alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 65 (Thursday, April 5, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6296]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2006-24243; Airspace Docket No. 06-AWP-11]
RIN 2120-AA66


Revocation of Class D Airspace; Elko, NV

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 18, 2006 (71 FR 40651), Docket No. FAA-
2006-24243, Airspace Docket No. 067-AWP-11. In that rule, the reference 
to FAA Order 7400.9 was published as FAA Order 7400.9N. The correct 
reference is FAA Order 7400.9P. Also, the corresponding dates that 
refer to the Order should state ``* * * September 1, 2006 and effective 
September 15, 2006 * * *'' instead of ``* * * September 1, 2005, and 
effective September 16, 2005''. This technical amendment corrects those 
errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, April 5, 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 18, 2006, a final rule was published in the Federal 
Register, Docket No. FAA-2006-24243, Airspace Docket No. 06-AWP-11, 
that amended Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 71 by revoking 
Class D Airspace; Elko, NV (71 FR 40651). In that rule, the reference 
to FAA Order 7400.9 was published as FAA Order 7400.9N. The correct 
reference is FAA Order 7400.9P. In addition, the corresponding dates 
that refer to the Order are incorrect. Instead of ``* * * September 1, 
2005, and effective September 16, 2005'', the dates should read ``* * * 
September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006 * * *''.

Amendment to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the reference 
to FAA Order 7400.9 for Docket No. FAA-2006-24243, Airspace Docket No. 
06-AWP-11, as published in the Federal Register on July 18, 2006 (71 FR 
40651), is corrected as follows:
0
On page 40652, column 1, lines 20, 21, and 22, and column 3, lines 28, 
30 and 31, amend the language to read:


Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

* * * * *
    ``* * * FAA Order 7400.9P * * *'' instead of ``* * * FAA Order 
7400.9N * * *''
    ``* * * September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006 * * *'' 
instead of ``* * * September 1, 2005, and effective September 16, 2005 
* * *''

    Issued in Washington, DC, March 23, 2007.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules.
 [FR Doc. E7-6296 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Jeffrey Allen Lindsay,

 

 Appellant,

v.

The Estate of Roy Orey Lindsay, Sr., Roy 

A. Lindsay, Rainey L. Lindsay, Susan 

Lindsay Thomas, Joni K. Lindsay, Roy A. 

("Sonny") Lindsay, and Hanging H. 

Ranch, Inc.,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00212-CV

Appeal from the

143rd District Court

of Reeves County, Texas 

(TC# 13-12-20542 P3137)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion for voluntary dismissal of 

appeal. However, the motion does not contain a certificate of conference pursuant to Rule 

10.1(a)(5) Tex.R.App.P. Therefore, the Court has determined that no action will be taken on the 

motion to dismiss pending a response from the Appellees. The Appellees are ORDERED to file a 

response with this Court on or before December 3, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
No. 48003.

#### Protests 637291-G, etc., of Italian Felt & Straw Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) the protests were sustained as to certain of the items.
Exhibit 32

Via
EDGAR
Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of TEL Offshore Trust (the "Trust") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



The
above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.

The Bank of New York Mellon
    Trust Company, N.A.,
Corporate Trustee for TEL Offshore TrustNovember 15, 2010

By:

/s/ MIKE ULRICH Mike UlrichVice President


---



QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JOANNE F. MAHONSKI, BERNICE 

WINDER, DIANE K. MASTERS, 

EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF 

ELEANOR B. MAHONSKI, AND LEONA 

A. KLEMENTOVICH,

Petitioners

v.

CAROLINE M. ENGEL,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 788 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of April, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
No. 53122.

#### Miles Laboratories, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 144487-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the concentrated ox gall and sheep gall the subject of *G. D. Searle*& *Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8984 

To amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to expand MBDA 

Business Centers near minority-serving institutions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 10, 2024 

Mr. NICKEL (for himself and Ms. ADAMS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to 

the Committee on Small Business, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to 

expand MBDA Business Centers near minority-serving 

institutions, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Supporting Diverse 

5 Entrepreneurs Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8984 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF MBDA BUSINESS CENTERS NEAR MI2 NORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS. 

3 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public 

4 Law 117–58) is amended— 

5 (1) in section 100114(d)(1)(B)— 

6 (A) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) 

7 as clauses (iii) and (iv), respectively; and 

8 (B) by inserting after clause (i) the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(ii) an area that is in or near a his11 torically Black college or university or 

12 other minority-serving institution (as such 

13 term is defined in section 100301);’’; and 

14 (2) in section 100708, by striking ‘‘2025’’ and 

15 inserting ‘‘2024, and $125,000,000 for fiscal year 

16 2025 and each fiscal year thereafter,’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
(Reap. Dec. 8325)

#### United States *v.*Scaramelli & Co., Inc.

Entry No. 702224-1/2.

(Decided July 21, 1954)

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*trial attorney), for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Ekwall, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement filed by the collector and involves the proper value of certain cheese imported at the port of New York. The customs examiner who passed upon the merchandise was produced as a witness by the plaintiff. He testified that the appraisement was made through error caused by the fact that the customs broker, in making entry, transposed the weights of the two classes of cheese by reason of which the unit-per-kilo values were transposed. He further testified that the proper dutiable values were $1.50 per kilo for the Tuscan Pecorino cheese, less 2 per centum, less nondutiable charges, plus the proportionate share of covering, and as to the Romano Pecorino Genuine cheese, the proper valuation was $1.60 per kilo less 2 per centum, less nondutiable charges, plus proportionate part of cost of covering.

*514On this record, I find that the value of the Tuscan Pecorino cheese, consisting of 2,468.5 kilos net, is $1.50 per kilo, less 2 per centum, less nondutiable charges, plus proportionate part of cost of covering per kilo. The value of the Roman Pecorino Genuine cheese, consisting of 5,953.8 kilos net, is $1.60 per kilo, less 2 per centum, less nondutiable charges, plus the proportionate share of covering.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-QSB
filed by New Century Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in
that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                   |  |                           |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | ------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                   |  | NEW CENTURY BANCORP, INC.
|                   |  |                          
|Date: May 13, 2004 |  | By:                       |  | /s/ John Q. Shaw, Jr.                
|                   |  |                           |  | John Q. Shaw, Jr.                    
|                   |  |                           |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch

,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

April 2 8 , 2021 

# Order

Clerk April 2 8 , 2021

160813( 10 3 )

GRANT BAUSERMAN, KARL WILLIAMS

and TEDDY BROE, on Behalf of Themselves

and All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

SC: 160813

v COA: 333181

Ct of Claims: 15

- 000202

- MM

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY,

Defendant

- Appellant

.

_______ ______________________________ ___ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant

- appellant to extend the time

for filing its supplement reply i s GRANTED. The supplemental reply will be accepted as

timely filed if submitted on or before May 18 , 2021

.
# C_2007199EN.01002401.xml

| 25.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/24

---

Action brought on 6 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-314/07)

(2007/C 199/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council (1) on freedom of movement for workers within the Community by providing that for the purposes of determining the ranking of candidates in external competitions for teaching staff in the Autonomous Region of the Azores priority is to be given to candidates who fall under Article 25(7)(a) of the Regulamento de Concurso (Competition regulation) adopted by Decreto Legislativo Regional (Regional Legislative Decree) No 27/2003/A of 9 June 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council (1) on freedom of movement for workers within the Community by providing that for the purposes of determining the ranking of candidates in external competitions for teaching staff in the Autonomous Region of the Azores priority is to be given to candidates who fall under Article 25(7)(a) of the Regulamento de Concurso (Competition regulation) adopted by Decreto Legislativo Regional (Regional Legislative Decree) No 27/2003/A of 9 June 2003;

1

| — | Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The criteria for priority laid down in Article 25(7) of the Regional Legislative Decree No 27/2003/A of 9 June 2003 in order to determine the ranking of the candidates to be appointed to posts in schools and teaching establishments in the Autonomous Region of the Azores for a period of not less than 3 years constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality, contrary to the provisions of Community law on freedom of movement for workers, irrespective of the fact that they apply also to Portuguese citizens resident in other areas of Portugal. The concept of discrimination covers not only manifest discrimination on grounds of nationality, but also all measures which by applying other differentiating criteria lead in fact to the same result.

The Commission submits that the argument of the Portuguese authorities, that if the candidate has a connection to the Autonomous Region of the Azores the candidate may be thought inclined to remain in the region, cannot be considered an objective factor which justifies the restriction in question on the appointment of candidates in external competitions.

---

(1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.

1

---
#### The People v. The American Bell Telephone Co.

Motion dismissed. *Mem.*
#### Henry W. Sharpless and others, *Respondents, v.*Walter K. Lits, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc.*

— Order modified requiring the plaintiffs *to*elect within ten days after decision, between the order of arrest and the attachment, which to retain, and vacating the order of arrest or the attachment according to such election, and as modified affirmed, without costs.
# C_2007183EN.01004301.xml

| 4.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/43

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 June 2007 — Davis and Others v Council

(Case F-54/06) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Pensions - Weightings - Retirement after the entry into force of the version of the Staff Regulations applicable from 1 May 2004 - Application of weightings calculated on the basis of the average cost of living in the country of residence of retired officials - Transitional scheme - Abolition of weightings for pension rights acquired after the entry into force of the version of the Staff Regulations applicable from 1 May 2004)

(2007/C 183/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Davis and Others (Bolton, United Kingdom) and three Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the Council's decisions determining the applicants' pension entitlements, on the grounds that the portion of their pension entitlement acquired after 30 April 2004 is not multiplied by a weighting, and that the weighting by which the portion of their pension entitlement acquired before 30 April 2004 is multiplied differs from that by which the remuneration of officials in active employment in the United Kingdom or Denmark is multiplied.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006, p. 28.

1

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 19

- 00120

- CR

Thomas Davis, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 424TH DISTR ICT COURT OF LLANO C OUNTY NO. CR7610, THE HONO RABLE EVAN C. STUBBS , JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

P ER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due on May 9, 2019. On counsel’s

motion s , the time for filing was extended to August 7, 2019 . Appellant’s counsel has now filed a

third moti on, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing ap pe llant’s brief. We grant the

motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than Sept ember 9, 2019.

No further extension of time will be granted and fai lure to comply with this order will result in

the referral of this case to t he trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure.

It is ordered on Augus t 1 5 , 2019

.

Before Chief Just ice Rose, Justices Triana and Smith

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theAmendment No.1 to Quarterly Report of Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscalquarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report")and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted in Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, John S. Brittain, Jr., ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of myknowledge:

|          |                                                                                                                     |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1.  | The report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and |

|          |                                                                                                                                                    |
|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.  | The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. |

Date: May 13, 2005

/s/ JohnS. Brittain, Jr.            John S.Brittain, Jr. (Principal FinancialOfficer)

----
No. 49311.

#### Petition 6198-R of Jack Schaefer, Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared the invoice covered badminton rackets, nets, shuttlecocks, tennis rackets, and gut for badminton and tennis rackets. Two of the items of badminton nets were advanced, all other items being appraised as entered. The only witness in' the case testified on behalf of the petitioner that he furnished the customs broker with the invoice upon which entry was made and believed that the values shown on the invoice were correct'; that at the time of entry he did not have information as to value other than that stated on the invoice; that he did not consult with the appraiser prior to entry; that the broker entered according to his instructions. It was further shown that he had been importing merchandise from India for about 10 years and that he assumed he was buying at the same price that anyone could buy and had no reason to believe he was getting a special price or a lower price than other purchasers because of higher quantities purchased. The court stated that the record indicated the situation is similar to that in *Wroblewski*v. *United States*(28 C. C. P. A. 150, C. A. D. 137) and was of the opinion that the petitioner herein made entry at the invoice values in good faith. The petition was therefore granted.
Exhibit 31.1  Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of the Chief Executive Officer  I, Joseph W. Evans, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of State Bank Financial Corporation.  2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a)];  c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Date:  March 31, 2011  /s/ Joseph W. EvansJoseph W. Evans, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)