alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Company Name: Due North Aviation, LLC

3380 Old Columbus Rd NW

Carroll, OH 43112

Point of contact: Nathan Kayes

Managing Member

Work: 740-652-1722

Fax: 740-204-3195

FAA Certificate: Part 135: 7DNA936M

Part 91: DN1JGL07

Scope of our operation: Due North Aviation, LLC is based approximately twenty-five 

miles south east of Columbus Ohio. We are a small business 

that currently has four aircraft that are primarily used for 

instruction/rental, and power line and pipeline inspection. We 

have a single base that we operate out of at the Fairfield 

County Airport (KLHQ). We hold our part 135 and part 91 

certificates so that we can be prepared if the request ever 

comes in for the service. Since being granted the part 91 

certificate in 2010 we have used it approximately three times. 

Since being granted the part 135 certificate in the middle of 

2011, we have had approximately two flights. 

Specific section we wish to seek exemption: 14 CFR Part 120.117 and 14 CFR Part 

120.225

The extent of relief we seek: We wish for an exemption that would allow us to maintain 

one drug-testing program for our 135 operation and our L.O.A.

/ part 91 operation. We request this exemption because 

everyone that is on our 135 program is also on our L.O.A 

operation. We seek relief so that we can save additional costs 

every year and reduce extra work (paper-work, transportation 

time, duplicate training etc).
Why this is in the publics’ interest: By having only one drug-testing program we will 

reduce undue work, cost and exposure while driving back and 

forth from the work site to the drug testing site. We will also be 

able to increase the efficiency of the business by eliminating 

excess workload brought on by maintaining two programs to 

cover the same people.

Reasons for not adversely affecting safety: Once exempt we will still maintain a program 

that complies with FAA requirements, we will eliminate in 

essence doubling the standard by having everyone on two 

programs. There will be no adverse safety impact, as we will 

continue to meet FAA requirements.

Summary: In summary Due North Aviation, LLC is requesting exemption 

from the FARs mentioned above so that we can reduce cost, 

work and excess redundancies as the current part 135 drug

program has the same individuals in it as the part 91 program 

would.
PUBLIC LAW 114–163—MAY 20, 2016 130 STAT. 411 

Public Law 114–163 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To provide for the authority for the successors and assigns of the Starr-Camargo 

Bridge Company to maintain and operate a toll bridge across the Rio Grande 

near Rio Grande City, Texas, 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. STARR-CAMARGO BRIDGE. 

Public Law 87–532 (76 Stat. 153) is amended— 

(1) in the first section, in subsection (a)(2)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘, and its successors and assigns,’’ 

after ‘‘State of Texas’’; 

(B) by inserting ‘‘consisting of not more than 14 lanes’’ 

after ‘‘approaches thereto’’; and 

(C) by striking ‘‘and for a period of sixty-six years 

from the date of completion of such bridge,’’; 

(2) in section 2, by inserting ‘‘and its successors and 

assigns,’’ after ‘‘companies’’; 

(3) by redesignating sections 3, 4, and 5 as sections 4, 

5, and 6, respectively; 

(4) by inserting after section 2 the following: 

‘‘SEC. 3. RIGHTS OF STARR-CAMARGO BRIDGE COMPANY AND SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Starr-Camargo Bridge Company and 

its successors and assigns shall have the rights and privileges 

granted to the B and P Bridge Company and its successors and 

assigns under section 2 of the Act of May 1, 1928 (45 Stat. 471, 

chapter 466). 

‘‘(b) REQUIREMENT.—In exercising the rights and privileges 

granted under subsection (a), the Starr-Camargo Bridge Company 

and its successors and assigns shall act in accordance with— 

‘‘(1) just compensation requirements; 

‘‘(2) public proceeding requirements; and 

‘‘(3) any other requirements applicable to the exercise of 

the rights referred to in subsection (a) under the laws of the 

State of Texas.’’; and 

(5) in section 4 (as redesignated by paragraph (3))— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘and its successors and assigns,’’ after 

‘‘such company’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘public agency,’’; 

(C) by inserting ‘‘or to a corporation,’’ after ‘‘international bridge authority or commission,’’; and 

May 20, 2016 

[S. 2143] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUBLIC LAW
130 STAT. 412 PUBLIC LAW 114–163—MAY 20, 2016 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2143: 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 114–213 (Comm. on Environment and Public Works). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

Mar. 17, considered and passed Senate. 

May 16, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

(D) by striking ‘‘authority, or commission’’ each place 

it appears and inserting ‘‘authority, commission, or corporation’’. 

Approved May 20, 2016. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUBLIC LAW
From: gaylesw@embarqmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:37:52 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gayle Williamson

Belvidere, NJ 07823
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 597 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        August 1, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1495) to provide for 
the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to 
rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes. All points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 1 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 2 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 3 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 4 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 5 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 6 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 7 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 8 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 9 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 10 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 11 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 12 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 13 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 14 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 15 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 16 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 17 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 18 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 19 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 20 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 21 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 22 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 23 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 24 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 25 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 26 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 27 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 28 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 29 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 30 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 31 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 32 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 33 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 34 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 35 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 36 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 37 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 38 of 39
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-5 Filed 08/14/03 Page 39 of 39
Exhibit
31.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Min
Sok Randy Park, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of
Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2008-A (the “Exchange Act periodic
reports”);





2. Based
on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, all the distribution, servicing and other information required
to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included
in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based
on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report
under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the
servicing agreements in all material respects; and





5. All
the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in
this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
10-K.





In
giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Citibank, N.A.





Date:
March 30, 2009


By:  /s/ MIN SOK RANDY PARK Name: Min
Sok Randy Park Title:  Vice
President and Secretary (senior
officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Imperial Resources, Inc.. (the Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report”), I, Rob Durbin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





July 14, 2011
By:
/s/Rob DurbinRob Durbin
Chief Executive Officer, President and Director





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Imperial Resources, Inc. and will be retained by Imperial Resources, Inc.  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: rwbiber@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:52:04 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Russell W. Biber, Pastor

Sincerely,

Russell Biber

Brightwood, VA 22715
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Larry Lamont COLLINS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6365.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 27, 2005.

Decided Aug. 8, 2005.

*136Larry Lamont Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Larry Lamont Collins seeks to appeal from an order of a magistrate judge denying post-judgment motions for a transcript of Collins’s criminal trial and other court documents, and a motion to compel his former attorney to relinquish trial transcripts. As the magistrate judge did not have jurisdiction to enter a final, appeal-able post-judgment order, *see 28*U.S.C. § 636 (2000); *Estate of Conners,*6 F.3d 656, 658-59 (9th Cir.1993), we lack jurisdiction to review the order in question.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Collins seeks to appeal is neither final nor otherwise appealable. Accordingly, we deny Collins’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 Collins may seek review of the magistrate judge’s order in the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2000).
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

PAMELA SHERMAN

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

MICHAEL ASTRUE

CASE NUMBER: C05-5669RBL

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and

the jury has rendered its verdict.

 X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

1. Plaintiff’s attorney, Jeanette Laffoon, is awarded attorney fees of $13,286.40 pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 406(b).

 July 22, 2009 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

_________/s/ Jennie L. Patton___________

Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER I, James P.
  Panek, certify that:1.
I have
  reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VaxGen, Inc.2.
Based on my
  knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
  fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
  in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
  misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
Based on my
  knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
  in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
  condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
  for, the periods presented in this report;4.
The
  registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
  and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
  Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed
  such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
  and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
  information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
  subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
  during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
  [Reserved];(c)
  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
  procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
  effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
  period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
  financial reporting that occurred during registrants most recent fiscal
  quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report)
  that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
  the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and5.
The
  registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
  recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
  registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
  directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All
  significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
  of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
  adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
  report financial information; and(b) Any
  fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
  who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
  financial reporting. February 6, 2007 /s/ James P. PanekChief Executive Officer - 1 -
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Remington Oil and Gas
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, J. Burke Asher, Vice President/Finance (Principal Financial
Officer) of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec.1350, as adopted
pursuant to sec.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.

     This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, and not for any other purpose.

                                                  /s/ J. BURKE ASHER
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                      J. Burke Asher
                                                  Vice President/Finance
                                              (Principal Financial Officer)

November 6, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and will be retained by
Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.