                                                 House Calendar No. 254

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1368

                          [Report No. 110-769]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Relating to the House procedures contained in section 803 of the 
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 23, 2008

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.27 MB)
 
 Under a broiling sun Iraqis of the 9th Armored Division await their turn to drop into the turrets of their T-72 training 80 British and 35 American soldiers and of Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who is here to see how the training is going.
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### John Hayes, Appellant, v. Mary J. Frisby, Respondent.

— Order vacating attachment order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                AEROCENTURY CORP.

                                  CERTIFICATION


In connection with this quarterly report of AeroCentury Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Neal D. Crispin, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of
Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best
of my knowledge:

              (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
              13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
              indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


Date:  August 12, 2005              /s/ Neal D. Crispin
                                    --------------------------
                                    Neal D. Crispin
                                    Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcel Robert WYATT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10415.

D.C. No. CR-99-00142-HDM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 14, 2001.

Decided July 12, 2001.

Before GOODWIN, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant Marcel Robert Wyatt pleaded guilty to one count of assault by striking, beating, or wounding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(4). The district court sentenced him to five years’ probation and imposed restitution of $18,377.15, to be paid to the Indian Health Service (IHS). Defendant appeals on only one ground: that IHS was not a proper recipient of restitution. On de novo review, *United States v. Laney,*189 F.3d 954, 964-65 (9th Cir.1999), we affirm.

I. *Defendant did not waive this argument in his plea agreement.*

As a threshold matter, the government argues that Defendant waived any argument concerning the award of restitution by accepting the plea agreement. That argument is unavailing. This court has held that a general waiver of the right to appeal, like the one contained in Defendant’s plea agreement, does not waive a defendant’s right to “assert[ ] a violation of the statute governing the imposition of restitution.” *United States v. Johnston,*199 F.3d 1015, 1023 (9th Cir.1999); *see also United States v. Phillips,*174 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir.1999).

*677II. *IHS may receive restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 366k-*

The district court identified Anthony Lundy as the “victim” of the assault. Defendant concedes that Lundy was a “victim” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3663. Defendant also concedes that a victim’s medical bills generally are a proper measure of restitution and that the medical bills arising from private providers’ care of Lundy totaled $18,377.15 in this case.

But Lundy did not pay those bills; IHS did. Because IHS had paid Lundy’s medical bills, the court ordered Defendant to pay restitution to IHS, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664GX1).

Defendant argues that the district court erred in ordering him to pay restitution to IHS. He contends that IHS, a “nonvietim” of the assault, cannot recover under § 3664 as a provider of “compensation” to a victim, because § 3664 is a “procedural” statute that does not “independently authorize restitution to third parties.”

We disagree. This court previously has affirmed an award of restitution to a third party that covered an assault victim’s medical expenses. *United States v. Miguel,*49 F.3d 505, 512 (9th Cir.1995) (affirming award of restitution to the Office of the Worker’s Compensation Program, which had paid the medical expenses of a victim who was assaulted while working in a national park). The plain text of 18 U.S.C. § 3664 authorizes payment of restitution to the party that provided compensation to a “victim.” Here, that party is IHS.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1393 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1393

 Expressing support for designation of January 29, 2009, as ``National 
                          Data Privacy Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2008

 Mr. Price of North Carolina submitted the following resolution; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for designation of January 29, 2009, as ``National 
                          Data Privacy Day''.

Whereas the Internet and the capabilities of modern technology cause data 
        privacy issues to figure prominently in the lives of many people in the 
        United States at work, in their interaction with government and public 
        authorities, in the health field, in e-commerce transactions, and online 
        generally;
Whereas many individuals are unaware of data protection and privacy laws 
        generally and of specific steps that can be taken to help protect the 
        privacy of personal information online;
Whereas ``National Data Privacy Day'' constitutes an international collaboration 
        and a nationwide and statewide effort to raise awareness about data 
        privacy and the protection of personal information on the Internet;
Whereas government officials from the United States and Europe, privacy 
        professionals, academics, legal scholars, representatives of 
        international businesses, and others with an interest in data privacy 
        issues are working together on this date to further the discussion about 
        data privacy and protection;
Whereas privacy professionals and educators are being encouraged to take the 
        time to discuss data privacy and protection issues with teens in high 
        schools across the country;
Whereas the recognition of ``National Data Privacy Day'' will encourage more 
        people nationwide to be aware of data privacy concerns and to take steps 
        to protect their personal information online; and
Whereas January 29, 2009, would be an appropriate day to designate as ``National 
        Data Privacy Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of a ``National Data Privacy 
        Day'';
            (2) encourages State and local governments to observe the 
        day with appropriate activities that promote awareness of data 
        privacy;
            (3) encourages privacy professionals and educators to 
        discuss data privacy and protection issues with teens in high 
        schools across the United States; and
            (4) encourages individuals across the Nation to be aware of 
        data privacy concerns and to take steps to protect their 
        personal information online.
                                 <all>
```
From: Dale Noble

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 4:53:22 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Dale Noble
Pasadena, California