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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2220 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2220

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend title 40, United States Code, to modify the treatment of 
  certain bargain-price options to purchase at less than fair market 
                     value, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON DISCOUNTED PURCHASE OPTIONS.

    Section 585 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(d) Any bargain-price option to purchase at less than fair market 
value contained in any lease agreement entered into on or after January 
1, 2021, pursuant to this section may be exercised only to the extent 
specifically provided for in subsequent appropriation Acts or other 
Acts of Congress.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 4, 2021.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2220

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend title 40, United States Code, to modify the treatment of 
  certain bargain-price options to purchase at less than fair market 
                     value, and for other purposes.
```
258 La. 910

#### Travis FREEMAN v. STANDARD MATERIALS, INC. and Phoenix Assurance Company of New York.

No. 51427.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June *2,*1971.

In re: Travis Freeman applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Tammany. 246 So.2d 258.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
Home Help Resources Feedback and Quest

Home About Us Resources Help Connect With

Feedback and 

Questions

Partner Sites Participate Toda

Your comment was submitted successfully!

Thank you for submitting a comment on the following Other: 

The Boeing Company - Exemption/Rulemaking

Agency: FAA 

Document ID: FAA-2004-19374-0006

Your Comment Tracking Number: 8110c4f2

Note this tracking number to find your comment at a later date.

Your attached files:

9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-12-0243_Exempt 8827B_Renew.pdf Successfully uploaded

When will my comment appear online?

After submitting your comment, you will not be able to view your comment until the appropriate agency reviews and publishes it on Regulations.gov. Gi

certain regulations may have thousands of comments, processing may take several weeks before it is viewed online. To obtain further information, plea

follow-up with the agency contact listed in the document soliciting your input. To view this document click the link above.

How do I find my comment in the future?

The best way to find your comment in the future is to enter your Comment Tracking Number in the search field on the homepage. You can also search 

keyword or submitter name.

Search

Advanced Search

Browse By Category

Browse By Topics

Learn

eRulemaking Program

Newsroom

Agencies

Awards & Recognition

Enhancements & Fixes

Site Data

Regulatory Agenda

Agency Reports Required 

by Statute

Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 13563

Developers Beta

How to use 

Regulations.gov

FAQs

Glossary

Privacy Notice

User Notice

Accessibility Statement

Exchange Federal Register Reginfo Thomas USA.gov E-Gov Opengov

Your comment was submitted successfully! Page 1 of 1

http://www.regulations.gov/ 9/7/2012
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Sound Aircraft Services, Inc. 

COMPLAINANT 

v. 

Town of East Hampton and East 

Hampton Airport 

RESPONDENT. 

Docket No. 16-14-07 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced 

complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport 

Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CPR Part 16 (Rules of Practice). Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, 

§ 16.11(a), the date by which the Director, FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis will issue a Director's Determination in this matter is hereby extended to on or before 

November 8, 2015. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August_l_L 2015, I placed in the United States mail (first class, 

postage paid), a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time addressed to: 

Counsel to the Complainant 

Paul A. Lange, Esq. 

Alison L. Squiccimarro, Esq. 

Law Offices of Paul A. Lange, LLC 

80 Ferry Boulevard 

Stratford, CT 06615 

pal@lopal.com 

als@lopal.com 

Counsel to the Respondent 

Elizabeth Vail, Esq. 

Town Attorney 

Town of East Hampton 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, NY 1193 7 

Mr. James Brundige 

Airport Manager 

Town of East Hampton Airport 

200 Daniels Hole Road 

Wainscott, NY 11937 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

laudm Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

39 40 41 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/07 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
### THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION WASHING TO N , DC 20590

. , i
J 11: . ~rlll 1 0~ · ~cet :

: ~ ~ ~ OCket

_OST - 2013-0204 Doc ets Date: January 23 , 2015 Reply to Attn. of: In accordance with Department rules (14 CFR Part 300), I am reporting the following communication . On June 5, 2014 , during a telephone call , Senator Chris Coons of Delaware raised the subject of the Department's proceeding to consider Norwegian Air International's foreign air carrier permit application. He expressed his opposition to the application. I explained that while I appreciated his interest in this matter, I could not comment on its merits because the proceeding was under active consideration by the Department. Please place this memorandum in the appropriate Docket. cc: The Honorable Chris Coons
(January 23, 2002)

#### In the Matter of Tiffany L., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Mildred L., Appellant; St. Vincent’s Services, Inc., Respondent.

[736 NYS2d 277]

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearce, J.), dated April 12, 2000, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and upon her default in appearing at the fact-finding hearing, terminated her parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the Commis*524sioner of Social Services of the City of New York and St. Vincent’s Services, Inc., for the purpose of adoption. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738) in which she moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

Ordered that the motion is granted, Carol Kahn is relieved as attorney for the appellant, and she is directed to turn over to new counsel assigned herein all papers in her possession; and it is further,

Ordered that Arza Feldman, 300 Rabro Dr., Hauppauge, N.Y., 11788, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent’s counsel is directed to turn over a copy of the transcript of the proceedings to new assigned counsel; and it is further,

Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the appellant on or before February 25, 2002, the respondent and the Law Guardian shall serve and file their briefs on or before March 11, 2002, and any reply brief shall be served and filed on or before March 18, 2002; by prior decision and order of this Court, we directed that the appeal be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings), and on the typewritten briefs of the parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal is placed on the calendar for *Friday, March 29, 2002,*and the appeal shall be heard on that day.

Based upon this Court’s independent review of the record on appeal, we conclude that under these circumstances, where the mother ultimately appeared at the dispositional hearing, non-frivolous issues exist, inter alia, as to whether the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to start that hearing anew. Accordingly, the motion of the mother’s assigned counsel to be relieved as counsel is granted and new appellate counsel is assigned *(cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606; *People v Casiano,*67 NY2d 906; *People v Miller,*99 AD2d 1021). Goldstein, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

GALEN COLLINS

,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee. §

§ No. 355, 2015

§

§

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ C r. ID 1411011358

§

§

Submitted: August 10, 2015

Decided: August 31 , 2015

O R D E R

This 31st day of August 2015 , it appears to the Court that, on July 9 , 201 5

,

the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why t his

appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file his notice of appeal in a timely

manner . The appellant failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the

required ten

- day period . The Court directed the appellant’s trial c ounsel to

respond. Counsel indicated that he represented the appellant in entering a guilty

plea, and the appellant never indicated a desire to appeal. Under the

circumstances, dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within appeal is

DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
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 of Public Service Company of New
Hampshire (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we,
Cheryl W. Grise, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, and John H.
Forsgren, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 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 registrant.

/s/ Cheryl W. Grise
    (Signature)
    Cheryl W. Grise
    Chief Executive Officer

/s/ John H. Forsgren
    (Signature)
    John H. Forsgren
    Executive Vice President and
    Chief Financial Officer

November 7, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and
will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Candido ORTIZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Al HERRERA, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 01-57012.

D.C. No. CV-01-06374-DT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Candido Ortiz-Martinez appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the propriety of his federal conviction and sentence for possession and distribution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a), and using and carrying a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review the district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition de novo, *see Tripati v. Henman,*843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988), and we affirm.

*807Ortiz-Martinez has filed three unsuccessful § 2255 motions in Missouri district court. The first motion was denied on the merits, and the other two were deemed successive motions which the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to certify. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244. Ortiz-Martinez then filed a § 2241 petition in California district court, the district of his incarceration, contending that Section 2255 was inadequate or ineffective.

Ortiz-Martinez essentially argues that any further Section 2255 motion would be prohibited as successive, therefore, Section 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective remedy as applied to him. However, this court has made clear that “ § 2241 is not available under the inadequate-or-ineffective-remedy escape hatch of § 2255 merely because the court of appeals refuses to certify a second or successive motion under the gatekeeping provisions of § 2555.” *Lor-entsen v. Hood,*223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective because the sentencing court denied relief on the merits. *See Tripati*843 F.2d at 1162. Ortiz-Martinez has failed to carry his burden of showing that a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed his petition for habeas corpus without prejudice.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 24, 2018.

________________

No. 3D16-2433

Lower Tribunal No. 16-9357

________________



### LBMP Holdings, LLC, and AJK 21st Street, LLC,

Appellants,

vs.



### Biarritz GH, LLC, and JHMB, LLC,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge E. Cueto,

Judge.

The Alderman Law Firm and Jason R. Alderman, and Troy A. Tolentino;

Alonso Appeals and Cristina Alonso (Pembroke Pines); Broad and Cassel and

Christina Lehm and Beverly A. Pohl (Fort Lauderdale) and Amy Steele Donner

and Mark F. Raymond, for appellants.

Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine, and Alan J. Kluger and Josh

M. Rubens; Samson Appellate Law and Daniel M. Samson, for appellees.

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.On Concession of Error

Based on the appellees’ proper and commendable concession of error, the

circuit court order dismissing the appellants’ counterclaim with prejudice is

reversed. Dismissal was error because the appellants were not duly noticed or

provided with an opportunity to be heard. This case is remanded for further

proceedings, including consideration of any motion by appellants to amend the

counterclaim, should the appellants so move.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

2
**Exhibit 32**

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

In connection withthe quarterly report of Continental Materials Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James G. Gidwitz, theChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, JosephJ. Sum, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and Section 1350, of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that toour knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periodspresented in the Report.

August 13, 2007
|        |   | By:    |   | /s/James G. Gidwitz                        |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   |   | James G. Gidwitz                           |   |
|   |   |   |   | Chairman of the Board and                  |   |
|   |   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer                    |   |
|   |   |   |   |                                       |   |
|   |   |   |   |                                       |   |
|   |   | By:    |   | /s/Joseph J. Sum                           |   |
|   |   |   |   | Joseph J. Sum                              |   |
|   |   |   |   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         358,702
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  321,549
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,272
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               893,478
<PP&E>                                         278,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                 190,429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,098,238
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          369,037
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       921,286
<OTHER-SE>                                   (192,085)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,098,238
<SALES>                                      1,456,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,456,273
<CGS>                                          732,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,426,077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,372
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,824
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,449
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,375
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,375
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63125-63128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30994]



[[Page 63125]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary
[Transmittal No. 98-14]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Assistance Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 98-14, with attached transmittal and 
policy justification pages.

    Dated: November 20, 1997.
L. M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000-04-M

[[Page 63126]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.036



[[Page 63127]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.037



[[Page 63128]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.038


[FR Doc. 97-30994 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-C
#### Maricela JUAREZ-ANTUNEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General,* Respondent.

No. 01-71388.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.**

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, is substituted for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3)(A).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM***

Maricela Juarez-Antunez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen, and summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of suspension of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b), and review for an abuse of discretion. *Konstantinova v. INS,*195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

To the extent that Juarez-Antunez seeks review of the BIA’s May 14, 2001 order summarily affirming the IJ’s order, we lack jurisdiction because she failed to timely petition for review of that decision. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); *Haroutunian v. INS,*87 F.3d 374, 375 (9th Cir.1996) (“the requirement of a timely petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional”).

The BIA properly denied Juarez-Antunez’s motion to reopen because she failed to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for the relief she sought. *See INS v. Abudu,*485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988); *Bolshakov v. INS,*133 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.1998).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### VENICE UNITED CHUCH OF CHRIST, Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF VENICE, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Mildred H. Betts, Deceased, et al., Appellee.

No. 69-328.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

July 1, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.