alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC
In the Matter of: NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION FDMS No. FAA-2013-0620
Served: September 16,2015

EXTENSION OF TIME Complainant Federal Aviation Administration and RespondentNational Power Corporation filed notices ofappeal inthis matter from the written initial decision issued by Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin onJuly 24, 2015. Under 14 C.P.R.§§ 13.233(c) and 13.211(e), parties mustperfecttheir appeals byfiling an appeal briefwithin 55 days ofthe date ofthe issuance ofthe initial decision. Accordingly, appeal briefs in this case are due no later than September 17, 2015. Complainant filed a motion on September 15, 2015, under 14 C.P.R. § 13.233(c)(2), seeking a 30-day extensionoftime in whichto file its appeal brief. Complainant represented that it has attempted to contact Respondent's attorney to obtain his consent to the request for the extension oftime. However, according to Complainant, Respondent's attorney has been away from his office andhas not responded. Complainant wrote further in its motion that "the window to prepare the appeal briefwas cut short whenthe case was transferred from our office in Chicago to headquarters for the appellate work," and that the headquarters attorney needs additional time to review the record, researchthe issues and prepare the brief. Complainant has shown good cause for its timely request for an extension oftime. Complainant'srequest for an extension oftime inwhich to file its appeal briefis granted under 14 C.P.R. § 13.233(c)(2). Complainant's appeal briefis nowdue by October 19, 2015 1 Respondent filed its appeal briefon September 2, 2015. The due date for Complainant's reply briefis not extendedby this order. Complainant may seek additional time in whichto file its reply briefunder 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.233(e)(1) or (2), ifnecessary.

1The "mailing rule" (14 C.F.R. § 13.2ll(e)), which provides additional time after service by mail, does not apply to this extension. Thus, it does not extend the appeal briefs due date beyond October 19,2015.MICHAELP. HUERTA ADMINISTRATOR

2 Issued under authority delegated to the ChiefCounsel and the Assistant ChiefCounsel for Litigation by Memorandum dated October 27, 1992, under 49 U.S.C. § 322(b) and 14 C.F.R. § 13.202 (see 57 Fed. Reg. 58,280 (1992)) and redelegated bythe Assistant ChiefCounsel for Litigation tothe Manager, Adjudication Branch, by Memorandum dated August 6, 1993.
Table of Contents

EXHIBIT32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of QuantaCapital Holdings Ltd. (the ‘‘Company’’) onForm 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September  30,  2006as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the ‘‘Report’’) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, I, Jonathan J. R. Dodd, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify that to the best of my knowledge:

|  |          |                                                                                                                     |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 1.  | The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and |

|  |          |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 2.  | The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of theCompany. |

Date: November  9,2006

/s/ Jonathan J.R.Dodd                                            JonathanJ. R. Dodd(Principal Financial Officer)

Thiscertification is not deemed to be ‘‘filed’’for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, orotherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certificationis not deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except tothe extent that the Company specifically incorporates it byreference.

----
(Reap. Dec. 8746)

#### United States *v.*Elvic Import Corp.

Entry No. 41476 1/2.

(Decided February 14, 1957)

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Foed, Judge:

When this case was called for hearing, counsel for the Government and the president of the defendant corporation submitted the same upon a stipulation. Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find the proper export value of the merchandise shown as item 460/9 on invoice 2279 of December 13, 1954, to be $1.25 per 100 meters, plus packing; the merchandise shown as item 460/9 on invoice 2277 of December 13, 1954, I find the proper export value to be $1.25 per 100 meters, plus packing; and the merchandise shown as item 460/11 on the same invoice, I find the proper export value to be $1.53 per 100 meters, plus packing. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 9211)

#### National Carloading Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 15546, etc.

(Decided August 19, 1958)

*Wallace & Schwartz (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals enumerated in the attached schedule are for reappraisement of the values returned by the appraiser of merchandise at Chicago of certain automobile parts imported from Canada.

When the cases were called for trial counsel for the plaintiff abandoned the appeals with respect to the items identified on the invoices by the following numbers :

Judgment will, therefore, issue dismissing the instant appeals insofar as they relate to the above-enumerated items.

*519As to all other items than those above enumerated, counsel for the parties stipulated that there was, at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved in these cases, no foreign, export, or United States value therefor, within the meaning of those terms as defined in section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that the cost of production of such items, within the meaning of that term, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, was the invoice unit price shown in column 9 of each consular invoice, except that in the case of reappraisement No. 297650-A the said cost of production was as stated in the column on the yellow invoice headed “Rate.”

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 53109.

#### Wo Kee & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 25695-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Before the First Division,

March 30, 1950

No. 54163.

#### I. B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 135305-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the statuettes are “composed wholly or in chief value of iron, steel, lead, copper, brass, nickel, pewter, zinc, aluminum or other metal but not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer.” It was further stipulated that the “glass container is specifically designed to contain the article therein and that it is the usual container for the merchandise involved.” A sample of the item in question, received in evidence as exhibit 1, consists of a glass container measuring approximately 1)4" by *l%"*by thick, divided into two compartments, each of which contains a religious aluminum statuette. The container is fitted with a fancy aluminum-hinged cover which, when snapped into place, holds the figures enclosed but visible through two doorlike windows of what appear to be plastic material. On the record presented it was held that the statuettes in question are dutiable as claimed and that the glass containers are likewise dutiable at the same rate as their contents. *W. X. Huber Co.*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 316, C. D. 267) followed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 16, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133527 & (10)(11) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

In re: Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

The Honorable JEANETTE O’BANNER-OWENS, 

36th District Court 

 Justices 

421 Madison, Suite 3068 

Detroit, MI 48226 

 SC: 133527

 JTC: Formal Complaint No. 80 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of April 25, 2007, the parties were directed to provide supplemental 

briefing. On order of the Court, the motion to seal and keep confidential the respondent’s 

brief, motion, and attachment is GRANTED. Considering the specific circumstances of 

this case, the Judicial Tenure Commission is DIRECTED to provide the respondent, 

within 7 days of the date of this order, with copies of the eight-page letter or letters that 

the Commission sent to the physicians who examined the respondent pursuant to MCR 

9.207(D). Within three weeks of the date of this order, the respondent shall provide the 

Court with an updated report from Dr. Aronson and any additional reports and 

supplemental briefing that the respondent deems necessary. The petition for interim 

suspension remains pending. 

p0516 

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. 

May 16, 2007 

 Clerk
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. BILLY M. GROOVER, Specialist Five, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 295, 38 CMR 93

No. 20,592

November 30, 1967

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Kenneth J. Stuart,*and *Captain Dennis R. Hunt*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major John F. Webb, Jr.,*and *Captain Gregory U. Evans*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

Upon his trial by general court-martial for larceny, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921, accused’s pretrial statement was received in evidence against him. No showing was made, however, of advice as to his right to counsel beyond the fact that he was informed “of his right to consult with legal counsel and to have legal counsel present” during his interrogation. The Government concedes that the warning shown on the record is inadequate and requests remand of the case with provision for a rehearing. That concession is proper. United States v Hardy, 17 USCMA 100, 37 CMR 364. In addition, we note the law officer’s instructions on the sentence were erroneously limited to a state*296ment of the maximum imposable and the mechanics of voting. See United States v Wheeler, 17 USCMA 274, 38 CMR 72. In the event of a rehearing, this error likewise should be avoided.

The petition for review is granted, and the decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing may be ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge KiL-day concur.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v HOMER L. HAMPTON, Airman Third Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

16 USCMA 304, 36 CMR 460

No. 19,521

July 29, 1966

*Colonel Joseph Buchta*and *Lieutenant Colonel Milton E. Kosa*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*305
      *Colonel Emanuel Lewis*was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam :

Tried by special court-martial, the accused pleaded not guilty to larceny, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921. He was found guilty and sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $60.00 per month for six months, confinement at hard labor for six months, and reduction. Intermediate appellate authorities have affirmed, and we have before us accused’s petition for review, in which it is asserted:

> “DEFENSE COUNSEL’S CLOSING ARGUMENT, FOLLOWING A NOT GUILTY PLEA BY ACCUSED, CONCEDED ACCUSED’S GUILT AND THEREFORE THE PRESIDENT ERRED IN FAILING TO INQUIRE *SUa sponte*WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL’S CONCESSION WAS MADE WITH A FULL UNDERSTANDING BY THE ACCUSED OF THE CONSEQUENCES THEREOF.”

The defense counsel’s argument in full is as follows:

> “The prosecution has successfully proven that the accused is guilty of the offense charged. The defense feels that since the possible sentence in this case is rather severe and since the government must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the *only*effective method is to place this burden on the shoulders of the prosecution and plead not guilty; and, accordingly, we have done so. I believe the evidence that the trial counsel presented has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. I have nothing further, sir.”

Such an outright concession of guilt by counsel, in face of his client’s plea of not guilty, is prejudicially erroneous. United States v Walker, 3 USCMA 355, 12 CMR 111; United States v McFarlane, 8 USCMA 96, 23 CMR 320; United States v Smith, 8 USCMA 582, 25 CMR 86; United States v Mitchell, 16 USCMA 302, 36 CMR 458. It, in effect, amounted to pleading the accused guilty at the close of the case on the merits. At the very least, the concession demanded interrogation of the accused concerning his agreement thereto, as well as examination into his understanding of its meaning and effect as a virtual plea of guilty. United States v Chancelor, 16 USCMA 297, 36 CMR 453, and cases cited therein. Otherwise, “[njothing . . . can possibly support a contention that counsel for defendant can override his client’s desire expressed in open court to plead not guilty and enter in the name of his client another plea — whatever the label — which would shut off the defendant’s constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him which he would have an opportunity to do under a plea of not guilty.” Brookhart v Janis, 384 US 1, 7, 16 L ed 2d 314, 86 S Ct 1245 (1966).

The petition for review is granted, and the findings of guilty are set aside. The decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. A rehearing may be ordered.
#### Matter of E. B. Long

— Order affirmed. Opinion by Brown, J.
May 14, 1958

No. 61955.

Suit 4924.

#### United States *v.*R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc.

-C. D. 1871 reversed January 22, 1958. C. A. D. 674.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 62 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6003]



[[Page 15680]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-360-000]


Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

March 27, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 23, 2007, Questar Overthrust Pipeline 
Company (Overthrust) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1-A , the tariff sheets listed on 
Item 1 to reflect a name change from Overthrust Pipeline Company to 
Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company to be effective April 25, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#490f0c1b0a06272520272c1a3c3939263b3d092f2c3b2a672e263f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f1b7b4a3b2be9f9d989f94a28481819e8385b197948392df969e87">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6003 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 1, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, John R. Sprouls certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 13, 2007



By:

/s/ JOHN R. SPROULSJohn R. Sprouls Principal Executive Officer
7195

#### DUNCAN v. E. JONES CO.

Demubreb is not the proper remedy against a complaint stating several causes of action jumbled in one.

Before DeVorE, J., Lexington, June, 1908.

Affirmed.

Action by Walter C. Duncan against E. Jones Company. From order overruling demurrer, defendant appeals.

*Messrs. B. B. Asbill*and *Graham & Sturkie,*for appellant,

cite: *Two or more causes of action should not be stated together:*35 S. C., 475, 501; 37 S. C., 199; see. *i86a, Code of Procedure, does not permit jumbling together of causes of action for malicious prosecution, false arrest, and assault and battery:*81 S. C., 320; 73 S. C., 271. *Demurrer proper remedy:*Sec. 165, sub. 5, Code of Proc.; 9 S. C., 277; 13 S. C., 317; 24 S. C., 39; 47 S. C., 211; 70 S. C., 89.

' *Messrs. Bfird & Dreher,*contra,

cite: *Demurrer not remedy:*Code of Proc., 188; 24 S. C., 39; 68 S. C., 257.

May 20, 1909.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

. Mr. Justice Gary.

This is.an appeal from an order, overruling a demurrer to the complaint, on the ground that several causes of action, have been improperly united.

His Honor, the presiding Judge, ordered “that the demurrer be overruled, for the reason that the complaint, appears to state several causes of action, jumbled in one.”

*563The allegations are set forth, in form as a single cause of action, and the ruling of the Circuit Judge is sustained by the case of *Marion*v. *Charleston,*68 S. C., 257, 47 S. E., 140.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Elderwatch, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Allan Weiss, President and Chief Executive 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:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



By/s/ Allan Weiss

Allan Weiss

President, Chief Executive Officer





Date:  November 15, 2005
**Exhibit      32.2**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATION**

| 1.   | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the period ended                June                30, 2006 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of                section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15                U.S.C.                §§78m or 78o(d)); and |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The                information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                            |                                                                                                                      |                                                   |
|-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: January                      9, 2007 |                                                                                                                           | /S/ Canon                            Bryan   |
|                                            | Canon                              BryanChief                              Financial                              Officer |

----