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

To: U.S. Department of Transportation 

From: William E. McCracken 

Re: Sun Country Slot Exemption Docket No. FAA-2012-0089 

^^-^^t I OPERATIONS 

^5i/ Fc8 ! 5 P 3: lu I L( 

I am writing to support Sun Country Airlines' request that the US DOT authorize additional 

landing and takeoff slots at Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC. 1 live in East Lansing, 

Michigan, and my daughter, her husband and three young children live in Arlington, Virginia. 

The trip with the three children (ages 1, 4 and 6) is so much easier on a direct flight than a twoleg flight-through Detroit. 1 am sure that many others-in this area feel the-same way^ - .— 

In addition to that personal reason, I believe it makes sense for direct flights to be available 

between the Lansing, Michigan, Area and the Nation's Capital. The Lansing Area houses the 

Michigan State Government, Michigan State University, major Automobile Industry facilities, 

and many other state associations and business with ties to Washington, DC. We need this 

transportation link for all of those officials, and it will help in Lansing's economic development 

efforts. 

Our family has used the direct flights provided by Sun Country Airlines on multiple occasions 

during the past year. Sun Country's service is excellent. I don't believe this should present any 

safety issues, since Sun Country has a history of safe service to the Lansing Area. Please allow it 

to continue flying the direct route between Lansing and Washington. 

I have also included signatures in support of this request fi"om my wife and several of our friends 

and neighbors, below. Thank you for your consideration of our request. 

r^f^hyv5\
Before the First Division,

October 6, 1943

No. 48829.

#### Protests 91857-K, etc., of Q. W. Lung Co. et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10465 Conference Calendar

__________________
SAUREZ ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LINDA D. HALES, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:94-CV-350

- - - - - - - - - - August 23, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Saurez Anderson, a Texas state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint against Linda D. Hales pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that, after his watch had been stolen by another inmate, recovered, and placed in the property room, Hales refused to return his watch to him. The district court dismissed his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). AndersonNo. 95-10465 -2- argues that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his complaint as frivolous. "The Due Process Clause is not implicated by a state official's negligent act causing unintended loss of property," and even the intentional deprivation of an inmate's property does not raise a constitutional claim if an adequate post-deprivation remedy exists. Simmons v. Poppell , 837 F.2d 1243, 1244 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Daniels v. Williams , 474 U.S. 327 (1986), and Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517 (1984)). Anderson has a right of action under Texas law for any alleged negligent or intentional deprivation of property. See Thompson v. Steele , 709 F.2d 381, 383 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 464 U.S. 897 (1983); Myers v. Adams , 728 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Tex. 1987). Further, contrary to his argument on appeal, Anderson has not demonstrated that he has suffered "a violation of a substantive right protected by the Constitution against infringement by state governments." See Augustine v. Doe , 740 F.2d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 1984). Anderson's allegation that Hales, the property officer at the prison, wrongfully confiscated his personal property, does not state a Fourth Amendment violation. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Anderson's complaint as frivolous. Anderson is warned that the filing of further frivolous suits in this court could result in the imposition of sanctions. See Smith v. McCleod , 946 F.2d 417, 418 (5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.42

                  Amendment to EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT Agreement

     THIS AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into effective
as of March 9, 2000, by and between Gerald R. Riordan (the "Executive") and
United Road Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company").

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have entered into that certain
Executive Employment Agreement, dated as of October 11, 1999 (the "Original
Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the definition of
"Change of Control" in the Original Agreement to provide that a Change of
Control includes a change in control of the Company's Board of Directors that
results from a sale of the Company's securities.

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto hereby agree:

     1.  The Original Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Section 4(b)(iv)
of the Original Agreement in its entirety and replacing said Section 4(b)(iv)
with the following:

          "(iv) any time that, as a result of or in connection with a tender
          offer, sale of securities, merger, consolidation, sale of assets or
          contested election, or any combination of such transactions, the
          persons who were directors of the Company immediately before such
          transaction or event cease to constitute a majority of the Board of
          Directors of the Company or of any successor to the Company at any
          time within one year after such transaction or event, or"

     2.  All remaining provisions of the Original Agreement shall remain
unchanged and in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment to Option
Agreement as of the date first above written.


EXECUTIVE                                 UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC.

By:   /s/ Gerald R. Riordan               By:   /s/ Richard A. Molyneux
      ---------------------                     -----------------------
      Gerald R. Riordan                         Richard A. Molyneux
      Chairman of the Board
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 25009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09683]

[[Page 25009]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Applications of Eastern Air Lines Group, Inc. for Certificate 
Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2015-4-16); Dockets DOT-
OST-2014-0012 and DOT-OST-2014-0013.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue orders finding Eastern 
Air Lines Group, Inc. fit, willing, and able, and awarding it 
certificates of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to 
engage in interstate and foreign charter air transportation of persons, 
property, and mail.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
April 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Dockets DOT-OST-2014-0012 and DOT-OST-2014-0013 and addressed to the 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC and 
should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine O'Toole, Air Carrier Fitness 
Division, (X-56, Office W86-469), U.S. Department of Transportation, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9721.

    Dated: April 20, 2015.
Brandon M. Belford,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2015-09683 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
```
Order entered April 2, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01196-CR

RAMON M. PEREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F08-60337-I

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s March 30, 2015 motion to extend time to file his brief. 

The motion references both March 31, 2015 and April 25, 2015 as dates for which he seeks the 

extension. Since appellant has not yet tendered his brief, we will treat the motion as seeking an 

extension until April 25, 2015 to file the brief. As such, we GRANT the motion. We ORDER

appellant to file his brief by MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2015.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
34210.

#### HOOD v. HOOD.

Jordan, Justice.

This appeal arises from an order granting a divorce to the parties in this action and awarding permanent custody of the couple’s two minor children to the former husband.

*582Submitted November 3, 1978

Decided November 21, 1978.

*James R. McGraw,*for appellant.

*Johnson, Craig & Strauss, John T. Strauss,*for appellee.

Appellant-wife’s first enumeration of error is that the trial court erred when it overruled her pre-trial motion to dismiss the pleadings based on the allegation that there had been a voluntary condonation and cohabitation between the parties subsequent to the filing of this action. Appellee filed an affidavit denying reconciliation or cohabitation and restating his claim that the parties’ marriage was irretrievably broken. Appellee’s affidavit created a genuine issue of material fact which authorized the trial court to overrule appellant’s motion. Code § 81A-112. No evidence of reconciliation or cohabitation was subsequently presented. *Lindsay v. Lindsay,*241 Ga. 166 (244 SE2d 8) (1978).

Appellant next asserts that her constitutional rights were violated when the trial court transferred the issue of child custody to the juvenile court for the purpose of investigation and reporting back to the superior court. This enumeration is without merit. *Anderson v. Anderson,*238 Ga. 631 (235 SE2d 11) (1977). Appellant participated in a full hearing on the issue of custody and was afforded an unabridged opportunity to examine each witness who appeared before the juvenile court.

The remaining enumerations of error not being supported by citation of authority or argument are deemed to have been abandoned. Code § 24-4518 (c) (2).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                                 InterCept, Inc.
                       3150 Holcomb Bridge Road, Suite 200
                             Norcross, Georgia 30071

                                 March 29, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") has represented to InterCept, Inc.
that its audit of the financial statements contained in InterCept, Inc.'s Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 was subject to
Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice
to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
with professional standards and that there was appropriate continuity of
Andersen personnel working on the audit and availability of national office
consultation.

                     InterCept, Inc.


                     By:  /s/  Scott R. Meyerhoff
                          --------------------------
                     Name:  Scott R. Meyerhoff
                     Title:  Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and
                             Secretary
#### The Emporium Capwell Co. *v.*United States

No. 7724.

Entry No. 3512.

(Decided August 1, 1949)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

It is hereby stipulated as follows between counsel for plaintiff(s) and the-Assistant Attorney General for the United States, concerning the merchandise-referred to herein:

> 1) That the involved issues in these appeals are the same in all material respects as in US v. Pitcairn, suit 4513, CAD 334, on the subject of British purchase tax, and that the record in that case may be incorporated herein.

> 2) That the appraised value of said merchandise, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States,, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States,, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> 3) That these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

*262On the agreed factB I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
II 

Calendar No. 305 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1740 

[Report No. 112–139] 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to provide for the 

reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 19, 2011 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. WARNER, Mr. WEBB, Mr. CARPER, and Mr. COONS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

JANUARY 26, 2012 

Reported by Mrs. BOXER, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to 

provide for the reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay 

Gateways and Watertrails Network. 

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 ‘‘Chesapeake Bay Gate5 ways and Watertrails Network Reauthorization Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1740 RS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act 

3 of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105–312) is 

4 amended by striking ‘‘fiscal years’’ and all that follows 

5 through the period at the end and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 

6 2012 through 2016.’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 305 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1740 

[Report No. 112–139] 

A BILL 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 

work. Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Net1998 to provide for the reauthorization of the 

JANUARY 26, 2012 

Reported without amendment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
** **

**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**MathStar, Inc.**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MathStar, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Douglas M.Pihl, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directorsof the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1.               ThePeriodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:   November  22, 2005 | /s/  Douglas M. Pihl |                                    |
|---------------------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                  |                 | Douglas M. Pihl                         |   |
|                                  |                 | President,  Chief Executive Officer and |   |
|                                  |                 | Chairman  of the Board of Directors     |   |
|                                  |                 | MathStar,  Inc.                         |   |

 

----
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 Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 510
 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
 ACTION: Final rule.
 SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor's address for Modern Veterinary Therapeutics, LLC.
 DATES: This rule is effective May 18, 2007.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Newkirk, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-6967, e-mail: 
                        *david.newkirk@fda.hhs.gov*.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Modern Veterinary Therapeutics, LLC, 18301 SW. 86th Ave., Miami, FL 33157, has informed FDA of a change of address to 1550 Madruga Ave., suite 329, Coral Gables, FL 33146. Accordingly, the agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600(c) to reflect the change. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510 Administrative practice and procedure
Animal drugs
Labeling
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
 Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 510 is amended as follows: PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
 1.The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as follows: Authority:
                        21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e. 2.In § 510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1) revise the entry for “Modern Veterinary Therapeutics, LLC”; and in the table in paragraph (c)(2) revise the entry for “015914” to read as follows: § 510.600
 
 (c) * * * (1) * * * Firm name and address
Drug labeler code*    *    *    *    *Modern Veterinary Therapeutics, LLC, 1550 Madruga Ave., suite 329, Coral Gables, FL 33146
015914*    *    *    *    *
 (2) * * * Drug labeler code
Firm name and address*    *    *    *    *015914
Modern Veterinary Therapeutics, LLC, 1550 Madruga Ave., suite 329, Coral Gables, FL 33146*    *    *    *    *
 Dated: May 7, 2007. Bernadette Dunham, Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.


[FR Doc. E7-9555 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 report on Form 10-Q/A of Advanced Technologies Group,
Ltd. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), the
undersigned, Alex Stelmak, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies 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; and

     (2)  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

Date: November 19, 2009
                                             /s/ Alex Stelmak
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Alex Stelmak
                                             Chief Executive Officer,
                                             Chairman of the Board and
                                             Chief Financial Officer
No. 49471.

#### Protests 17094-K, etc., R. H. Stearns Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The plaintiff’s only witness was the assistant ewelry buyer of the importing concern who stated that these boxes were sold in le jewelry department; that she had used one to hold her rosary beads and cared the box in her handbag. She had also seen other women carry capsules and 11s in the boxes which they carry in their handbags, and had also seen a box on a *327dressing table, and conceded that the boxes could be used for stamps. The examiner and a clerk in the appraiser’s office stated they did not know of what metal these boxes were made or the nature of the plating on them. The metal box in question, the court stated, is- *ejusdem generis*with many of the articles *eo nomine*provided for in said paragraph 1527 (c). The only testimony offered tends to support the collector’s classification. On the meager record presented the protests were overruled. *Levy Corp.*v. *United States*(12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 181, T. D. 40168), *Gallagher*v. *United States*(6 id. 105, T. D. 35343), and *Hensel*v. *United States*(6 id. 162, T. D. 35434) cited.