alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 31,1959

No. 62944.

Suit 4947.

#### United States *v.*Loffredo Bros. and Gehrig Hoban & Co., Inc.

reversed December 15,1958. C.A.D. 697.
August 31, 2016 

Mr. Kevin Colburn 

Terrafugia, Inc. 

23 Rainin Road 

Woburn, MA 01801 

Re: FAA-2015-1382 

Dear Mr. Colburn: 

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/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
No. 62425.

#### Herman H. Sticht Co., Inc., and Intra-Mar Transport Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 311495-K, etc. (New York).

*397Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8

               TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH LARRY DALESANDRO
                              EFFECTIVE MAY 3, 2002

         Should Lannett terminate your employment other than "for cause" (as
defined below), you will be eligible for severance compensation in an amount to
be determined by Lannett, but not less than six (6) months of your base salary
at the time of termination. You will also be eligible to continue your
participation in the Company's medical benefit plans for six (6) months, at no
cost to you. For purposes hereof, "for cause" is defined to include engaging in
unethical business practices or conduct which creates a conflict of interest,
fraud, malfeasance, criminal behavior, and willful conduct in violation of
Lannett's Non-Harassment Policy or Corporate Handbook. If the Company is sold or
a majority of the Company's ANDAs (Abbreviated New Drug Applications) are sold
during your employment, and the Company or new organization terminates your
employment, you will be eligible for severance compensation in an amount equal
to one year of your current base salary at the time of termination. In this
scenario, you will also be eligible to continue your participation in the
Company's medical benefit plans, at no cost to you, for up to one year.
Additionally, all option grants issued to you, whether they are vested or
unvested, will become immediately vested for your benefit. If the Company is
sold during your employment, and the organization that takes control of the
Board of Directors desires to continue your employment with the same assignment
and place of business, regardless of whether you remain with the buying
organization or not, you will be paid an amount equal to six months of your then
current base salary at the time of the sale transaction for the Company.

         It is understood that these benefit terms are not being offered for a
definite period of time and that either you or the Company may terminate the
employment relationship at any time and for any reason without prior notice.
Nothing in this letter to you of compensation, stock options or benefits should
be interpreted as creating anything other than an at-will employment
relationship. In addition, the Company reserves the right to periodically review
the salary, bonus and benefits it offers to you and to adjust them from time to
time in its sole discretion but in no case will the salary be adjusted below
your current base salary.
No. 53909.

#### Frederick L. Beelby, Jr. *v.*United States,

protest 147638-K/1728 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Government counsel moved to dismiss the protest upon the ground that it was filed more than 60 days after liquidation. Prom an examination of the papers it was held that the motion of the Government was well founded. The protest was therefore dismissed.
NOTICE OF HEARING 

NOTICE IS HEARBY GIVEN that the Governing Board of the Antelope Valley Air Quality 

Management District (AVAQMD) will conduct a public hearing on May 19, 2015 at 10:30 A.M. 

to consider the proposed adoption of Federal Negative Declarations for Seventeen Control

Techniques Guidelines Source Categories.

SAID HEARING will be conducted in the Governing Board Chambers located at the 

AVAQMD offices 43301 Division Street, Suite 206, Lancaster, CA 92525-4649 where all 

interested persons may be present and heard. Copies of the proposed Federal Negative 

Declarations for Seventeen Control Techniques Guidelines Source Categories and the Staff 

Report are on file and may be obtained from the Clerk of the Governing Board at the AVAQMD 

Offices. Written comments may be submitted to Eldon Heaston, Executive Director at the above 

office address. Written comments should be received no later than May 18, 2015 to be 

considered. If you have any questions you may contact Tracy Walters at (760) 245-1661 x6122 

for further information. Traducción esta disponible por solicitud. 

The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requires areas designated non-attainment and classified 

moderate and above to implement Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 

sources subject to Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) documents issued by the USEPA for 

“major sources” of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) which are 

ozone precursors. Effective May 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008), USEPA lowered the 

primary ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) from 0.084 parts per million 

(ppm) to 0.075 ppm. For purposes of the FCAA, the District has been designated non-attainment 

for ozone and classified as Severe-15 for the new 0.075 ppm 8-hour standard. As a result of the 

shift to the 0.075 ppm standard, USEPA is requiring that all non-attainment areas submit an 

updated RACT SIP Analysis. The purpose of the RACT SIP Analysis is to ensure that District 

rules adequately address current RACT requirements. For those source categories not 

represented within the area designated non-attainment for ozone, USEPA requires the 

submission of a Federal Negative Declaration (FND) certifying that those sources are not 

present. These FNDs are revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP), and consequently 

they must be adopted after public notice and hearing (42 U.S.C. §7410(1), FCAA §110(1)). 

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the AVAQMD has determined 

that a Categorical Exemption (Class 8 – 14 Cal. Code Reg §15308) applies and has prepared a 

Notice of Exemption for this action. 

Crystal Goree 

Deputy Clerk of the Board 

Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District
No. 50282.

#### Protests 55317-K, etc., of Blotta & Conti, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it ^vas held that the currency of the invoices should be. converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 60670.

#### F. E. Macartney *v.*United States,

protests 249294-K, 249295-K, and 249299-K (Duluth).

*477Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ergoty screenings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Universal Laboratories*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 23, C. D. 1716), the claim for free entry was sustained as to the percentages of ergot content of the merchandise, as set forth in the schedule “A,” attached to and made part of the decision. The remaining merchandise was held dutiable, as assessed.
Aug. 13, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11842 ProFly Drones Pulse Aerospace – Vapor 55

This is a request for an amendment to Ex emption No. 11842 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015– 1148, granted to ProFly Drones. This amendmen t will provide for the addition of the Pulse Aerospace – Vapor 55 helicopter sUAS to the in ventory of approved aircraft for use during VLOS operations currently c overed under Exemption 11842.

These airframes are commercially available to the gene ral public, as are a ll components used to complete them. In addition, all configurations of these components follow standard, wellestablished practices. No aspect of these aircraft is proprietary to ProFly Drones in design or

manufacture.

Pulse Aerospace – Vapor 55

VAPOR55 Airplane Flight Manual_RevJ.pdf (Uploaded to Docket)
No. 52856.

#### Pandeleon Bros, of N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 138085-K (New York).

*232Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the merchandise, insofar as it involves the quantity reported by the inspector as “manifested, not found,” is subject to an allowance in duties. The protest was sustained to this extent.
(Reap. Dec. 10904)

#### F. W. Myers and Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. A-7126, etc.

(Decided March 2, 1965)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*John*TV. *Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to approval by the court, as follows:

> 1. That this stipulation is limited to the items marked “A” and initialed DR WM (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiner David O. Ramsey Walter Manns (Examiner’s Name) on the invoices covered by the appeals enumerated in Schedule “A” annexed.

> *5262. That the involved merchandise consists of -pipe organs and parts thereof exported from Canada.

> 3. That the involved merchandise was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165) and is not identified on the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant thereto (T.D. 54521) ; that appraisement was accordingly made under section 402, Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by said Customs Simplification Act.

> 4. That on or about the dates of exportation of the involved merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely sold or offered for exportation to the United States; that on or about said dates of exportation and for a period of at least 90 days thereafter, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely sold or offered for domestic consumption in the United States; that appraisement was accordingly made under constructed value as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

> 5. That the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as that involved in *F. W. Myers & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 10750, wherein installation expenses in the United States were held to form no part of statutory constructed values; that the record in said ease may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 6. That the constructed value of the involved merchandise as defined in said section 402 (d) is equal to the entered value.

> 7. That the appeals enumerated in Schedule “A” annexed may be submitted for decision upon this stipulation and the incorporated record, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts and following the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is constructed value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory-value is equal to the entered values, and I so hold.

As to all other merchandise, these appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Registration
Statement No. 333-105270 of Hartford Life Insurance Company Separate Account
Seven on Form N-4, of our report dated February 19, 2003 of Hartford Life
Insurance Company relating to the financial statements as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, and of our report dated February 21,
2003 of Hartford Life Insurance Company Separate Account Seven relating to
the financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002,
appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such
Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the headings
"Experts" in such Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
October 6, 2003
IA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 29

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide

a procedure by which the States may propose constitutional amendments.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

Mr. BLILEY (for himself, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. GOODE, Mr. STUMP, Mr. GILLMOR,

Mr. METCALF, Mr. SHADEGG, and Mr. MANZULLO) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to provide a procedure by which the States may

propose constitutional amendments.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution

5 of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by

7 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with8 in seven years after the date of its submission for ratifica9 tion:
2

•HJ 29 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Two-thirds of the legislatures of the sev3 eral States may propose an amendment to the Constitu4 tion by enacting identical legislation in each such legisla5 ture proposing the amendment. If two-thirds of the legisla6 tures of the several States enact such legislation, the legis7 lature first proposing the amendment shall submit the pro8 posed amendment to the Congress.

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. If a proposed amendment is submitted

10 to the Congress under this article and, before the date of

11 the second adjournment of Congress sine die occurring

12 after the proposed amendment is so submitted, two-thirds

13 of each House vote against legislation expressly disapprov14 ing the proposed amendment, the proposed amendment

15 shall be deemed to be submitted to the several States for

16 their consideration.

17 ‘‘SECTION 3. If, as of the date of the second adjourn18 ment of Congress sine die occurring after a proposed

19 amendment is submitted to Congress under this article,

20 the proposed amendment has not been submitted to the

21 several States for their consideration under section 2, and

22 two-thirds of each House have not voted for legislation ex23 pressly disapproving the proposed amendment, the pro24 posed amendment shall be deemed to be submitted to the

25 several States for their consideration.
3

•HJ 29 IH

1 ‘‘SECTION 4. A proposed amendment submitted to

2 the several States for their consideration under this article

3 shall be valid as part of the Constitution when ratified

4 by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.

5 ‘‘SECTION 5. This article shall not be construed as

6 limiting the power of the States or the Congress under

7 Article V of this Constitution.

8 ‘‘SECTION 6. The Congress shall have power to en9 force this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
No. 61202.

protests 235751-K, etc. (New York).

#### Bien Trading Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sprats in oil, packed in tins, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Arnold Sorensin Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 199, C. D. 1862), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
SERVED: NOVEl\1BER 7 , 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0485 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0486 

2HfZ ... 8 
2 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES 

FAA DOCKET No. CPllSWOOOO 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0680 and -0779 . 

ORDER SETTING OUT BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

The parties have agreed on the following Post Hearing Briefing Schedule, which is 

hereby established: · 

1. The Post-Hearing Brief of Complainant Federal Aviation Administration shall 

be filed on or before December 3, 2012; 

2. The Post-Hearing Brief of Respondent Sky West Airlines shall be filed on or 

before January 3, 2013; and · 

' 

3. The Rebuttal Brief of the Federal Aviation Administration, if any, sh~ll be 

filed on or before January 18, 2013. 

Richard 

~('~~!CJ< C. Goodwin ' · · 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

. Attachment- Service List 
3 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

·wilbur Wright Building-. Suite 2Wl000

1 

ONE COPY 

Todd C. Emerson, Respondent's Representative 

Director - Government and Legal Affairs 

SkyWest Airlines 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

FAX: 435-634-3505 

Michael L. Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Francisco, ·CA 94104 

TEL: 415-421-0250 

FAX: 415-421-2560 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227.-2161 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

FDMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485 

& FAA-2011-0486, 0779, 

0680 . 

(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 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. · 
4 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

·202-36q-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536
#### [Protective Life and Annuity Insurance Company Letterhead]

## Exhibit 99(c)

#### 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 Protective Life and Annuity Insurance Company (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Allen W.
Ritchie, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

| | (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.
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/Allen W. Ritchie
Allen W. Ritchie
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002

This  certification  accompanies  the Report  pursuant to §906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent
required by the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the Company for  purposes of §18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.
IA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 9

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to allow

an item veto of appropriation bills.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 1999

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. BALDACCI) introduced the

following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to allow an item veto of appropriation bills.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 for ratification:
2

•HJ 9 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE —

2 ‘‘The President may disapprove any item of appro3 priation in any bill. If any bill is approved by the Presi4 dent, any item of appropriation contained therein which

5 is not disapproved shall become law. The President shall

6 return with his objections any item of appropriation dis7 approved to the House in which the bill containing such

8 item originated. The Congress may, in the manner pre9 scribed under section 7 of article I for bills disapproved

10 by the President, reconsider any item disapproved under

11 this article.’’.

Æ