alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Regular Totals (Operators)

Airport = LGA

Operator = 0001(Exclude)

Status Date = 01/01/2010 (Current & Future)

01/11/2010 11:39:04

Query Parameters:
01/11/2010 11:39:04

Carrier

Regular Totals (Operators)

Slots Held less than 5 days are Excluded Excludes FAA Held PF7 Status Date = 01/01/2010 (Current & Future)

LGA

AAL AMERICAN AIRLINES 98 

ACA AIR CANADA 37 

ASH MESA AIRLINES 7 

AWI AIR WISCONSIN AIRLINES CORPORATION 84 

CHQ CHAUTAUQUA 65 

CJC COLGAN AIRWAYS 20 

COA CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 29 

COM COMAIR AIRLINES 42 

DAL DELTA AIR LINES 81 

EGF AMR EAGLE HOLDING COPR. (FORMERLY 118 

FFT FRONTIER AIRLINES 5 

FLG PINNACLE AIRLINES (dba NORTHWEST 10 

JBU JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP. 17 

JIA JETSTREAM INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES 10 

JZA AIR CANADA JAZZ 6 

MES MESABA AVIATION 2 

NKS SPIRIT AIRLINES 22 

NWA NORTHWEST AIRLINES 63 

PDT PIEDMONT AIRLINES, INC. (FORMERLY 130 

RPA REPUBLIC AIRLINES 31 

SWA SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 15 

TCF SHUTTLE AMERICA 58 

TRS AIRTRAN AIRWAYS (new 3ltr eff 03/22/03) 38 

UAL UNITED AIRLINES 40 

USA US AIRWAYS 92 

Page 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 29, 2010 

y0322 

Order 

 

March 29, 2010 

139610 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139610 

 COA: 292936 

Kalamazoo CC: 96-000039-FH 

DONALD LEE BIRD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 18, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
EXHIBIT 32




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 American Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), we, Joseph Kliminski, Chief
Executive Officer, and Eric B. Heyer, Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer, 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 results of operations of the Company as of the dates
and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in the
Report.




/s/
      Joseph Kliminski
                  
                  /s/
      Eric B. HeyerJoseph
      Kliminski
                  
                  Eric
      B. HeyerChief
      Executive Officer
                  
                  Senior
      Vice President, Treasurer and(Principal
      Executive Officer)
                  
                  Chief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)Date:
      December 12, 2008
                  
                  Date:
      December 12, 2008
AMENDMENT TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

                                   Joe P. Foor

         This Amendment to Stock Option Agreement is made as of the 4th  day  of
May, 1998, between Tatonka Energy, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation ("Company") and
Joe P. Foor ("Optionee").

         WHEREAS,  on May 4, 1988,  the  Company  granted Optionee  an option to
purchase an aggregate of 2,500,000  shares of Company's  Common Stock, par value
of $0.001 (as presently  constituted),  on the terms and conditions  hereinafter
set forth,  at the purchase  price of $0.075 per share as presently  constituted
(250,000  shares at $0.75 per share,  after the  effectiveness  of the  proposed
1-for-10 reverse stock split); and

         WHEREAS,  the  option  was  contained  in  that  certain  Stock  Option
Agreement dated as of May 4, 1988; and

         WHEREAS,  the  Company  and the  Optionee  intended  that the option be
granted  at a price  equal to 100% of the  fair  market  value of the  Company's
Common Stock on the date of grant; and

         WHEREAS,  the  parties  believed  at the time that $0.075 per share (as
presently  constituted)  was the fair market  value of the Common  Stock on such
date,  but the parties have  subsequently  learned that the fair market value of
the Common Stock on such date was $0.13; and

         WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Stock Option Agreement,  as of
May 4, 1998, to correct this error;

         NOW, THEREFORE,  in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants
hereinafter set forth,  and other good and valuable  consideration,  the Company
and Optionee agree as follows:

         1. The purchase price shall be $0.13 per share as presently constituted
($1.30 per share, after the effectiveness of the proposed 1-for-10 reverse stock
split).

         2. Except as amended by this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the
Stock Option  Agreement  shall be  unchanged  and shall remain in full force and
effect.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the Company has caused  this  Amendment  to Stock
Option Agreement to be executed in its name by its President and attested by its
Secretary on the day and year first above written, and the Optionee has hereunto
set his hand and seal on the day and year specified below.

                                                TATONKA ENERGY, INC.

                                                By /s/ George C. Barker
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   George C. Barker, President
ATTEST:

/s/ Judith F. Barker
---------------------------
Judith F. Barker, Secretary


                                               By /s/ George C. Barker
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                  George C. Barker, Optionee
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Page 1 ORDER - [C06-539-JLR]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

JIM ELLIOTT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Civil No. C06-539-JLR

ORDER FOR REMAND

Based on the stipulation of the parties, it is ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision in

regard to Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits under Title

XVI of the Social Security Act be REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social

Security for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g). The administrative law judge's decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability

insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act is affirmed.

DATED this 26th day of September, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00539-JLR-JPD Document 19 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Page 2 ORDER - [C06-539-JLR]

Case 2:06-cv-00539-JLR-JPD Document 19 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Page 3 ORDER - [C06-539-JLR]

Recommended for Entry this

22nd day of September, 2006.

/s/ JAMES P. DONOHUE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ STEPHANIE R. MARTZWSB # 28636

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

701 Fifth Ave, Ste 2900

Seattle, WA 98104

Phone: (206) 615-2272

Fax: (206)615-2531

stephanie.martz@ssa.gov

Case 2:06-cv-00539-JLR-JPD Document 19 Filed 09/26/06 Page 3 of 3
1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3199

___________

Douglas Thompson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

J. Booker, Warden, USP Leavenworth, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 2, 2002

Filed: December 11, 2002 

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Douglas Thompson appeals the district court's1

 dismissal, as time-barred, of his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging one of his state court
2

For a discussion of Thompson's criminal history, see Thompson v. Missouri

Board of Probation and Parole, 39 F.3d 186, 187-89 (8th Cir. 1994).

3

The issues Thompson raised in his application for a certificate of appealability

are not the same as the issues he raised in his original petition for writ of habeas

corpus; therefore, the denial of his application was appropriate. Abdullah v. United

States, 240 F.3d 683, 685 (8th Cir. 2001) ("Generally, a habeas claim cannot be raised

by a petitioner for the first time on appeal."), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 923 (2001).

-2-

convictions for murder2

 and the court's refusal to grant a certificate of appealability.3

For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

"The one-year statute of limitations in § 2244(d)(1) took effect on April 24,

1996. [His] conviction was then final under state law. Therefore, he had one

year–until April 24, 1997–to file a federal habeas petition, unless the one-year

limitation in § 2244(d)(1) was tolled." Gray v. Gammon, 283 F.3d 917, 918 (8th Cir.

2002). Thompson's state conviction was final in 1983. See Thompson v. Mo. Bd. of

Prob. and Parole, 39 F.3d 186, 188 (8th Cir. 1994). Since he filed his current petition

on June 7, 1999, and he has not met the requirements for tolling, his current

application for writ of habeas corpus is time-barred by section 2244(d)(1).

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000

<S>                                          <C>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            APR-01-2000             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         21,055                  21,055
<SECURITIES>                                   15,344                  15,344
<RECEIVABLES>                                   5,312                   5,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,028                   1,028
<INVENTORY>                                         0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               42,319                  42,319
<PP&E>                                         31,243                  31,243
<DEPRECIATION>                                 24,166                  24,166
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 53,005                  53,005
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           7,868                   7,868
<BONDS>                                             0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                         0                       0
<COMMON>                                        2,306                   2,306
<OTHER-SE>                                     42,831                  42,831
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   53,005                  53,005
<SALES>                                             0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                5,440                  10,787
<CGS>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,416                   4,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,201                   5,934
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,183)                 (5,595)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,183)                 (5,595)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                       0
<CHANGES>                                           0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,183)                 (5,595)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.09)                  (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)                  (0.24)



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Michael Brownlee, Petitioner, v Abraham G. Gerges, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 466]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, *inter alia,*to compel the respondent to entertain and to grant the petitioner’s motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 to set aside a jury verdict rendered May 22, 1995.

Motion by the respondent to dismiss the proceeding.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding and the papers filed in opposition thereto and in support of the motion, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when *411there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see, Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner in this case has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32-1





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 on Form 10-Q of WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND III,
L.P; (the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and Chief
Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the
Partnership, hereby certify 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
      Partnership.








/s/WILFRED N. COOPER,
JR.


Wilfred
N. Cooper, Jr.


President
and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.





Date:
February 16, 2010
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - 48 CFR Parts 1812, 1813, 1816, 1819, 1823, 1832, and 1852
          - [Notice: (23-089)]
          - RIN 2700-AE71

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         on September 19, 2023. The document issued was to conform the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that reflect an updated “commercial item” definition pursuant to a section of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019.                    

# DATES:

Effective October 19, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew O'Rourke, NASA HQs, Office of Procurement Management and Policy Division, LP-011, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20456-0001. Telephone 202-358-4560; facsimile 202-358-3082.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In FR Doc. 2023-17720 appearing on page 64384 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of Tuesday, September 19, 2023, the following corrections are made:                

# PARTS 1812, 1813, 1816, 1819, 1823, 1832, and 1852—[Corrected]

1. On page 64385, in the second column, in amendment 2, the instruction “In parts 1812, 1816, 1819, 1823, 1832, and 1852 revise all references to “Commercial Items” to read “Commercial Products and Commercial Services” ” is corrected to read “In parts 1812, 1813, 1816, 1819, 1823, 1832, and 1852 revise all references to “Commercial Items” to read “Commercial Products and Commercial Services.” ” 

Dated: October 10, 2023.

Erica Jones,

NASA FAR Supplement Manager.

[FR Doc. 2023-22651 Filed 10-12-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND 

DETERMINATION AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 

OF SUPERVISED RELEASE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROY COLUMBUS GOLD, III.,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-391-RSM

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 

AND DETERMINATION AS TO 

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 

SUPERVISED RELEASE

INTRODUCTION

I conducted a hearing on alleged violations of supervised release in this case on September 

19, 2012. The defendant appeared pursuant to a warrant issued in this case. The United States 

was represented by Sarah Vogel, and defendant was represented by Peter Camiel. Also present 

was U.S. Probation Officer Leona Nguyen. The proceedings were digitally recorded.

SENTENCE AND PRIOR ACTION

Defendant was sentenced on September 22, 2006, by the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez for 

Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine and Cocaine Base. He received 36 months detention and 5 

years supervised release.

On February 28, 2012, a violation report and warrant request was submitted alleging Mr. 

Gold had violated the conditions of supervision by failing to report for drug testing as directed,

Case 2:05-cr-00391-RSM Document 1120 Filed 09/19/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND 

DETERMINATION AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 

OF SUPERVISED RELEASE - 2

using cocaine, failure to attend substance abuse counseling as directed, and gambling and 

entering gambling establishments. The Court authorized a warrant. On April 27, 2012, the Court 

sentenced Mr. Gold to a custodial term of 45 days and 3 years of supervised release. 

Additionally, the Court imposed a condition requiring Mr. Gold to reside in a Residential 

Reentry Center for up to 120 days.

PRESENTLY ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

In a petition dated August 17, 2012, U.S. Probation Officer Andrew J. Lorenzen alleged that 

defendant violated the following conditions of supervised release:

1. Failing to report change in residence as directed, on or about August 12, 2012, in 

violation of standard condition number 6.

2. Failing to report to the probation officer as directed, on or about August 13, 2012, 

in violation of standard condition number 2.

FINDINGS FOLLOWING EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Defendant admitted the above violations, waived any hearing as to whether they occurred, 

and was informed the matter would be set for a disposition hearing October 5, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. 

before District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the foregoing, I recommend the court find that defendant has violated the

conditions of his supervised release as alleged above, and conduct a disposition hearing.

DATED this 19th day of September, 2012.

A

DEAN BRETT

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00391-RSM Document 1120 Filed 09/19/12 Page 2 of 2
No. 59825.

#### Gebhardt Chili Powder Co. *v.*United States,

protests 227067-K, etc. (Laredo).

*395Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Official Journal C 359/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 359 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 647 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 359

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 647 September 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 359/01 | Communication from the Commission – Approval of the content of a draft for a Commission Regulation on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices | 1 |
| 2021/C 359/02 | Communication from the Commission – Approval of the content of a draft for a Communication from the Commission – Commission Notice: Guidelines on vertical restraints | 12 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 359/01

Communication from the Commission – Approval of the content of a draft for a Commission Regulation on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices

1

2021/C 359/02

Communication from the Commission – Approval of the content of a draft for a Communication from the Commission – Commission Notice: Guidelines on vertical restraints

12

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN