alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

Application of :

:

BALTIA AIR LINES, INC. (BALTIA) :

: DOCKET DOT-OST-2007-0007

for Waiver of Dormancy :

:

:

(New York-St. Petersburg) : 

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

SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION OF BALTIA AIR LINES, INC ("BALTIA")

FOR WAIVER OF DORMANCY PROVISION OF 14 CFR 294.7

AND REQUEST TO FILE OUT OF TIME.

Baltia Air Lines, Inc. ("Baltia"), provides the documents

listed on the Index to supplement its application for a waiver from

the revocation for dormancy provisions of Section 204.7 (14 CFR §

204.7)that was filed on March 9, 2011.a)

BALTIA AIR LINES, INC.

By: ___________/s/________________________

Steffanie J. Lewis

General Counsel 

Baltia Air Lines, Inc

THE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FIRM P.C. 

1915 Eye Street, NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006-2118

Telephone: 202 296 1111

Facsimile: 202 296 1175

Email: slewis@iblf.com

Date: March 14, 2011
BALTIA AIR LINES

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT INDEX

DOC No. DOCUMENT PAGES

11. HSBC Letter by VP and Branch Manager dated March 10, 2011. 43

12. D. Lipton Verification Letter .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

13. Certification Costs Remaining .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that, this 14th day of March, 2011, the foregoing

SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF DORMANCY has been served by

Email upon the following:

Via e-mail on the following persons. 

jeffrey.manley@united.com; carl.nelson@aa.com;

howard_kass@usairways.com; rbkeiner@crowell.com;

nssparks@fedex.com; recohn@hhlaw.com; prrizzi@hhlaw.com;

msinick@ssd.com; hkamen@coair.com; sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com;

dvaughan@kelleydrye.com; rpommer@atlasair.com;

ben.graves@evergreenaviation.com;

daniel.commins@evergreenaviation.com; sametta.c.barnett@delta.com;

scott.mcclain@delta.com; Mark.treadaway@mwaa.com;

donald.fields@mwaa.com; sbrocchi@panynj.gov; john.krepp@faa.gov

_______/s/___________________

 Steffanie J. Lewis

Baltia : JFK-LED - page 2
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

Application of :

:

BALTIA AIR LINES, INC. (BALTIA) :

: DOCKET DOT-OST-2007-0007

for Waiver of Dormancy :

:

:

(New York-St. Petersburg) : 

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

SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION OF BALTIA AIR LINES, INC ("BALTIA")

FOR WAIVER OF DORMANCY PROVISION OF 14 CFR 294.7

AND REQUEST TO FILE OUT OF TIME.

Communications with respect to this document should be

addressed to:

Igor Dmitrowsky 

President & CEO 

BALTIA AIR LINES, INC. 

63-25 Saunders Street, Suite 7I

Rego Park, New York 11374 

Steffanie J. Lewis

General Counsel

Baltia Air Lines, Inc.

THE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FIRM, PC

1915 Eye Street, NW, Suite 500

Telephone: 202 296 1111

Facsimile: 202 296 1175

Email: slewis@iblf.com

March 14, 2011
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

1

 By order filed July 25, 2005, the claims of plaintiff Arthur Clinton Givens were

dismissed without prejudice and plaintiff Givens was dismissed from this action, leaving plaintiff

Whitaker as the sole plaintiff.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR CLINTON GIVENS, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-04-1647 FCD PAN P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff Lamont Dion Whitaker is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this 

civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On March 8, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01647-FCD-PAN Document 22 Filed 04/07/06 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

24

25

26

2

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 8, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED:April 6, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01647-FCD-PAN Document 22 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 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

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES NEUMANN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2518 FCD GGH P

vs.

GOVERNOR ARNOLD

SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed February 8, 2005, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty

days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. On April 1, 2005, plaintiff was granted an

additional 30 days to amend the complaint. That period has now expired, and plaintiff has not

filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

Case 2:04-cv-02518-FCD-GGH Document 11 Filed 06/13/05 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

24

25

26

2

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 6/10/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

neum2518.fta

Case 2:04-cv-02518-FCD-GGH Document 11 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 2
II 

Calendar No. 629 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4576 

To amend the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, to reauthorize the Colorado River System conservation pilot program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2024 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. ROMNEY, Mr. BENNET, 

and Ms. LUMMIS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 

Reported by Mr. MANCHIN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the Energy and Water Development and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, to reauthorize the 

Colorado River System conservation pilot program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Colorado River Basin 

5 System Conservation Extension Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4576 RS

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM 

2 CONSERVATION PILOT PROGRAM. 

3 Section 206 of the Energy and Water Development 

4 and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (43 

5 U.S.C. 620 note; Public Law 113–235), is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ‘‘this Act’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘the Colorado River Basin System 

8 Conservation Extension Act’’; 

9 (2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ‘‘2024’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘2026’’; and 

11 (3) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘2025’’ and 

12 inserting ‘‘2027’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 629 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4576 

A BILL 

To amend the Energy and Water Development and 

tion pilot program. reauthorize the Colorado River System conservaRelated Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, to 

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE May 13, 2015

Washington, DC 20590

Regarding: Amendment to Aquilo Exemption No. 13517 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 3548 to

include additional aircraft as follows.

Dear Sir or Mada m

,

Aquilo was issued a Section 333 exemption for operation in the national airspace. Aquilo hereby

requests an amendment to that exemption to allow additional Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) with

no changes in the conditions and reasons r elative to public interest and safety that were the basis for

the FAA granting the original exemption. All requested aircraft below have been previously approved for

use under Section 333 exemptions.

Aquilo wishes to operate the following additional UAS:

Aircraft Previously Approved

Under Exemption

3DR Solo 11309A

3DR Iris+ 11309A

DJI Matrice 100 11646A

Skywalker X8 11172A

ZETA Science FX

- 79 11492A

As this is an amendment to existing exemptions requesting only the addition of other types of

UAS, Aquilo respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in

the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

1206 16TH Avenue

Fairbanks, AK 99701

Sincerely,

Carl France

Chief Pilot, CEO

info @aquiloalaska.com
No. 46141.

#### Protests 29593-K, etc., of Oldetyme Distillers, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

As the papers disclosed nothing to overcome the action of, the collector the protests were overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED IN
THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED AUGUST 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                         580,607
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  433,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,212,837
<PP&E>                                       1,517,856
<DEPRECIATION>                               (398,786)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,304,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,791,498
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,316
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,304,390
<SALES>                                      8,615,092
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,615,092
<CGS>                                        9,223,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,223,258
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,207,946
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,001
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,816,112
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,816,112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,816,112
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)


</TABLE>
Statement of the Air and Radiation I’Ianagement Administration

Department of the Environment

for the

Public Hearing Relating to

Proposed New Regulation .05-1 under COMAR 26.11.10 Control of Iron and Steel Production

Installations concerning Carbon Monoxide Emissions

held on July 13, 2005

Baltimore, MD

My name is Husain Waheed. I am a Public Health Engineer in Regulation Development

Division of the Air and Radiation Management Administration, Department of the Environment.

This public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 51.102

and Sections 2-30 1 et.seq. of the Environment Article, Annotated Code of Maryland. It is also

being held in conformance with the State Administrative Procedures Act under the State

Government Article, beginning at Section 10-10 1.

Notice ofthis hearing appeared in the:

Maryland Register on June 10, 2005;

Baltimore Sun on June 10, 2005;

Saint Mary’s Enterprise on June 10, 2005;

Cumberland Times-News on June 10, 2005;

Frederick News-Post on June 10, 2005;

Salisbury Daily Times on June 10, 2005; and the

Washington Post on June 9, 2005.

Copies of these notices were submitted for the record.

Copies of the proposed new regulation and supporting documents were submitted for

review to the State Clearinghouse and are also submitted at this time into the hearing record.

Copies of the proposed new regulation and supporting documents were made available for public

inspection at the Air and Radiation Management Administration offices in Baltimore,

Cumberland, and Salisbury, and at all local health departments or local air quality control offices.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to give the public an opportunity to comment on

proposed new Regulation .05-1 under COMAR 26.11.10.

Summary

This amendment reestablishes carbon monoxide emission standards for basic oxygen

furnaces located at steel mills. The previous regulation was deleted because it contained an

inappropriate control method for these furnaces. The proposed requirement limits the carbon

monoxide concentration in the effluent gases to 1 percent. The amendment also clarifies testing

requirements to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards.
This action will have no impact on the Department or affected sources.

This new regulation will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a

revision to Maryland’s State Implementation.

Consideration of Comments

The Department will consider all comments before making a decision to adopt this new

regulation.

L:\.AQPlanning and Monitoring\Regulation Development Division\Hearing Materials\Hearing Statements\Hearing Stmt -

26. 11.10 Carbon Monoxide amendments.doc
No. 46731.

#### Protests 766384-G, etc., of Irving W. Rice Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of atomizers and atomizers in sets composed in chief value of decorated glass and that they are similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140. In accordance therewith the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) was sustained.
Exhibit 23.1  MOORE & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND ADVISORS PCAOB REGISTERED      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM    We consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10K of Nova Energy, Inc., of our report dated July 10, 2009 on our audit of the financial statements of Nova Energy, Inc. as of June 30, 2009 and 2008, and the related statements of operations, stockholders equity and cash flows for the years ended June 30, 2009, 2008 and since inception on December 31, 2002 through June 30, 2009, and the reference to us under the caption Experts.          /s/ Moore & Associates, Chartered Moore & Associates Chartered Las Vegas, Nevada July 13, 2009                       6490 West Desert Inn Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89146 (702)253-7499 Fax (702)253-7501
(Reap. Dec. 8686)

Entry No. 791322, etc.

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided October 17, 1956)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the reappraisement appeals listed in the attached Schedule A, which Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, are limited to the binoculars and leather cases and straps specified in the said attached Schedule A.

> That at the time of exportation binoculars, and leather cases and straps, such as or similar to those identified in the attached Schedule A, were being freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States at the per piece prices specified in the attached Schedule A, U. S. dollars, and, except as noted (as marked*), plus casing and packing charges, freight to shipping port, storage, insurance premiums, lighterage and handling charges, as invoiced, which prices were higher than the foreign values as defined in Section 402 (c), Tariff Act of 1930.

> The reappraisement appeals listed in the attached Schedule A are submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as the value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are as set forth in said schedule “A,” in United States dollars and, except as noted (as marked *), plus casing and packing charges, freight to shipping port, storage, insurance premium, lighterage, and handling charges, as invoiced.

Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise, they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

*541
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward McLoud, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 568]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The prosecutor’s statements on summation did not constitute improper bolstering of the police witnesses, but were made "in fair response to statements made by the defense [citation omitted]” *(People v Maisonet,*172 AD2d 274, *lv denied*78 NY2d 969). We reject the further *1018contention of defendant that juror misconduct deprived him of a fair trial *(see, People v Estrada,*191 AD2d 286, *lv denied*81 NY2d 1013). Finally, in light of the lengthy criminal history of defendant, we conclude that his sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe *(see,*CPL 470.15 [2] [c]). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 21.1  Subsidiaries
    of OpenTV Corp.
    As of December 31, 2006
    Name of the Subsidiary

Jurisdiction of OrganizationACTV, Inc.

United States (Delaware)ACTV Entertainment, Inc.

United States (New York)Advision LLC

United States (Delaware)BettingCorp. UK Ltd.

United KingdomDigital Adco, Inc.

United States (Delaware)HyperTV Networks, Inc.

United States (Delaware)Intellocity USA, Inc.

United States (Delaware)Media Online Services, Inc.

United States (Delaware)OpenTV (Israel) Ltd.

IsraelOpenPlay (BVI) Ltd.

British Virgin IslandsOpenTV Advertising Holdings,
    Inc.

United States (Delaware)OpenTV GmbH

SwitzerlandOpenTV Japan KK

JapanOpenTV Australia Pty Ltd

Australia (New South Wales)OpenTV (Cayman) Digital Solutions

Cayman IslandsOpenTV Europe S.A.S

FranceOpenTV Holding N.V.

Netherlands AntillesOpenTV Holdings B.V.

The NetherlandsOpenTV Iberia SL

SpainOpenTV, Inc.

United States (Delaware)OpenTV Interactive Software
    (Beijing) Co. Ltd.

ChinaOpenTV UK Limited

United KingdomOpenTV US Holdings, Inc.

United States (Delaware)OpenTV US Investments, Inc.

United States (Delaware)Spyglass, Inc.

United States (Delaware)Spyglass Integration,
    Inc.

United States (Delaware)Static 2358 France S.A.S

FranceStatic 2358 Holdings Limited

United KingdomStatic 2358, Inc.

United States (California)Static 2358 Limited

United KingdomWink Communications, Inc.

United States (Delaware)4G Media Ltd.

British Virgin Islands4G Media Ltd.

Turks and Caicos
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4604 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4604

  To authorize the appropriation of amounts for the construction of a 
  trident refit facility expansion at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, 
                                Georgia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 20, 2024

  Mr. Ossoff introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the appropriation of amounts for the construction of a 
  trident refit facility expansion at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, 
                                Georgia.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Kings Bay Trident Modernization 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF AMOUNTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TRIDENT REFIT 
              FACILITY EXPANSION AT KINGS BAY NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE, 
              GEORGIA.

    There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Defense 
for fiscal year 2025 $115,000,000 for the construction of a trident 
refit facility expansion at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, Georgia.
                                 <all>
```
No. R68/25.

reappraisements R62/123, etc. (New York).

#### Parfumes Dana Export Co. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those in *Gehrig Hoban &*Co., *Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 727, A.R.D. 210), the court found and held that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a (f), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simpli*1065fication. Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the various items of perfumery involved herein and that such values are as stated in schedule “B,” said schedule “B” being attached to and made a part of the decision.