alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 29, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR 61.1 (b) (3) (vi) (b)

Dear Sirs,

Island Airlines (IA) is requesting an exemption from 14 CFR 61.1 (b) (3) (vi) (B) for pilots 

flying in accordance 14 CFR 135 Commuter Air Carrier operations (scheduled passenger service 

with small aircraft). 14 CFR 61.1 (b) (3) (vi) (B) requires that in order to meet the aeronautical 

experience requirements for an airline transport pilot, cross-country must include a landing that 

is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of 

departure. IA would like for our pilots be allowed to count their flying from KHYA to KACK as 

cross-country for their ATP requirements. The straight line distance is 26 NM.

Scheduled operations include a departure, an en route and an approach segment. All of these 

flights include the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other 

navigation systems. In the case of our operation, we operate the single engine Cessna Caravan. 

TAS is approximately is 150 KTS. Since we operate over water, we must remain within the 

power off gliding distance from shore. Even in VFR conditions, most of our flight travel 50 NM 

across the ground. In IFR conditions, our flights cover more than 50 NM across the ground.

Rotorcraft and Sport aircraft can count flights of 25 NM as cross-country for the aeronautical 

experience requirement for pilot certification. The Cessna Caravan cruise speed is similar to 

aircraft of this type and as such would include the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic 

navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems.

Additionally, we operate our flights with a Captain and a First Officer. They are gaining 

experience operating in an airline environment with two crewmember coordination. 

Additionally, approaches down to minimums, holding and diversions.

Island Airlines, LLC

550 Barnstable Road | Hyannis, MA 02601 | Phone: 508.771.7774 | Fax: 508.827.4758
An exemption to 14 CFR 61.1 (b) (3) (vi) (B) for pilots operating in a two pilot crew commuter

operation under 14 CFR 135 would be in the public interest, because it will allow pilots to use 

their actual airline cross-country experience to meet the aeronautical experience requirements for 

an airline transport pilot certificate.

Respectfully,

Joseph W. Rose

Director of Operations

Island Airlines

550 Barnstable Rd.

Hangar 1

Hyannis, MA 02601

jrose@islandair.net

(508) 202-1652
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          14,980
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    114,545
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         101,739
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           103,540
<LOANS>                                        915,711
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,657
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,185,985
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,011,033
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,255
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,139
<LONG-TERM>                                     20,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           107
<OTHER-SE>                                     143,451
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,185,985
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 69,075
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,990
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                81,065
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              40,822
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,185
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           38,880
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,733
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 344
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 25,431
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,623
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      14,623
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,535
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    94.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    93.78
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.19
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,008
<LOANS-PAST>                                     5,584
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,692
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      928
<RECOVERIES>                                       160
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,657
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,657
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Wilford D. CARTER.

No. 61443.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1978.

In re: Wilford D. Carter, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus. Parish of Calcasieu. 357 So.2d 1175.

Writ denied. The contempt adjudication does not purport to prevent the relator from practicing before Division “F”. We find no error in the proceedings adjudicating the relator to have committed a direct contempt. However, the relator’s motion for a stay within which to apply to the United States Supreme Court is granted and execution of the sentence is stayed for 60 days for that purpose.

DIXON and DENNIS, JJ., would grant. The judge who was recused in chambers, should have recused himself from the trial on contempt.

CALOGERO, J., would grant on the recu-sal issue.
C:\Documents And Settings\Iturriagan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\XM15D9UF\3Q-REPORT 10.Docx

November 12, 2010 (10:21 AM)

Quarterly Report to Congress on International Monetary Fund Lending

July 1 – September 30, 2010

Board 

Approval Date Country Amount Type U.S. 

Position

Background

07/02/10 Poland SDR 13.69 billion

($20.43 billion)

FCL Support www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/

2010/pr10276.htm

07/21/10 Republic of Kosovo SDR 92.656 million

($139.6 million)

SBA Support www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/

2010/pr10300.htm

07/21/10 Haiti SDR 40.9 million

($60 million)

ECF Support www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/

2010/pr10299.htm

07/28/10 Ukraine SDR 10 billion

($15.15 billion)

SBA Support www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/

2010/pr10306.htm

07/30/10 Republic of Yemen SDR 243.5 million

($369.8 million)

ECF Support www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/

2010/pr10305.htm
- 2 -

09/15/10 Kyrgyz Republic SDR 22.2 million

($33.73 million)

RCF Support www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/

2010/pr10342.htm

09/15/10 Pakistan SDR 296.98 million

($451 million)

ENDA Support www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/

2010/pr10344.htm
<PAGE>   1
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


                KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Christopher J. Grady, a
member of the Board of Directors of ML Life Insurance Company of New York (the
"Company"), whose signature appears below, constitutes and appoints Barry G.
Skolnick and Michael P. Cogswell, respectively, and each of them, his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign any and all Registration Statements and Amendments thereto,
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith, under the Investment Company Act of 1940, where
applicable, and the Securities Act of 1933, respectively, with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, for the purpose of registering any and all variable
life and variable annuity separate accounts (collectively "Separate Accounts"),
of the Company that may be established in connection with the issuance of any
and all variable life and variable annuity contracts funded by such Separate
Accounts, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent, and each of them, full
power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done.



                Date:                   /s/ CHRISTOPHER J. GRADY
                                        -----------------------------
                                            Christopher J. Grady



State of New Jersey )
County of Mercer    )

                On the 22nd day of March 2001, before me came Christopher J.
Grady, Director of ML Life Insurance Company of New York, to me known to be
said person and he signed the above Power of Attorney on behalf of ML Life
Insurance Company of New York.



                /s/ EILEEN A. FRIEDEBORN
                -----------------------------
[SEAL]          Notary Public



                        Eileen A. Friedeborn
                Notary Public, State of New Jersey
                  My Commission Expires 1/5/2003
#### Miller L. CROWDER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-888.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
#### ESTATE of True Love MONTGOMERY, Deceased. Ruth KELLY, Administratrix v. Mary AINSWORTH, Individually, and as Agent of Whispering Pines Nursing Home and Dr. Arthur E. Woods, d/b/a Whispering Pines Nursing Home.

No. 50596.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 6, 1978.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; William F. Coleman, Judge.

*631Fred A. Ross, Glen W. Hall, Jackson, for appellant.

Wise Carter Child Steen & Caraway, George Q. Evans, Jimmie B. Reynolds, Jr., Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concurring.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ronald SHIELDS.

No. 61569.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 28, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 26, 1978.*

Ronald J. Rakosky, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

*

 SUMMERS and DENNIS, JJ., voted to deny the rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

Because trial counsel acquiesced in the ruling complained of, we have determined that there is no merit to defendant’s assignment of error.

Accordingly, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

*On Application for Rehearing*

In his application for rehearing, appellant’s counsel forcefully argues that we were in error in finding that appellant’s trial counsel acquiesced in the ruling complained of.

Although counsel had requested the police record of both the defendant (to which he was entitled) and to that of state witnesses, in his argument he insisted only upon that of the witnesses. See P. 2. Although counsel did object to the ruling in favor of the state (P. 3), later, in reference to the ruling, he stated “ * * * actually in this particular case it’s probably moot because the only thing was witnesses, and I suspect the witnesses are police officers.” See P. 4.

Since the only prejudice sustained was from the failure of the state to supply his trial counsel his criminal record, we think the colloquy shows that defense counsel at trial urged only his right to receive the record of the witnesses and acquiesced in the trial court’s'failure to furnish him the police record both of the accused and that of the witnesses.

Accordingly, the application for rehearing is denied.

REHEARING DENIED.

SUMMERS and DENNIS, JJ., vote to deny the rehearing.
Exhibit 99.2



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 Annual Report of CRYO-CELL International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending November 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jill Taymans, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 results of operations of the Company.





|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Jill Taymans                                
|Jill Taymans Vice President, Finance March 14, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 709 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 709

 To amend title 46, United States Code, to provide statutory authority 
 for the Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services of 
   the Federal Maritime Commission, to increase public awareness and 
 understanding of ocean shipping services agreements and such Office, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2019

  Mr. Posey (for himself and Mr. Garamendi) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 46, United States Code, to provide statutory authority 
 for the Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services of 
   the Federal Maritime Commission, to increase public awareness and 
 understanding of ocean shipping services agreements and such Office, 
                        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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Common Sense Maritime and Consumer 
Services Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES OF 
              THE FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION; INCREASING PUBLIC 
              AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING.

    (a) Requirement.--Chapter 403 of title 46, United States Code is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 40108. Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution 
              Services of the Federal Maritime Commission
    ``(a) Authorization of Office.--There shall be in the Federal 
Maritime Commission an Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute 
Resolution Services (in this section referred to as the `Office').
    ``(b) Function of Office.--To promote better public understanding, 
the Office shall seek to--
            ``(1) raise public awareness about ocean shipping 
        agreements between carriers, use of ocean transportation 
        intermediaries, and other shipping services; and
            ``(2) assist consumers in confidentially resolving disputes 
        and other related matters deemed valuable to the consumer by 
        the Commission.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of such 
chapter is further amended by adding at the end the following:

``40108. Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services of 
                            the Federal Maritime Commission.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Aubrey L. HAYNES v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53837.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 7, 1973.

In re: Aubrey L. Haynes, applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The judgment of trial court is correct.
#### Charles W. BACHMAN et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF BOCA RATON, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-689.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 22, 1973.

Walter A. Faiks and Gaylord A. Wood, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Jerome F. Skrandel, Boca Raton, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Stone v. City of Maitland, 5 Cir. 1971, 446 F.2d 83; City of Miami Beach v. Ocean and Inland Co., 1941, 147 Fla. 480, 3 So.2d 364; County of Brevard v. Woodham, Fla.App.1969, 223 So.2d 344, 347, cert. denied, Fla., 229 So.2d 872, and Board of Com’rs of State Inst. v. Tallahassee B. & T. Co., Fla.App.1958, 108 So.2d 74, 85, cert. quashed, Fla., 116 So.2d 762.

REED, C. J., WALDEN, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2549 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow workers an abovethe-line deduction for union dues and expenses and to allow a miscellaneous itemized deduction for workers for all unreimbursed expenses incurred in the trade or business of being an employee. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2021 

Mr. LAMB (for himself, Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania, Mr. POCAN, 

Ms. NORTON, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Ms. SHERRILL, Ms. 

BROWNLEY, and Mrs. AXNE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow workers an above-the-line deduction for union dues and expenses and to allow a miscellaneous itemized deduction 

for workers for all unreimbursed expenses incurred in 

the trade or business of being an employee. 

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 ‘‘Tax Fairness for 

5 Workers Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2549 IH

1 SEC. 2. ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EX2 PENSES OF THE TRADE OR BUSINESS OF 

3 BEING AN EMPLOYEE. 

4 (a) ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION FOR UNION DUES

5 AND EXPENSES.—Section 62(a)(1) of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following new sentence: ‘‘The limitation under the pre8 ceding sentence shall not apply to deductions which are 

9 attributable to a trade or business consisting of the per10 formance of services by the taxpayer as an employee if 

11 such deductions are for union dues and expenses.’’. 

12 (b) ALLOWANCE OF MISCELLANEOUS ITEMIZED DE13 DUCTION FOR OTHER EXPENSES OF THE TRADE OR

14 BUSINESS OF BEING AN EMPLOYEE.—Section 67(g) of 

15 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

16 (1) by striking ‘‘2025.—Notwithstanding sub17 section (a),’’ and inserting ‘‘2025.— 

18 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsection 

19 (a), except as provided in paragraph (2),’’; and 

20 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION FOR EXPENSES OF THE

22 TRADE OR BUSINESS OF BEING AN EMPLOYEE.— 

23 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) shall 

24 not apply to miscellaneous itemized deductions 

25 for any taxable year which are itemized deduc26 tions attributable to a trade or business carried 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2549 IH

1 on by the taxpayer which consists of the per2 formance of services by the taxpayer as an em3 ployee. 

4 ‘‘(B) APPLICATION OF 2-PERCENT TEST.— 

5 In applying subsection (a) for any taxable year 

6 to which this paragraph applies, only the 

7 itemized deductions described in subparagraph 

8 (A) shall be taken into account as miscellaneous 

9 itemized deductions.’’. 

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

12 December 31, 2020. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q Equivalent of Birds
Eye Foods, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 24, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on February
3, 2006, and as amended by the Form 10-Q/A Equivalent (Amendment No. 1) filed
with the Commission on March 20, 2006 (collectively, the "Report"), I, Neil
Harrison, 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 my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: March 29, 2006                    /s/ Neil Harrison
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Chairman of the Board, President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)

                                        7
SCEC

- 2 2

- 0000 682

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

________________________________________________________________ JAMES RYAN MALISH and KARL O

. DICKS , Plaintiffs ,

vs. SCOTT NAGO, acting in official capacity of Chief Election Officer, STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I OFFICE OF ELECTIONS, and ELECTIONS COMMISSION, Defendants

.

________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAIN T IN PART (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilso n, and Eddins, JJ.)

On November 4 , 2022, Plaintiffs filed an election
complaint that appears to seek relief under the primary election

contest statute, HRS § 11

- 173.5. It is beyond the allowable

time to seek relief under HRS § 11

- 173.5. See HRS § 11

- 1 73.5(a)
(“ In a primary . . . election contest, . . . the complaint shall
be filed in the office of the clerk of the supreme court no

later than 4:30 p.m. on the thirteenth day after a primary . . .
election[ .]”). To the extent Plaintiffs’ arguments seek relief

under HRS § 11

- 173.5, these claims are untimely. Accordingly, Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCEC-22-0000682 14-NOV-2022 08:44 AM Dkt. 8 ORD2 It is ordered that the complaint is dismissed in part,

or to the extent relief is sought under HRS § 11

- 173.5

. The

court will instead construe the complaint as a general election

contest.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, November 14, 2022.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
AGENDA

Financial Literacy and Education Commission Public Meeting 

October 18, 2012 10:30 am–12:00 pm

U.S. Department of the Treasury – Cash Room

Welcome and Remarks 

Cyrus Amir-Mokri, Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions, US Department of the Treasury

Mary Miller, Undersecretary for Domestic Finance, US Department of the Treasury

Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

Commission Strategic Focus: “Starting Early for Financial Success”

Melissa Koide, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consumer Policy, US Department of the Treasury

Commission Member Discussion 

Reflections from the Private Sector 

Ted Beck, President and CEO, National Endowment for Financial Education and Chair, Research and 

Evaluation Subcommittee, President’s Advisory Council on Financial Capability

Commission Member Discussion and Announcements 

Closing