alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 3, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15824-15825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6098]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

Docket No. FAA-2005-23157; Airspace Docket No. 05-ANM-15]
RIN 2120-AA66


Amendment to Class E Airspace; Kalispell, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This technical amendment corrects a final rule published in 
the Federal Register on July 24, 2006 (71 FR 41727), Docket No. FAA-
2005-23157, Airspace Docket No. 05-ANM-15. In that rule, the reference 
to FAA Order 7400.9 was published as FAA Order 7400.9O. The correct 
reference is FAA Order 7400.9P. Also, the corresponding date that 
refers to the date the Order was signed was omitted. The final rule 
should state ``* * * dated September 1, 2006 * * *'' (prior to the 
effective date),

[[Page 15825]]

instead of ``* * * updated yearly * * *'' This technical amendment 
corrects those errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, April 3, 2007. The Director of the Federal 
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR 
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and 
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tameka Bentley, Airspace and Rules, 
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On July 24, 2006, a final rule was published in the Federal 
Register, Docket No. FAA-2005-23157, Airspace Docket No. 05-ANM-15 that 
amended Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 71 by amending Class 
E Airspace; Kalispell, MT (71 FR 41727). In that rule, the reference to 
FAA Order 7400.9 was published as FAA Order 7400.9O. The correct 
reference is FAA Order 7400.9P. In addition, the corresponding date 
that refers to the date the Order was signed had been omitted. The 
final rule should state ``* * * dated September 1, 2006 * * *'' (prior 
to the effective date), instead of ``* * * updated yearly * * *''

Amendment to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the reference 
to FAA Order 7400.9 for Airspace Docket No. FAA-2005-23157, Airspace 
Docket No. 05-ANM-15, as published in the Federal Register on July 24, 
2006 (71 FR 41727), is corrected as follows:
0
On page 41727, column 2, (from the bottom, counting up) line 3, and 
column 3, (from the bottom, counting up) lines 7, and 9, amend the 
language to read:


Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

* * * * *
    ``FAA Order 7400.9P'' instead of ``FAA Order 7400.9O''
    Remove ``* * * updated yearly * * *'' and insert ``* * * dated 
September 1, 2006 * * *''
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, March 23, 2007.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules.
[FR Doc. E7-6098 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
August 25, 1942

No. 47476.

Suit 4253.

#### H. *L. Gwalter & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 116 reversed. C. A. D. 212.
#### In the Matter of Commissioner of Social Services, on Behalf of L. J., Petitioner, v C. C., Respondent.*

Family Court, Queens County,

December 5, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*L. J.,*petitioner *pro se. C. C.,*respondent *pro se.*

*

Names used herein are fictitious for purposes of publication.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Seymour Friedman, J.

In this case the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, who is the assignee of the petitioner, is seeking to declare the respondent, C. C., the father of the infant herein. It has been the practice of the commissioner to warn— indeed — threaten the mothers of infants receiving aid. The mothers are told, in cases where they receive welfare benefits, that if they refuse to "co-operate” with the commissioner’s office in the prosecution of these actions their benefits would be cut off. In the first instance, in no way may the commissioner cut off benefits to children. Insofar as benefits to a mother, while the mother may be sanctioned by deprivation of these benefits if she fails to co-operate, she may refuse to cooperate if she shows good cause. This court rules that when such a mother is in court and states that she will refuse to *486testify under the Fifth Amendment because her testimony would tend to degrade her and after the court receives her elaboration on why such testimony would tend to degrade her; that is, for instance, having sex with a married man, being raped, being involved in . a sordid sexual act, or even in the revelation of intimate details about the act itself that allegedly led to conception, it is, in this court’s opinion, good cause for refusal to testify on the grounds that such testimony would tend to degrade the witness. As a matter of fact refusal to testify about one’s intimate sex life, alone, is good cause.

Accordingly, the court allows the witness to plead the Fifth Amendment and excuses her from testifying. Naturally, without her testimony the Commissioner of Social Services can proceed no further and the matter is dismissed.
Order entered November 5, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00560-CR

No. 05-14-00561-CR

PATRICK LEE BULLOCK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 199-81610-2013; 199-81611-2013

ORDER

Appellant’s November 3, 2014 third motion to extend the time to file appellant’s brief is 

GRANTED. Appellant’s brief received by the Clerk of the Court on November 3, 2014 is 

DEEMED timely filed on the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
May 7, 1946

No. 51098.

Suit 4518.

#### Standard *Oil Co. of Louisiana*v. *United States.*

C. D. 926 affirmed March 6, 1946. C. A. D. 329.
No. 46827.

#### Protest 27748-K of B. R. Anderson & Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the packages containing the salt consisted of 38 barrels and 105 half barrels, that they were American merchandise returned, and that they were so classified — entitled to free entry under paragraph 1615. This, it was held, is a concession on the part of the plaintiffs that the salt was not imported in bulk. Plaintiffs cited *Morse*v. *United States,*G. A. 4757 (T. D. 22462), but it was found that that case clearly distinguishes it from the case involved herein. The protest was therefore overruled.
#### POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO. v. BOX. †

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 7, 1911.)

No. 2,019.

Trial (§ 252*) — Instructions—Inapplicability to FíVidtíncis.

An instruction which assumes, contrary to the fact, that the parties to a contract had adopted the telegraph as a means of communication in reference to the contract, is properly refused.

LEd. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 505, 596-612; Dec. Dig. § 252.*]

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Mississippi.

Action by C. B. Box against the Postal Telegraph-Cable Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

D. A. Scott, E. D. Saunders, Wm. C. Dufour, H. G. Dufour, and Henry Mooney, for plaintiff in error.

James Stone and T. B. Watkins, for defendant in error.

Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

†

 Rehearing denied April *4,*1911.

SHELBY, Circuit Judge.

The rulings of the Circuit Court conformed to the opinion of this court when the case was here before. Box v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 165 Fed. 138, 91 C. C. A. 172, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 566.

. The only new question raised is the assignment that the trial court erred in refusing to give the following charge:

> “I charge you, gentlemen of the Jury, that where the telegraph is adopted as a medium of communication between parties contemplating a contract, the time when the telegram is deposited in the telegraph oiiice, or delivered to' the telegraph company for transmission, is the time from which the completion of the contract dates. And this rule as to acceptance applies, even though the telegram of acceptance does not reach the proposer.”

Whether the charge states a correct legal proposition need not be considered, because the record shows affirmatively and without conflict that the parties to the contract did not adopt the, telegraph as a medium of communication between them. When the option was signed, the parties were together. When Box telegraphed Brewer, *490asking for an extension of the option, Brewer replied over the Cumberland telephone refusing the extension, and saying, in effect, that unless he had notice, by 12 o’clock that night, that the option was accepted, he would not sell. Brewer did nothing to indicate that he had adopted the telegraph as a medium of communication in reference to the contract. The charge was properly refused, if for no other reason, because it assumes, contrary to the fact, that the parties to the contract had adopted the telegraph as a means of communication in reference to the contract.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
FRONTIER FUNDS



Exhibit
32.5



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C.§1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of the Frontier Winton Fund, a Series of Frontier Funds on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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 results of operations
of the Frontier Winton Fund.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/
                                         Patrick J. Kane                                                                                                                                                                                       
|Patrick
    J. Kane                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|Chairman, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer
and Managing Member of Frontier Fund Management LLC,
the Managing Owner of Frontier Funds
                                                                     
        August 14, 2018
No. 48602.

#### Protests 615255-G, etc., of Seaboard Foreign Trading Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Upon the established facts and following *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) the harvest hats in question were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) as claimed.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

and

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

TR."DING AGREEMENT-AND

ORDER NO. 8154 MODIFICATION NO.2

TMDING AGREEMENT ANP ORDER MODIFICATION NO.2

In the maner of a Trading Agreement and Order between the Commissioner of Environmental

Protection ("Commissioner") and Combustion Engineering, Inc. ("CE").

WHEREAS, the Commissioner and CE, having agreed to the tems and conditions set

forth in Trading Agreement and Order No. 8154 issued on December 11, 1997 and Trading

Agreement and Order No. 8154 Modification issued on June 3, 1998, do now, by mutual

agreement, modify paragraphs c.I., C.1. (c) and C.2. as follows:

1. Change the second date specified in paragraph C.l. from May I, 1999 to

May 1,2003.

2. Replace paragraph C.1. (c) as follows: No later than March I, 1999,2000,2001,

2002, 2003 and 2004 CE shall include with its annual emissions report and

supporting documentation to the Commissioner, the fuel consumed and ERCs used

for the previous calendar year.

3. Change the date specified in paragraph C.2. from May I, 1999 to May 1,2003.

All other terms and conditions of Trading Agreement and Order No. 8154 and Trading Agreement

and Order No. 8154 Modification issued by the Commissioner acting under Sections 22a·6, 22a171, 22a·174, 22a-176, 22a·177 and 22a·178 of the Connecticut General Statutes shall remain in

effect.

Initials:r{K.::z

(Prinlel! on jhtytled Paper)

79 Elm Slreel • Harl(ord, cr 06106 - 5127

hllp:lfdep.Sllle.cl.us

.411 Equill Opporlu1Iil"j Employu
COMBUSTION ENGINEERlNG, INC. 2 TRADING AGREEMENT

AND ORDER NO. 8154

MODIF!CATION NO.2

Combustion Engineering, Inc. hereby consents to the entry of this modification to the Trading

Agreement and Order without further notice.

Combu5tio.n Engi~eeryc.

Signature:~~

Type Name: Karl R. Z ccone

Type Title:

Date:

CITY OF WINDSOR

LAND RECORDS

MAILED CERTIFIED MAIL,

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Certified Document No.

Senior Vice President

March IS. 1999

Arthur 1. Rocque, Jr.

Commissioner
No. 46822.

#### Protest 42795-K of Bullocks, Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following Abstract 46415 the articles in question were held not subject to countervailing duty.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Synergy  Financial  Group,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
we,  John S.  Fiore,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer,  and A.  Richard
Abrahamian, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) 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.



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                     <C>

/s/John S. Fiore                                              /s/A. Richard Abrahamian
-------------------------------------                         -------------------------------------------------
John S. Fiore                                                 A. Richard Abrahamian
President and Chief Executive Officer                         Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)                                 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
</TABLE>

Date: May 10, 2006                                            Date: May 10, 2006
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Global Energy Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB
for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.May 9, 2005 /s/ John R. BaileyJohn R. Bailey,Interim Chief Executive Officer, President,
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### James Wise, Plaintiff, v Maritime Overseas Corporation et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

September 20, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert K. Marzik*for defendants. *Fields & Rosen (Michael S. Seltzer*of counsel), for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Bentley Kassal, J.

ISSUE

Does the CPLR 3130 proscription against the use of interrogatories in negligence actions prevent their use by a merchant-seaman plaintiff, suing for personal injuries, based upon two theories of liability, unseaworthiness and negligence?

FACTS

Defendant, representing the owner of the vessels on the high seas, moves to strike plaintiff’s interrogatories on the ground that the use of interrogatories is not permitted in actions for personal injuries, resulting from negligence. (CPLR 3130.)

The complaint herein seeks damages resulting from liability based on negligence and/or unseaworthiness. As stated in the well-reasoned decision in *Wood v American Export Is*
      *136
      *brandtsen Lines*(NYLJ, Aug. 27, 1974, p 2, col 5) the unseaworthiness claim is a cause of action completely distinct from that of negligence and, as such, is properly the subject of interrogatories.

Nor is plaintiff precluded from employing interrogatories because the complaint joins claims of negligence and unseaworthiness. Interrogatories directed to unseaworthiness and even those directed toward information common to both claims are proper. (See *Goff v Econetics, Inc.,*94 Misc 2d 869.) Although some of the interrogatories herein may relate to the negligence cause of action, all may be sustained as relating to the unseaworthiness claim as well.

Finally, the resolution of this motion should also be viewed in terms of the present jurisprudential attitude, as manifested by the mounting and, in this court’s opinion, deserved criticism of the present statutory proscription against the use of interrogatories in negligence claims. (See, generally, *Allen v Minskoff,*38 NY2d 506; Twenty-Third Ann Report of NY Judicial Conference, 1978, p —; 29 Syracuse L Rev 502.)

DECISION

For all of the above reasons, the motion to strike the interrogatories is denied. Defendants shall serve answers to the interrogatories within 20 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-60,808] 

      ( print page 15169)    
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Invista, S.A.R.A., Nylon Apparel Filament Fibers Group, a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee. The application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued. 

*TA-W-60,808; Invista, S.A.R.L., Nylon Apparel Filament Fibers Group, a Subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee (March 15, 2007)*.                    

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of March 2007. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-5848 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

HELEN FALLOON and GORDON FALLOON
, Appellant s ,

v.

U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee, on Behalf of the Holders of the

J.P. MORGAN ALTERNATIVE LOAN T RU ST 2006

- A3 MORTGAGE

PASS

- THROUGH CERTIFICATES, and

PHOENICIAN COVE HOMOWNERS ASSOCIATION
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 19

- 897

[ January 30, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Barry Stone

, Senior Judge; L.T. Cas e No. CACE15

- 008220 (11)

.

Roy D. Oppenheim, Geoffrey E. Sherman and Mia M. Singh of Oppenheim Pilelsky, P.A., Weston, for appellant s

.

Allison Morat of Bitman, O'Brien & Morat, PLLC, Lake Mary, and Joseph J. Huss and Benny A. Ortiz of Krinzman, Huss, Lube tsky, Feldman & Hotte, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee U.S. Bank, N.A

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE
, C.J., M AY and G ERBER
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 15.1**

 
|  |  |
|--|--|

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-195020) and on Form F-3 (No. 333-204586) of Nord Anglia Education, Inc. of our report dated 31 December 2015 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 20-F.

 

**/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers** Hong Kong, 31 December 2015

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers,22/F Prince’s Building, Central Hong Kong*

*T: +852 2289 8888, F: +852 2810 9888, www.pwchk.com*

 

----