alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ATTORNEYS AT LAW



### October 30, 2012 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

### Assistant General Counsel Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott,LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 12'h Floor Washington, p:o. 2DQqJ6 t';t

, 1 i 1"-**~** 1
__ l ':1 ; t...._n 

## ·-,**~~~~}j,f/\T/(J;<** '
.... l - ";**~j!-**



### Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings; C-70 U.S. Department ofTransportation Attn: Kimberly Graber 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE Room W96-322 Washington, DC 20590 1a 202 659 6600 FAX 202 659 6699 www.eckertseamans.com

Drew M. Derco Direct dial: 202.659.6665 Email: dderco@eckertseamans.com



### Re: QuarterlyReport ofCathay Pacific Airways Limited Regarding PassengerTransfers Dear Ms. Graber: Please find enclosed the statement ofCathay Pacific Airways Limited ("Cathay Pacific") regardingpassengertransfers for the third quarter of2012 as requiredbythe August 3, 2009 and April1, 2010 approvals ofCathayPacific's requests for equivalent alternative determination. In those approvals, the Department ofTransportationrequired CathayPacific to "within 30 days after each calendar quarter, provide the Enforcement Office with copies ofall complaints, ifany, regardingpassengertransfers to and from its first and business class seats." (See Paragraph C(4) ofAugust 3, 2009 and April1, 2010 approvals; Docket OST-2008-0273-0073). Should youhave any questions orrequire any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us directly.

E s,:j"!T'"
. 

### Sahr, Esq. Drew M. Derco, Esq. Counsel for Cathay Pacific Airways Limited
Enclosure19 October 2012
Assistant General Counsel Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings C-70 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Room W96-322 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sirs,

### ~

# l~ CATHAY PACIFIC
Cathay Pacific Airways Limited lnflight Services Department 2/F., South Tower Cathay Pacific City, 8 Scenic Road Hong Kong International Airport Lantau, Hong Kong www.cathaypacific.com

Re: Quarterly Report ofCathay Pacific Airways Limited Regarding Passenger Transfers As a condition of the approval of Cathay Pacific Airways Limited's ("Cathay Pacific") September 5, 2008 and September 10, 2009 requests for equivalent alternative determination, the Department of Transportation required Cathay Pacific to "within 30 days after each calendar quarter, provide the Enforcement Office with copies of all complaints, if any, regarding passenger transfers to and from its first and business class seats." (See Paragraph C(4) ofAugust 3, 2009 and April 1, 2010 approvals; Docket OST-2008-0273-0073). Accordingly, please note that during the third calendar quarter of 2012 (i.e. July through September) Cathay Pacific received no complaints regarding passenger transfers to and from its first and business class seats. Sincerely, CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

Porn Warakorn Komutanont Manager Inflight Services Development & Standards

member Registered office: 35th Floor, Two Pacific Place, 88 Queensway, Hong Kong DRAGONAIR**~SWIRE**
No. 54253.

#### Fries Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 154588-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of eucalyptus oil the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *United States*v. *Fries Bros., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 36, C. A. D. 416), the claim at 7)4 percent was sustained.
Case: 2:12-cv-00209-EAS-TPK Doc #: 34 Filed: 01/03/13 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T16:49:21-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
# C_2016279EN.01000502.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/5

---

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch

(Case C-281/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 - Scope - Recognition of a private divorce decision pronounced by a religious court in a third country - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice))

(2016/C 279/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Soha Sahyouni

Applicant:

Defendant: Raja Mamisch

Defendant:

Operative part of the order:

Operative part of the order:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court, Munich, Germany) by decision of 2 June 2015.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v EUGENE HAMMOCK, Basic Airman, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

7 USCMA 614, 23 CMR 78

No. 9094

Decided February 21, 1957

*615
      *Lieutenant Colonel Stanley S. Butt*and *Captain Norman J. Nelson*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Francis P. Murray*and *Major Fred C. Vowell*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

GeoRGe W. Latimer, Judge:

The accused was found guilty by general court-martial of wrongful possession of marihuana, in violation of Article 1S4, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 934. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement for one year. Intermediate appellate agencies have affirmed, but The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force commuted the dishonorable discharge to a bad-conduct discharge. We granted review to determine the adequacy of the staff judge advocate’s review in this case.

Subsequent to the time when this petition for review was granted and prior to the date upon which the case came on for hearing, the Government filed affidavits by the staff judge advocate and the acting staff judge advocate who had participated in the review. Acting pursuant to their interpretation of this Court’s holding in United States v Schuller, 5 USCMA 101, 17 CMR 101, counsel for the accused at this level have stipulated that the facts set out in the affidavits reflect the true situation and that we may consider them on this appeal. From their contents it appears that the accused was given the benefit of two careful and extensive reviews by staff judge advocates on the staff of the convening authority. Each acted as such but at different times. Surely no error grew out of this procedure, and no other error of importance has been noted.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.
# C_2016350EN.01000701.xml

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Città Metropolitana di Bari, formerly Provincia di Bari v Edilizia Mastrodonato Srl

(Case C-147/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the environment - Waste management - Directive 2006/21/EC - Article 10(2) - Backfilling of excavation voids using waste other than extractive waste - Landfill or recovery of such waste))

(2016/C 350/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Città Metropolitana di Bari, formerly Provincia di Bari

Applicant:

Defendant: Edilizia Mastrodonato Srl

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC must be interpreted as not having the effect of making an operation entailing the backfilling of a quarry using waste other than extractive waste subject to the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, where that operation amounts to a recovery of waste, which is a matter to be determined by the national court.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.

1

---
Before the Third Division,

May 25, 1949

No. 53186.

#### Wilfred Schade and Monsanto Chemical Company *v.*United States,

petition 6692-R (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

On the record presented it was held that there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to defraud the revenue of the United States *or to conceal or*misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
# C_2016335EN.01002301.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano v Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero

(Case C-335/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 119 of the EC Treaty (subsequently Article 141 EC) - Directive 75/117/EEC - Equal pay for men and women - Article 1 - Directive 92/85/EEC - Measures to improve the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Article 11(2)(b) and Article 11(3) - National law providing for an allowance for ordinary magistrates in respect of expenses which they incur in the performance of their professional functions - No entitlement for an ordinary magistrate to that allowance in the case of compulsory maternity leave taken prior to 1 January 2005))

(2016/C 335/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 119 of the EC Treaty (subsequently Article 141 EC), Article 1 of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, and Article 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) must be interpreted, in a situation where the Member State concerned did not provide for the maintenance of all the elements of pay to which an ordinary magistrate was entitled before her maternity leave, as not precluding a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in the case of a period of compulsory maternity leave taken prior to 1 January 2005, an ordinary magistrate is not entitled to receive an allowance in respect of costs that ordinary magistrates incur in the performance of their professional functions, provided that that worker received, during that period, an income in an amount at least equivalent to that of the benefit provided for under national social security legislation which she would have received in the event of a break in her activities on grounds connected with her state of health, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---
Case No. 13,942.

#### THOMPSON et al. v. BARRY et al.

[2 Wkly. Notes, Cas. 100.]

Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 27, 1875.

Patents — Preliminary Injunction — Assignment —Motion to Dissolve.

Assignment by a complainant, after preliminary injunction granted, no ground on which to dissolve the injunction.

BY

THE COURT.

Motion to dissolve preliminary injunction. A bill was filed by complainants to restrain infringements of the reissued and extended letters patent Nos. 2.569, 2,570, and 2,571 and to obtain an account of profits and assessment of damages arising from said infringement. A preliminary injunction was granted on October 19, 1871. In June, 1874, complainants amended their bill, setting forth an assignment, dated after the granting of injunction, by the complainant, Thompson, -f all his interest in said letters patent to the Pennsylvania *1024Salt Company. An answer was filed by defendants in July, 1874. In October, 1875, and before tbe taking of any proofs in the cause by either party, the defendant obtained leave to file a supplemental answer, in which he set up that, at the time of granting the injunction, the complainant, the Pennsylvania Salt Company, had no interest in said letters patent, and that the complainant, Thompson, by the aforesaid assignment, had, since the injunction, parted with all his right under the patents. The facts were not denied.

[For other cases involving this patent, see .note to Pennsylvania Salt Manuf'g Co. v. Gu-genheim, Case No. 10,954.]

Mr. Baldwin, for the motion,

cited Wheeler v. McCormick [Case No. 17,490].

Mr. Harding, contra.

C. A. V. Motion overruled.
<PAGE> 1


                               EXHIBIT 32a

                        CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Twin Disc, Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending December 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Michael E. Batten, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

    (1)    the Report fully complies with 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.


                                     /s/ MICHAEL E. BATTEN
                                     Michael E. Batten
			             Chairman, Chief Executive Officer

                                     February 8, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                        5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                             524,000
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   32,225,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                                     21,435,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                56,666,000
<PP&E>                                                           6,309,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  (5,302,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  75,327,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           35,711,000
<BONDS>                                                          6,942,000
<COMMON>                                                           461,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                         26,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                      31,201,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    75,327,000
<SALES>                                                         28,133,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                28,375,000
<CGS>                                                           21,473,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   21,473,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                13,564,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 988,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (7,650,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       326,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (7,324,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (7,324,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        (0.28)
        


</TABLE>
In The Matter Of: Sea Hawk Air, Inc. Respondent 

### SERVED: November 1, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAO!*RTMENT 

## OF OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

## TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, DC



### ZOl~ 

## NOV _

## 3 p I: 51 ) ) ) ) ) 

## DOCKET OPERATIONS DocketNo. FAA-2014-0865 Case No. 2011NM730060


### ORDERFINALIZING LITIGATION SCHEDULE On September 8, 2016, the undersignedjudge held a prehearing conference in the above captioned case. During the course ofthe conference, the parties developed ajointlitigation schedule with a timeline dependent upon the hearing date. On September 9, 2016, the undersignedjudge issued a Prehearing Conference Report, ordering the parties to adhere to thejoint litigation schedule. OnNovember 1, 2016, the undersignedjudge issued a Notice ofHearing, setting the hearing in this case to begin on April 19, 2017. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§§ 13.205(a)(6) and 13.217(d), 

### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Complete witness and evidence lists shall be exchanged bythe parties and submitted to the undersignedjudge no later than 

### March 20, 2017. 2. Any subpoenarequests shall be submitted to the undersignedjudge no later than 

### March 3, 2017. 3. Eachparty shall provide the undersignedjudge a CD containing digital copies of premarked versions ofall proposed exhibits no later than 

### March 20, 2017. 4. The parties may, during the course ofthe hearing, request the opportunity to submit posthearing briefs pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.231(c).



# ~------ DOUGLAS M. RA WALD Administrative LawJudge Attachment: Service List**.·.~**

SERVICE LIST
- BY U.S. MAIL 

### ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 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

**F~:303-747-4001** 

### ONE COPY

Kyle M. Lomazow, Complainant's Counsel Office ofRegional Counsel, Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal AviationAdministration 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847

**F~:** 425-227-1007 The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald,Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant

**F~:** 202-366-7536 DocketNo. 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 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
No. 39040.

#### Protests 552115-G, etc., of Furst-McNess Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of palmyra fiber the same as that passed upon in *American Push Broom & Brush Co.*v. *United States*(25 C. C. P. A. 248, T. D. 49391). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1684 was therefore sustained. ,
February 6, 2013

Exemption No. 10695

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-1338

Mr. Charles H. Hilton

500 Llindbergh Drive

Hartford, CT 06043

Dear Mr. Hilton:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It 

transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and 

limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated December 18, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) for an exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would permit Ct. Aero 

Tech to allow students to take the Aviation Mechanics General written test at an 

affiliated test center immediately following successful completion of Ct. Aero 

Tech’s general curriculum requirements prior to meeting experience requirements

of 14 CFR § 65.77.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of 

the petition in the Federal Register. The requested exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to

Ct. Aero Tech.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material 

respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption Nos. 7560

and 6569 (copies enclosed), the FAA found that testing immediately after learning 

was a universally accepted instructional principle that reinforces learning. 

Therefore, we allowed the petitioner to test students immediately after 

successfully completing the general curriculum but before meeting the 

requirements of § 65.77.
2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioners in the 

enclosed grants of exemption;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemptions also apply 

to the situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Ct. Aero Tech an exemption 

from 14 CFR § 65.75(a) to the extent necessary to:

Administer the AMG written test to students immediately 

following successful completion of the general curriculum, before 

meeting the experience requirements of § 65.77.

Conditions and Limitations 

Before exercising the privileges of this exemption, Ct. Aero Tech

must provide its operations handbook to its certificate holding 

district office (CHDO) and receive approval of the operations 

handbook from the CHDO.

This exemption terminates on December 30, 2015, unless sooner superseded or 

rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosures
Before the Second Division,

February 9, 1942

No. 46926.

#### Protest 557353-G of Davies Turner & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Dallinger. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel an iron bowl and candle snuffer were held dutiable as table or household utensils, or hollow ware, used for utilitarian purposes on the table or in the household. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained. *Dow*v. *United States*(21 C. C. P. A. 282, T. D. 46816) and Abstracts 33928 and 34951 followed.