alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26341]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board Task Force on Submarine of the Future

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Submarine of the 
Future will meet in closed session on October 10, at TRW, One Federal 
Systems Park, Fairfax, Virginia; on October 27-28, at Science 
Applications International Corporation, 8301 Greensboro Drive, McLean, 
Virginia; and on November 24, 1997, at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 
Schenectady, New York. In order for the Task Force to obtain time 
sensitive classified briefings, critical to the understanding of the 
issues, these meetings are scheduled on short notice.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings the 
Task Force will assess the nation's need for attack submarines in the 
21st century.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has 
been determined that these DSB Task Force meetings concern matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(1) (1994), and that accordingly these meetings 
will be closed to the public.

    Dated: September 30, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-26341 Filed 10-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Gulfstream Aerospace LP ¤ PO Box 1036 ¤ Airport City 70100 ¤ ISRAEL

Tel: +972-3-935-6624 ¤ Fax: +972-3-935-6750 FAA/12137/CG August 13 , 2012

GALP Petition for a time-limited Exemption – CFR Part 25.981(a)(3) Amdt. 25-102 – Additional Information / request for time to demonstrate full compliance

Gulfstream Aerospace LP (GALP) has petitioned FAA for a time-limited (2 year) exemption from 14 CFR Part 25.981(a)(3) as amended by Amendment 25-102 as it applies to the Gulfstream G280 airplane (docket FAA-2012-0403). As stated in GA LP’s petition (memo “GEN/12069/BM” of April 5, 2012 in docket FAA-2012-0403) GALP finds that it remains impractical to demonstrate full compliance with §25.981(a)(3) at amdt. 25-102 in a ti mely manner in support of Type Certification.

Therefore, to support the intended conclusion of the G280 TC effort as explained within that preceding letter, GALP respectfully requests FAA to grant that GALP may demonstrate compliance within the requested two-year period of the requ ested exemption. This would allow a timely conclusion to the TC effort as outlined in our original petition.

Reasons for Additional Information:

The additional time needed (two years, concurrent with the exemption requested under docket FAA2012-0403) to fully demonstrate compliance to this rule involves the same fuel system and wiring features identified in GALP’s original petition. GALP has found that more time is required to provide the substantiating details of compliance including certain requirements for latent + one failure protection and similar aspects of the rule.

Grounds, Public Interest and Precedent:

GALP’s reasons and basis, supporting information, acceptable level of safety and the public interest / benefit for this exemption remain the same as stated in GALP memo GEN/12069/BM as cited above and within the docket FAA-2012-0403 record. GALP also believes this request lies conservatively within that of the precedents previously cited, exemptions 10180 and 8761C, in terms of purpose, acceptable levels of safety and time permitted for the compliance task.

In Conclusion:

GALP respectfully appreciates FAA’s early consideration of this request as it relates to our original petition for exemption to §25.981(a)(3) at amdt. 25-102 as requested and in support of final Type Certification and delivery to our customers as scheduled.

For further questions please contact :

Charly Gaber

GALP PE charly.gaber@gulfstream.com
ANY REPLY OR SUBSEQUENT REFERENCE TO fHIS COMMUNICATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION AND NOT TO JAMAICA CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
4WINCHESTER ROAD, KINGSTON 10. MAILING ADDRESS PO . BOX 8998 CS0., KINGSTON ANY OFFICER BY NAME AND THE FOLLOWING ---------------------------------- REFERENCE QUOTEDJanuary 30, 2015 US Department ofTransport Docket Operations Docket DOT-OST-2006-24269 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 Washington, DC 20590 United States ofAmerica Dear Sirs, The Undersigned, Director General ofthe Jamaica Civil Aviation Authority, hereby confirms that Jamaica will grant approval for U.S . designated carriers to operate seventh freedom charter flights on the understanding that the United States will grant similar flights to designated Jamaican air carriers in accordance with the provisions of the Air Transport Agreement between the Government of Jamaica and the Government of the United States of America, signed October 30, 2008 for the period February I, 2015 to July 31 , 2015.

**ifli.I~!'J11lg** Director General (Actin ) Jamaica Civil Aviation Authority

Tde: 876 .960.3965

**Fa~:** 876 .920.0194 \VEB PACE: ww\\.jcaa.go,.jm E:\IAIL: jcivav(a cwjamaica.com
NOTE

U.S. $120,000.00                             December 21, 2001

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, AMASYS Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the "Borrower"), HEREBY PROMISES TO PAY to
the order of C. W. GILLULY  (the "Lender"), upon demand, the
principal sum of U.S. One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars
($120,000.00), which constitutes the aggregate principal amount
of the Advance (defined below) made by the Lender to the Borrower
(defined below) and outstanding on the date hereof.

     The Borrower also promises to pay interest on the unpaid
principal amount of each Advance from the date of such Advance
until such principal amount is paid in full, at the rate of 10%
per annum.

     Both principal and interest are payable in lawful money of
the United States of America to the Lender, on or before December
20, 2002, at 415 First Street, S.E. Washington, D.C., 20003, or
such other address as the holder hereof may designate in writing,
in same day funds, without defense, offset or counterclaim.

     Borrower acknowledges the receipt of the amount of $120,000,
which amount was loaned as of December 21, 2001 (the "Advance").

     The Borrower shall pay all reasonable costs, fees and
expenses (including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees)
incurred by the Lender in collecting or attempting to collect any
amount that becomes due hereunder or in seeking legal advice with
respect to such collection or a default hereunder.  This Note may
be prepaid at any time without penalty.

     The Borrower, and every guarantor and endorser hereof,
hereby waive presentment, demand, notice of dishonor, protest and
all other demands and notices in connection with the delivery,
acceptance, performance and enforcement of this Note.

     This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without reference
to conflict of laws principles.

     THE BORROWER HEREBY WAIVES TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LITIGATION
IN ANY COURT WITH RESPECT TO THIS NOTE OR THE ENFORCEMENT OR
COLLECTION HEREOF.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower has caused this Note to be
executed by its duly authorized representative as of the day and
year first above written.

                              AMASYS Corporation


                              By:  /S/ S. AMBER GORDON
                                   S. Amber Gordon
                                   Corporate Secretary
<PAGE>
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 17

- 00340

- CR

A NTONO M ASADA J AMES R AGSDALE

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 213th District

Court

of Tar rant County (1457150D)

June 13, 2019

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

cou rt is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ / s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Ker r
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0199

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LAVODRICK TERELLE HOGUES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 14, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 8 2023

03/08/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0199
#### HERNANDEZ v. FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL.

No. 38854.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 3, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
PUBLIC LAW 104–115—MAR. 12, 1996 110 STAT. 825

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3021:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):

Mar. 7, considered and passed House and Senate.

Æ

Public Law 104–115

104th Congress

An Act

To guarantee the continuing full investment of Social Security and other Federal

funds in obligations of the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED

STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to any other authority provided by law, the Secretary of the Treasury may issue to each Federal

fund obligations of the United States under chapter 31 of title

31, United States Code, before March 30, 1996, in an amount

not to exceed the sum of—

(1) the amounts deposited in such fund on or after the

earlier of—

(A) the date on which such Secretary would not other- wise be able to issue such obligations to such fund, or (B) March 15, 1996,

and before March 30, 1996, and

(2) the face amount of obligations held by such fund which mature during such period.

(b) OBLIGATIONS EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Obligations issued under subsection (a) shall not be taken into account in applying the limitation

in section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code.

(2) TERMINATION OF EXEMPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall cease to apply on the earlier of— (A) the date of the enactment of the first increase

in the limitation in section 3101(b) of title 31, United

States Code, after the date of the enactment of this Act,

or

(B) March 30, 1996.

(c) FEDERAL FUND.—For purposes of this section, the term

‘‘Federal fund’’ means any Federal trust fund or Government

account established pursuant to Federal law to which the Secretary

of the Treasury has issued or is expressly authorized by law directly

to issue obligations under chapter 31 of title 31, United States

Code, in respect of public money, money otherwise required to

be deposited in the Treasury, or amounts appropriated. (d) EXTENSION OF EXISTING AUTHORITY.—Subparagraph (B) of section 1(c)(2) of Public Law 104–103 is amended by striking ‘‘March

15, 1996’’ and inserting ‘‘March 30, 1996’’.

Approved March 12, 1996.

Ante, p. 55.

31 USC 3101

note.

Mar. 12, 1996

[H.R. 3021]
EXHIBIT 32  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 on Form 10-QSB of China Elite Information Co., Ltd. (the Company) for the three month period ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the Report),  I, Li Kin Shing, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 and belief:  (1)
        the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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:  July 11, 2008
        By
        /s/ Li Kin Shing
 
 Li Kin Shing
 President, Chief Executive Officer
 and Chief Financial Officer
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

Each
of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his/her capacity as an officer of FLYi, Inc. (the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|By: |  | /s/KERRY B. SKEENName: Kerry B. Skeen
Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                                     |  | 
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|    |  | Date: March 31, 2005                                                                                                  |  | 
|By: |  | /s/RICHARD J. SURRATTName: Richard J. Surratt
Title: Executive Vice President, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|    |  | Date: March 31, 2005                                                                                                  |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Emanuel CALVIN.

No. 60141.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1977.

Jesse L. Means, Jr., St. Francisville, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leon A. Picou, Jr., Dist. Atty., William E. Woodward, Asst. Dist. Atty., A. Z. Butterworth, Special Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 23.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting part
of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-62787 and 333-56645), in the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-03107), and in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-57077, 33-57081, 33-57083, 33-64553, 333-10389,
333-17891, 333-36339, 333-50541, and 333-67035) of AirTouch Communications, Inc.
of our report dated February 16, 1999, relating to the financial statements of
Mannesmann Mobilfunk GmbH, which appears in AirTouch Communications Inc.'s
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998.



Dusseldorf, Germany

March 29, 1999

KPMG Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft
Aktiengesellschaft
Wirtschaftsprufungsgesellschaft

/s/ Scheffler            /s/ Haas
Wirtschaftsprufer        Wirtschaftsprufer
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII

901 NORTH 5TH STREET

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101

September 23, 2011

Dear Owner/Resident:

Pamela M Collett

Omaha, Nebraska 68105

2138 South 33 Street

 2138 South 33 Street

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performed on your property by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of 

this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior 

surface of structures, where deteriorating paint conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist 

that might increase lead concentrations in the yard above acceptable levels.

Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 2138 South 33 Street. The EPA has developed paint 

stabilization eligibility criteria that involve measuring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a 

structure and calculating the concentration of lead in soils around the home that would result if 

all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fall to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil 

under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessment, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint 

observed on structure surfaces was estimated and the lead content in the deteriorated paint was 

measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument.

The data obtained during the LBP assessment was used to estimate the increase in soil lead 

concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were 

to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. 

For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the 

ground surface within six feet of the foundation and be uniformly mixed with the top one inch 

of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the soil potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP 

provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses 

these criteria to rank properties based on the potential for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint 

stabilization is being offered at only those households with the most severe LBP problems, 

particularly where children under the age of seven reside.

 Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the above criteria indicated that your 

house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization. 

RE: SAID: 17869
Enclosures

Para información en español, llame al EPA Information Center (402) 731-3045.

Sincerely,

Pauletta R. France-Isetts

Project Coordinator

Environmental Protection Agency

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center at 

(402) 731-3045.

Omaha Lead Site North Arrow 1 

Address: -21 38 S 33 ST Site Sketch 

LBP Assessment 

phone: H (402) 342-3863 ALT 

Plan View - Indicate number of stories and perimeter dimensions of structure 

Indicate regions of deterioration and describe 

(Deterioration could lnclude surfaces that are worn due to friction, checking, cracldng and flaldng, aligatonng, blstering and/or peeling)
EXHIBIT 10.55


                                December 5, 2001


Silicon Valley Bank
3003 Tasman Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95054

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         Reference is made to the Loan and Security Agreement, dated of even
date, between us (the "Loan Agreement") and the documents relating thereto being
signed concurrently (with the Loan Agreement, collectively, the "Loan
Documents".)

         This will confirm that the Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents
represent the final agreement between the parties and may not be contradicted by
evidence of prior, contemporaneous, or subsequent oral agreements of the
parties. There are no unwritten oral agreements between the parties.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                          VISEON, INC.


                                          By
                                             -----------------------------------
                                               President or Vice President

Accepted and agreed:

SILICON VALLEY BANK


By
   -----------------------------------
Title
      --------------------------------
#### CITY OF STARKVILLE v. George THOMPSON et ux.

No. 46033.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 18, 1971.

McKee & McDowell, Gary R. Parvin, Starkville, for appellant.

Ben F. Hilbun, Jr., Starkville, for appel-lees.

*55BRADY, Justice:

After a review of the diminutive record in this cause and a study of the briefs and authorities cited therein, we reach the inescapable conclusion that, assuming the facts as alleged in the bill of complaint to be true (as we must on the demurrer), the Circuit Court of Oktibbeha County should have sustained a motion of the appellant to set aside the default judgment granted on June 12, 1968, at the October 1968 Term of Court. The circuit courts of this state have original jurisdiction of suits filed therein for damages based upon actions ex contractu and ex de-licto. An appeal to this Court should have been taken from the order of the Circuit Court of Oktibbeha County at the October Term denying appellant’s motion to set aside the default judgment heretofore obtained on June 12, 1968. Default judgment appears to have been improperly granted.

We have as yet to find a case where this Court has said that the chancery court has the inherent power where jurisdiction is concurrent to enjoin the circuit court. The case of Gardner v. Price, 199 Miss. 809, 25 So.2d 459 (1946) does not hold that, the chancery court has authority to enjoin the action of a circuit court. This Court held in that case as follows:

> It is not a question, it seems to us, of whether such a pronouncement by the court was a judicial determination, or of whether the court had authority to make it; but it is a question of fairness and conscience. (199 Miss, at 816, 25 So.2d at 461.)

In conclusion, it should be noted that the circuit court has the inherent power to correct judgments obtained in that court through fraud, accident or mistake. Any court should have the authority and right to correct a judgment obtained through fraud which vitiates any contract, and in the case at bar the accident or mistake could have been rectified by the filing of a petition for writ of error coram nobis and thus bring this case before the Supreme Court from the Circuit Court of Oktibbeha County, as is shown in Corry v. Buddendorff, 98 Miss, 98, 54 So. 84 (1910).

For these reasons, and not without some regret, the action of the chancery court in sustaining the demurrer is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ETHRIDGE, C. J., and RODGERS, JONES and SMITH, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 10.2

                               GEORGE STEWART, CPA
                     2301 SOUTH JACKSON STREET, SUITE 101-G
                           SEATTLE, WASHIINGTON 98144
                        (206) 328-8554 FAX (206) 328-0383




To Whom It May Concern:

    The firm of George Stewart, Certified Public Accountant consents to the
inclusion of my report of June 13, 2001, on the Financial Statements of Medina
Coffee, Inc. as of December 31, 2000 and May 31, 2001, in any filings that are
necessary now or in the near future with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Financial Statements for the five months ended May 31, 2001 were audited.

Very truly yours,

/s/George Stewart, CPA


January 31, 2002
## AD Grid Sheet 

# 0511 Docket No.: FAA - 2 014- **** Directorate Identifier: 2 014-NM-10 2-AD AD Action: Imme diatel y adopted rule This action applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100 , - 200 , - 200C , -300 , -400 , and -500 series airplane s . ANM-101 If this draft is acceptable , please legibly sign the grid to the right with your first initial

**~~LP~'YL~::::_** 

### __ and full last name to sho w concurrence with this AD .

S I G T?.IT::.st Name)

E 

# (p/h t+ ROUTING SYMBOL S I

GNATURE (First Initial/La st Name) DATE

OUTING SYMBOL SIGNATURE (First Initial / La st Name) DATE ROUTING SYMBOL SIGNATURE ( First Initial/ Last Name)

ATE OUTING SYMBOL IGNAT URE (First Initial / Last Name) DATE
May 19, 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MICHAEL MCCANN , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 01069

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________ ________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.