alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 56847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22602]

[[Page 56847]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice Before Waiver With Respect To Land at Hanover County 
Municipal Airport, Hanover, Virginia

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is publishing notice of proposed release of 2.94 acres 
of land at the Hanover County Airport, Hanover, Virginia to the 
Virginia Department of Transportation for construction of the I-95 and 
Lewistown Road Intersection improvements. An additional 1.07 Acres will 
be permanently utilized by Virginia Department of Transportation & 
Dominion Power within utility, and drainage easements. There are no 
adverse impacts to the airport and the land is not needed for airport 
development as shown on the Airport Layout Plan. Fair Market Value of 
the land has been established and will be provided to the County of 
Hanover for use on future AIP eligible airport development. The airport 
will benefit from the improvements associated with the I-95 and 
Lewistown Road Interchange with the enhanced northern access to the 
airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to 
the FAA at the following address: Matthew J. Thys, Manager, FAA 
Washington Airports District Office, 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210, 
Dulles, VA 20166.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Richard Henry Rempe, Airport Manager, Hanover 
County Municipal Airport, at the following address: Richard Henry 
Rempe, Airport Manager, Hanover County Municipal Airport, P.O. Box 470, 
Hanover, VA 23069-0470.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew J. Thys, Manager, 
Washington Airports District Office, 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210, 
Dulles, VA 20166; telephone (703) 661-1354, fax (703) 661-1370, email 
Matthew.Thys@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Wendell H. Ford Aviation investment and 
Reform Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 10-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 
Stat. 61) (AIR 21), as amended, requires that a 30-day public notice 
must be provided before the Secretary may waive any condition imposed 
on an interest in surplus property.

    Issued in Dulles, Virginia, on September 12, 2014.
Matthew J. Thys,
Manager, Washington Airports District Office, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. 2014-22602 Filed 9-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Final Tier 1 

Environmental Impact Statement

Submitted by:

Arizona Department of Transportation

Multimodal Planning Division

Submitted to:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration 

ARIZONA PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY

December 2016
Exhibit 10.40
 Execution Copy (w/ NC)
Class E Common Units
 EMPLOYEE EQUITY AGREEMENT
 Agreement Company Employee Section 9
   Issuance
 Employee Units
  Closing Conditions
 Representations and Warranties of Employee




---



##### 



IRS 83(b)
Election). Section 5 Section 6 Related Person
 Illustrations
  2




---



##### 



Representations and Warranties of the Company
 Organization, Limited Liability Company Power
 Employee Units Duly Issued
 Authorization; No Breach; Consents
 Vesting Section 5 Section 5 Section 6
 General Vesting Start
Date Issuance Date Section 5(b) First Vesting Date provided Vested Units Section 5 Unvested Units
  3




---



##### 



Termination of Vesting Sections 5(a) Section 1 Section 5(a)
 Transfer Section 10(b)
 Rights as a Member Section 6
 Repurchase and Forfeiture of Units
 Repurchase Option Termination Section 9 Section 9 Section
6
 Purchase Price Fair Market
Value
  4




---



##### 



Repurchase Procedures Repurchase Notice
 Closing of Repurchase Sections 6(c) provided
 Termination of Repurchase Option Section 6
 Non-Compete or
  5




---



##### 



Withholding
 Definitions
 Affiliate
 Board
 Business Day
 Cause
 Common Unit Threshold E
 Common Units
 Code
 Employment Period
 Investor Members
 Issued Common Units
 LLC Agreement
  6




---



##### 



Management Control Acquisition
 Marketable Securities
 Person
 Public Offering
 Public Sale
 Qualified Public Offering
 Sale of the Company
  7




---



##### 



Securities Act
 Subsidiary
 Miscellaneous
 Consent to Amendments
 Successors and Assigns
 Severability
 Counterparts
 Descriptive Headings; Interpretation
  8




---



##### 



Governing Law
 Waiver of Jury Trial
 Notices
 If to the Company to
 
  9




---



##### 



with a copy (which will not constitute notice to the Company) to
 
 If to Employee to
   No Strict Construction
 Entire Agreement
 Time is of the Essence
   10




---



##### 



COMPANY:COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS, LLCBy:Name:Title:EMPLOYEE:[Name]Address: [ Insert ]
 Communications Infrastructure Investments, LLC  Employee Equity Agreement Signature Page
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

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.

September 11, 2015

s0908 

# Order

Clerk September 11, 2015

148097 & (35)

JENNIFER STANKEVICH, a/k/a

JENNIFER MILLIRON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 148097

COA: 310710

Dickinson CC: 12

- 016939

- DP

LEANNE MILLIRON,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

By order of April 25, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the October 17,

2013 judgment of the Court of Ap peals was held in abeyance pending the decision in

DeBoer v Snyder , 772 F3d 388 (CA 6, 2014), and any attendant decision from the United

States Supreme Court. On order of the Court, the case having been decided on June 26,

2015, sub nom Obergefell v Hodge s , ___ US ___; 135 S Ct 2584; 192 L Ed 2d 609

(2015), the application is again consi dered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305 (H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and

REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Obergefell

. The motion to proceed on the application for leave to appeal is DENIED.
Exhibit 35.1
 SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
  1.
    
    A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and
Servicing Agreement, dated as of November 24, 2010, among Santander Drive Auto
Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust
2010-3 and U.S. Bank National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is
the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.2.
    
    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the
period that is the subject of the Report.
 SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By:
    /s/ Jason KulasName:
    Jason KulasTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
Date:Date:
    March 30, 2011
Case: 2:11-cv-00133-MHW-TPK Doc #: 9 Filed: 08/12/11 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00133-MHW-TPK Doc #: 9 Filed: 08/12/11 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T21:52:20-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Joseph T. Morris, the Chief Financial Officer of SunLink Health Systems, Inc. (the Company), certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company;



(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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



(4) The Companys other certifying officers 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 Company 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 Company, 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) {Intentionally Omitted};



(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of September 30, 2004 (the Evaluation Date) based upon such evaluation; and



(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter ended on the Evaluation Date that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over
financial reporting; and



(5) The Companys other
certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting.



|                  |  |                             
|----------------- |  | ----------------------------
|November 12, 2004 |  | /s/ Joseph T. Morris        
|                  |  | Joseph T. Morris            
|                  |  | SunLink Health Systems, Inc.
|                  |  | Chief Financial Officer
No. 44159.

#### Protest 25855-K of Roosevelt & Schuyler, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From an examination of the record nothing was found sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness of the action of the collector, The protest was therefore overruled.
# C_2008222EN.01000102.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5242 — Zurich/Caixa Sabadell/Sabadell Vida/Sabadell Generales)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 222/02)

On 29 July 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5242. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5242. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
|                                          |
|------------------------------------------|
|                                          |  |  |  |  |  |
|                                     |   |   |   |   |
| Name of entity and place of jurisdiction |    | Voting Securities Owned Percentage |   |
| PennantPark SBIC LP (Delaware)           |    |   | 100 |  | % (1)  |
| PennantPark GP, LLC (Delaware)           |    |   | 100 |  | %  |
| PNNT Alabama Holdings Inc. (Delaware)    |    |   | 100 |  | % (2)  |

|     |
|-----|
|     |  |  |
| (1) | The entity is directly owned 99% by us and 1% by PennantPark GP, LLC, which is effectively wholly-owned by us. |
| (2) | This entity is non-operational. |   |

|                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                     |  |  |  |  |  |
|                                                |   |   |   |   |
| Name of entity and place of jurisdiction            |    | Voting Securities Owned Percentage |   |
| PennantPark Floating Rate Funding, I LLC (Delaware) |    |   | 100 |  | % |
### SERVED: March 21,2016 • . ... p·_ '**~'**

# '' \),
• ' \ ».0 '
..... ""
.. \ 

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**'.,{J~ i·.\:**  ·.- 

### OFFICE OF HEARINGS
..

### ~f**Q::~?.~:I\Ll~J**

. •'

## ·-··**~-.** 

### WASHINGTON, DC 

### () 25 

## p 2: 3q -------------l.fl\';1**i~An** 

### -' IN THE MATTER OF SEA HAWK AIR, INC. DOCKETNO. FAA-2014-0865 · (Civil Penalty Action)

ORDER REASSIGNING PROCEEDING 

### Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin has transferred to the Food and Drug Administration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge Goodwin to Administrative Law Judge Douglas M. Rawald. Any dates set for hearing orprehearing conference are suspended until further notice.· All otherorders remain in full force and effect absent further order. SO ORDERED.



### Attachment-ServiceListSERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-. Suite 2WI000 1

John L. Wright, 

### Respondent's Counsel The Law Office ofJohn 

### L. Wright, P.C. 11705 Airport Way, Suite 307 Broomfield, CO 80021 TEL: 303-747-4000 FAX: 303-747-4001 ONE COPY

Craig Wm. Black, 

### Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AAL-7 222 West 7111 Avenue, Box 14 Anchorage, AL 99513-7587 TEL: 907-271-3570 FAX: 907-271-2800 The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald,

### Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 Docket No. FAA-2014-0865 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GEORGE COX, Sergeant, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

9 USCMA 275, 26 CMR 55

No. 11,190

Decided May 23, 1958

*Fred W. Shields, Esquire,*and *Lieutenant (jg) Joseph A. Calif ano, Jr.,*USNR, were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*276
      *Lieutenant Colonel Charles H. Beale, Jr.,*USMC, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam :

The accused, charged with two violations of Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 885, was found guilty of one act of desertion and one of absence without leave. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, confinement at hard labor and reduction to private. Intermediate appellate authorities affirmed the findings and a reduced sentence. The accused petitioned for review on the basis of trial counsel’s argument to the court-martial that, “You may infer from the length of the absence alone in this case that the accused intended to remain away permanently.” It is not unreasonable to conclude that the court was influenced by this remark especially when we consider that defense counsel assumed it to be good law, as his following language indicates.

> “. . . I would like to discuss only the one element of intent. As the prosecution has said, in order for you to find the accused guilty of desertion as charged, you must find that he intended to remain away permanently and you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to remain away permanently. Prosecution has discussed circumstances from which you may infer this intent, the duration of the absence and in one case, the method of termination. Now, you have — you have only that — only those circumstances from which you can infer an intent.”

The law officer did not correct this erroneous hypothesis.

These facts bring this case within the rule of United States v Lasher, 9 USCMA 207, 25 CMR 469, and United States v Gravley, 9 USCMA 120, 25 CMR 382, in which we reversed convictions because it appeared from the records of trial that the findings of guilty might have been based upon the erroneous principle, as propounded by counsel in argument.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is reversed as to the desertion conviction. A rehearing may be ordered or a board of review may affirm a finding of absence without leave and reassess an appropriate sentence.
# C_2007231EN.01000202.xml

| 3.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4820 — Bain Capital/Brake Bros)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 231/03)

On 7 September 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4820. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4820. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
No. 62021.

#### Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. *v.*United States,

protest 221037-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sprats in oil, packed in tins, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Arnold Sorensin Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 199, C. D. 1862), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
December 27, 2013

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 27th day of December, 2013.

10-13-00223-CVIN THE INTEREST OF D.D, C.C., C.C., AND C.C., CHILDREN - ON APPEAL FROM THE 361ST DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. 12-000325-CV-361 - AFFIRMED - Memorandum Opinion by Justice Davis:

“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment of the court below; it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the court below be, and hereby is, affirmed.  It is further ordered that appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended, and that this decision be certified below for observance.”
# C_2008099EN.01000201.xml

| 19.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/2

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.4874 — Itema/BarcoVision)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 99/02)

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

On 15 April 2008, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4874 — Itema/BarcoVision, to the following address:

| Commission of the European Communities |
| --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70 |
| B-1000 Brussels |

Commission of the European Communities

Competition DG

Merger Registry

Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70

B-1000 Brussels

---