alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591

AFS

- 10

- 327

- P September 29, 2014

Mr. Jim Bilbrey Adventure Flights Inc.

19301 Jasmine Court Lake Elsinore, CA 92530

Dear Mr. Bilbrey :

This is in response to your letter dated July 6, 2010

, posted to the public docket (No

. FAA

- 2010

- 0714 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administra tion (FAA) to initiate rulemaking to amend § § 141.5(d) and (e) of the Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR)

. In your petition, you request that the requirements for a pilot school certificate be amended to address Lighter

- Than

- Air Schools.

In accordance w ith 14 CFR § 11.73 , the FAA must use the following criteria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 2) The priority of other issu es the FAA must deal with; and 3) The resources we have available to address these issues

.

Each year, t he FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure th e FAA delivers the most value to the aviation system

.

After reviewing your request b ased on the current priorities for the FAA and the guidelines found in § 11.73, we determined the issue you raised does not meet the criteria to pursue rulemaking at thi s time. However, we will place your comments and arguments for the proposed rule change in your petition in a database, which we will review when we consider future rulemaking.

If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, you would be able to find

out and track it through one of the two following websites :2

• For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) website: http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report

- on

significant

- rulemakings

.

• For non

- significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT’s semi

annual regulatory agenda , through the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Reg ulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified Agenda website: ( http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain ).

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with

14 CF R § 11.73.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu Director, Office of Rulemaking
# C_2017221EN.01002501.xml

| 10.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — PG v Frontex

(Case T-583/16)

((Civil service - Temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Renewal procedure - Article 266 TFEU - Duty of care - Non-contractual liability))

(2017/C 221/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PG (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and S. Drew, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

ACTION based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 9 June 2015, taken by the authority in Frontex empowered to conclude contracts of employment, not to renew the applicant’s contract and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr PG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr PG to pay the costs.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AMY DiMARTINO : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

ACME MARKETS, INC. and : NO. 02-4320

ALBERTSON’S INC. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2003, upon consideration of the defendants’

Motion in Limine Regarding Plaintiff’s Medical Specials and Moorhead v. Crozer Chester

Medical Center (Docket No. 9), the plaintiff’s oral response, and after hearing argument at

the final pretrial conference, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

 

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04320-TJS Document 14 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 78398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25255]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 15, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 6, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
98 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2024-42, CP2024-42.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-25255 Filed 11-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
1507897v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TOLEDO MACK SALES & }

SERVICE, INC., }

}

Plaintiff, } Civil Action No. 

} 2:02-CV-04373-RLB

v. }

} JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MACK TRUCKS, INC., }

}

Defendant. }

MACK TRUCKS, INC., }

}

Plaintiff, }

}

v. }

}

TOLEDO MACK SALES & } JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SERVICE, INC., and }

}

PAI INDUSTRIES, INC., }

950 Northbrook Parkway }

Suwanee, Georgia, }

}

Defendants. }

ORDER DISMISSING COUNT V OF MACK TRUCKS, INC.’S COUNTERCLAIM

AND NOW, this ____ day of _______________, 2002, upon consideration of

Counterclaim Defendant PAI Industries, Inc.’s (“PAI’s”) Motion to Dismiss Count V of

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Mack Trucks, Inc.’s Counterclaim, and any opposition, it is

hereby ORDERED that PAI’s Motion be GRANTED, and that Count V of the Counterclaim

filed by Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Mack Trucks, Inc. be DISMISSED with prejudice.

____________________________________

HONORABLE RONALD BUCKWALTER

Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 13-3 Filed 09/16/2002 Page 1 of 1
Larson Allen (SM)
                              Welshair & Co., LLP
                           Achieve the Desired Effect

               Business Consultants Certified Public Accountants


March 15, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20549

Re:  Pennexx Foods, Inc.

We have read the statements that we understand Pennexx Foods, Inc., formerly
Pinnacle Foods, Inc., will include under Item 8 of the Form 10-KSB report it
will file regarding the recent change of auditors. We agree with such statements
regarding our firm.

We have no basis to agree or disagree with other statements made under Item 8.

/s/ Larson, Allen, Weishar & Co., LLP
Larson, Allen, Weishar & Co., LLP
Certified Public Accountants and Business Consultants

cc:  Mr. Steven B. King
     Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP

     Mr. Thomas J. Shroyer
     Moss & Barnett
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

AARON MATTHEW BRADLEY,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 315 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
No. 51941.

#### Frank Alvarez et al. *v.*United States,

protests 123911-K, etc. (Laredo, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 177-4 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 177-4 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 177-4 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 177-4 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 177-4 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 177-4 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 177-4 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 7 of 7
No. 66280.

#### Walter Hatches, Inc., and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N.Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/28402 (New York).

*396Opinion by

Whson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that *the*merchandise consists of candlestick holders similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Mottahedeh Creations, Ltd., et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 9, C.D. 2095), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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.
 Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration
 AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
 ACTION: Supplemental funding for the National Rural Health Policy, Community, and Collaboration Program.
 SUMMARY: HRSA provided supplemental funds to the sole award recipient of the National Rural Health Policy, Community, and Collaboration Program.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexa Ofori, Senior Advisor, Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, HRSA, at 
                        *aofori@hrsa.gov*
                         and (301) 945-3986.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  *Intended Recipient of the Award:*
                     The National Rural Health Association (NRHA). The purpose of this program is to identify, engage, educate, and collaborate with rural stakeholders on national rural health policy issues and promising practices in an effort to improve the health of people living in rural communities nationwide. *Amount of Non-Competitive Award:*
                     One award for $520,000.
                    ( print page 78758) *Project Period:*
                     August 1, 2023, to July 31, 2024. *CFDA Number:*
                     93.155. *Award Instrument:*
                     Supplement. *Authority:*
                     Section 711 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 912). Table 1—Recipient and Award Amount
Grant No.
Award recipient name
City, state
Supplemental award amountU16RH03702
National Rural Health Association
Leawood, KS
$520,000
 *Justification:*
                     The supplement provides funds to NRHA, the recipient of the National Rural Health Policy, Community, and Collaboration Program, to enhance technical assistance activities for rural health care facilities and rural communities to better respond to emergent rural health issues, to track rural provider and patient issues, and to further support rural behavioral health resource needs through partnerships with key stakeholders. These activities align with the goals of the program by creating resources, supporting the development of educational materials, and increasing collaboration among key stakeholders to support rural health needs. Carole Johnson, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2023-25315 Filed 11-15-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

DESIREE ALIZE PABON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee.

No. 2D 2022

- 4181

August 21, 2024

Appeal from the C ounty Court for Hillsborough County; Margaret R.

Taylor , Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green , Assistant

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley

, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, ROTHSTEIN

- YOUAKIM , and LABRIT , JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
(V. D. 30)

Entry No. 786835, etc.

#### Tanross Supply Co. et al. *v.*United States

(Decided September 19, 1956)

*Jordan & Klingaman {Jacob L. Klingaman*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These matters are presently before me on remands from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *Tanross Supply Co. et al.*v. *United States,*34 Cust. Ct. 260, Abstract 58687; *Ocean Photo Supply Co., Inc., and Charles Happel, Inc.*v. *United States,*34 Cust. Ct. 313, Abstract 58860. The judg*450ments entered therein stated: “* * * that the matters be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).”

The matters have been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the involved merchandise and that such values are as set forth in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof.

I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

Joint Application of ) 

 ) 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. ) 

and ) DOCKET OST-2000-6824

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED ) 

 ) 

under 14 CFR Part 212 for statements of ) 

authorization (code-sharing) ) 

__________________________________________) 

JOINT NOTICE OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

AND CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED

OF ADDITIONAL CODESHARING

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

John R. Mietus, Jr.

LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MIETUS, LLC

6701 Democracy Boulevard Ste 300

Bethesda, Maryland 20817

(202) 747-5212

john@mietuslaw.com

Counsel for CATHAY PACIFIC

Robert A. Wirick

Managing Director, Regulatory and 

International Affairs 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

P.O. Box 619616, MD 5635

DFW Airport, Texas 75161

(817) 963-0394

robert.wirick@aa.com 

September 3, 2014
No. 57947.

protest 208625-K (New York).

#### Park Lane Liquors, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Lancers Rose Wine in bottles or jugs similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 53224, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Name Address Date of 

Birth 

Course 

Certificate # 

Course 

Test Score 

Photo 

Included* 

 

US Environmental Protection Agency Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation

Important: The training program manager may complete this sample form or similar form when notifying the EPA. Consult the 

Instructions for Notifying the EPA of Lead-Based Paint Abatement Activities and Renovation Courses when preparing posttraining notification. Please type or print responses in black or blue ink only.

A. Type of Notification (Please indicate the type of notification)

B. Training Program

Name:________________________________________ Accreditation Number:________________________________

Address:______________________________________________________________________________________________

Phone Number:_______________________________

C. Course Information

 Discipline: Worker Supervisor Inspector Risk Assessor Project Designer

Renovator Dust Sampling Technician

 Type: Initial Refresher

Training Dates: from________________ to _________________

Training Location Address:________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

D. Student Information (Attach additional paper if necessary)

 Original Updated

D. Training Managers Information (Please note that this form is incomplete without a signature)

I hereby attest and affirm that the information included on this notification form is true and accurate to the best of my belief and 

knowledge. I acknowledge that any approval authorized pursuant to this notification will be subject to revocation if issuance 

was based on incorrect or inadequate information that materially affected the decision to issue the approval.

Name_____________________________ Signature__________________________ Date Signed_________________

*A photo of each student is required for Renovator and Dust Sampling Technician courses. 

 Please see www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/trainerinstructions.htm for photo specifications. The photos should be sent on a CD along with this form.

For information on EPA and other lead programs, see the web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/lead 

Street Address City State Zip Code

Month/Day/Year Month/Day/Year

Street Address

City State Zip Code
# C_2018032EN.01002402.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2017 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (Burlington)

(Case T-122/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Burlington - Earlier national word marks BURLINGTON and BURLINGTON ARCADE - Earlier EU and national figurative marks BURLINGTON ARCADE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 032/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Burlington Fashion GmbH (Schmallenberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Parr, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 (Case R 2409/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tulliallan Burlington and Burlington Fashion.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tulliallan Burlington Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tulliallan Burlington Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0065 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRANDON EUGENE ABRAMOVITZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 15, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Jim Rice Justice, Montana Supreme Court October 12 2021

10/12/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0065
No. 48408.

#### Protests 944801-G, etc., of Heinsheimer Bros., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that the merchandise consists of hemp hats similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218); hats of hemp knotted straw similar to those involved in Abstract 46497; and hats of ramie similar to those involved in Ab*190stract 47291. In accordance therewith the merchandise in question was held dutiable at only 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) as claimed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                                5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Duke Capital Corporation Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                   0001051116
<NAME>                                  DUKE CAPITAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              250900
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      1856900
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                         225700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   3355000
<PP&E>                                            10856600
<DEPRECIATION>                                     3843600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    13082900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              3250200
<BONDS>                                            3027300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                         3732500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      13082900
<SALES>                                            8125700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   9868500
<CGS>                                              7738000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      8780500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    358400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  180300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     801400
<INCOME-TAX>                                        206800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 371100
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      (8000)
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        363100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0 <F1>
        
<FN>
<F1>Not meaningful since Duke Capital Corporation is a
wholly-owned subsidiary.
</FN>

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

November 29, 1961

No. 66238.

#### Otto C. Ling & Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/15820, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein .are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.