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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2985

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue

regulations relating to recirculation of fresh air in commercial aircraft,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 6, 1993

Mr. NADLER (for himself and Mr. DEFAZIO) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue regulations relating to recirculation of

fresh air in commercial aircraft, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RECIRCULATION OF FRESH AIR IN COMMER4 CIAL AIRCRAFT.

5 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact6 ment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Avia7 tion Administration shall issue—

8 (1) regulations which require that each aircraft

9 operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier to
2

•HR 2985 IH

1 provide air transportation have a ventilation system

2 which provides in the cabin of the aircraft not less

3 than 20 cubic feet of fresh air per minute per person

4 in the cabin; and

5 (2) regulations relating to—

6 (A) monitoring of recirculating air filters

7 to ensure that such filters are changed when

8 they need to be;

9 (B) maintaining a minimum standard of

10 humidity in the cabin of the aircraft; and

11 (C) monitoring of ozone levels in the cabin

12 to assure compliance with current regulations.

13 SEC. 2. REPORTING OF AIR TRAVEL RELATED ILLNESSES.

14 (a) TOLL FREE TELEPHONE NUMBER.—Not later

15 than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,

16 the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration

17 shall establish and maintain a toll free telephone number

18 system for receiving telephone calls to report illnesses re19 lating to air travel on aircraft used to provide air transpor20 tation of passengers.

21 (b) REPORTING.—The Administrator shall prepare,

22 publish, and transmit to Congress a quarterly report on

23 the telephone calls received under subsection (a). Each

24 such report shall contain, at a minimum, the total number

25 of calls received during the preceding calendar quarter, the
3

•HR 2985 IH

1 total number of such calls for each type of illness estab2 lished by the Administrator, and the total number of such

3 calls for each class of aircraft established by the Adminis4 trator per type of illness.

5 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

6 For purposes of this Act, the terms ‘‘air carrier’’,

7 ‘‘aircraft’’, ‘‘air transportation’’, and ‘‘foreign air carrier’’

8 have the meaning such terms have under section 101 of

9 the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.

Æ
cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
#### Harold BELLMAN and Clemence Bellman, his wife, Petitioners, v. YARMARK ENTERPRISES, INC., et al. Respondents.

No. 67-744.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 11, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
financial  statements for the three month period ended May 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000027850
<NAME>                        MARITIME TRANSPORT & TECHNOLOGY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     $
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              May-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Mar-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   May-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00
        



</TABLE>
2010

__ -NMDirectorate Identifier: REGULATORY EVALVA nON



# oJ -AD 1---

Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory ac ion"? YES () explain NO (X) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES () explain NO (X) Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities? YES () explain NO (X) Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation inAlaska. Is itappropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated inAlaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES () explain NO (X)
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases Governments
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB12-TPS.61 **Contact:**
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, SEPT. 25, 2012 Summary of State and Local Government Tax Revenue: 2nd Quarter 2012 This summary shows quarterly tax revenue statistics on property, sales, license, income and other taxes. Statistics are shown for individual state governments as well as national estimates of total state and local taxes, including 12-month calculations. This quarterly survey has been conducted continuously since 1962. Internet address: <https://www.census.gov/govs/qtax/>. **No news release associated with this product. Tip Sheet only.**
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1


                           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to
the use of our report dated March 17, 2000, included in the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus of iTurf Inc. that is made part of the Registration
Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-00000) for the registration of 27,844,294 shares
of its common stock.

                                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


New York, New York
August 28, 2000
# C_2014084EN.01000201.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7163 — Societe Generale/Newedge Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 84/02

On 14 March 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7163. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7163. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
No. 00-7338.

#### Wright *v.*Williams, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-2282

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Arkansas. Donaciano Rodriguez-Mercado, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 7, 2005 Filed: June 17, 2005

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Donaciano Rodriguez-Mercado (Rodriguez) appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed following his guilty plea to illegally reentering the United States after having been convicted of an aggravated felony and deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Rodriguez’s counsel initially moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In two subsequently filed supplemental briefs, counsel argues (1) Rodriguez’s sentence violates the Sixth Amendment, in light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), because the-2- district court made findings regarding the existence and nature of his prior conviction, thereby enhancing his sentence; and (2) Shepard v. United States , 125 S. Ct. 1254 (2005), implicitly overruled Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 226- 27 (1998). Rodriguez’s Sixth Amendment argument was not raised below, and there is no plain error, because Booker does not require a jury to find the fact of a prior conviction. See Booker , 125 S. Ct. at 756; cf. United States v. Marcussen , 403 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2005) (rejecting argument that nature of prior conviction is to be treated differently from fact of prior conviction; once sentencing court determines prior conviction exists, it is legal question for court whether crime meets “crime of violence” definition of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2). Also, we recently held Booker and Sheparddid not overrule Almendarez-Torres . See United States v. Patterson , No. 04- 1178, 2005 WL 1123555, at *2 (8th Cir. May 13, 2005).

In the Anders brief, counsel raises as issues (1) whether the district court afforded Rodriguez an opportunity to dismiss appointed counsel and retain new counsel, and (2) whether the court properly conducted the plea and sentencing hearings. These arguments fail. First, the motion transcript shows that the court gave Rodriguez the opportunity to hire new counsel. Second, any omissions in the plea colloquy did not affect Rodriguez’s substantial rights. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 124 S. Ct. 2333, 2340 (2004); United States v. Vonn , 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Thus, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
of Principal Financial Officer (1)





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the following certification is being made to accompany the Registrant’s
Annual Report on Form 10-K  for the period ended August 1,
2009:





In
connection with the Annual Report of Del Global Technologies Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended August 2, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark
Zorko, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
that to my knowledge:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and





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








By: /s/ Mark A ZorkoName:Mark
A Zorko


Title:  Principal
Financial Officer


Date:
November 9, 2009











(1)           A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Del Global Technologies Corp and will be retained by Del Global
Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
#### David Daryl WING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1399.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 22, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and John Lipinski, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Peter F. LaPorte, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and' HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Eastwood v. Hall, Fla.App.1973, 258 So.2d 269.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6636

BALDWIN NEIL FOSTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

SYBIL FOSTER,

Plaintiff,

versus

IDA WARREN, Attorney,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-284-AM)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Baldwin Neil Foster, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Baldwin Neil Foster appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Foster v. Warren, No. CA-98-284-AM (E.D. Va. Apr.

2, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. OSCEOLA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD for the Use and Benefit of CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS-SOUTHEAST, INC., successors to Hall-Mark Electrical Sales Co., Inc. of Orlando, Appellee.

No. 72-1141.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 22, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
AGENDA

Sergeant’s Pet Care Products, Inc. & PetLogic LLC

Product-Specific Mitigation Meeting

Thursday, July 22, 2010

I. Introductions and Purpose

II. Sergeant’s Pet Care Products, Inc. & PetLogic LLC Presentation

III. Agency Presentation & Response

IV. Other Issues

V. Questions and Answers

VI. Next Steps
#### Samir Tawedros et al., Appellants, v St. Vincent’s Hospital of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[721 NYS2d 237]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2000, which, in a medical malpractice action, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s cross motion to strike defendant-respondent hospital’s answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to strike was properly denied since it was not established that defendant hospital’s failure to produce plaintiff’s complete original hospital record was willful and contumacious *(see, Siegman v Rosen,*270 AD2d 14, 15). Defendant’s position is that the record was already lost before plaintiff had first demanded it, surmising that it was inadvertently destroyed when microfiched. The careless loss of a record is not willful *(see, Nabozny v Cappelletti,*267 AD2d 623, 626). As the IAS Court indicated, the circumstances, which include defendant’s production of an admittedly incomplete and allegedly altered copy of the record, warrant that the action proceed to trial, where the jury, under appropriate instructions relating to adverse inferences, can weigh the credibility of defendant’s explanations for destroying the original record and producing an incomplete and allegedly altered copy. Nor should defendant’s answer be stricken on the basis of the common-law doctrine of spoliation of evidence since it does not appear that plaintiff will be unable to prove his case without the items of information missing from the copy of the record that defendant provided, or that defendant has otherwise gained an unfair advantage as a result of the missing information *(see, Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose,*275 AD2d 11, 17-18; *cf., Kirkland v New York City Hous. Auth.,*236 AD2d 170). Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom and Friedman, JJ.
#### INVESTMENT PROPERTY BUILDERS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Appellant, v. EASTERN ELEVATOR COMPANY, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 66-921.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 1, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., dissents.