alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3471

AN ACT

To authorize the leasing of naval vessels to certain

foreign countries.
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3471

AN ACT

To authorize the leasing of naval vessels to certain foreign

countries.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO LEASE NAVAL VESSELS TO CER4 TAIN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

5 The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to lease to

6 the following foreign governments the following naval

7 vessels:
2

•HR 3471 EH

1 (1) BRAZIL.—To the Government of Brazil, the

2 ‘‘KNOX’’ class frigates HEPBURN (FF 1055),

3 PATTERSON (FF 1061), FRANCIS HAMMOND

4 (FF 1067), DOWNES (FF 1070), BLAKELY (FF

5 1072), and PAUL (FF 1080).

6 (2) EGYPT.—To the Government of Egypt, the

7 ‘‘KNOX’’ class frigates JESSE L. BROWN (FFT

8 1089) and MOINESTER (FFT 1097).

9 (3) MOROCCO.—To the Government of Mo10 rocco, the ‘‘KNOX’’ class frigate VALDEZ (FF

11 1096).

12 (4) OMAN.—To the Government of Oman, the

13 ‘‘KNOX’’ class frigate MILLER (FF 1091).

14 (5) SPAIN.—To the Government of Spain, the

15 ‘‘KNOX’’ class frigates AYLWIN (FF 1081) and

16 PHARRIS (FF 1094).

17 (6) TAIWAN.—To the Coordination Council for

18 North American Affairs (which is the Taiwan instru19 mentality designated pursuant to section 10(a) of

20 the Taiwan Relations Act), the ‘‘KNOX’’ class frig21 ates JOSEPH HEWES (FFT 1078), COOK (FF

22 1083), and BARBEY (FF 1088).

23 (7) THAILAND.—To the Government of Thai24 land, the ‘‘KNOX’’ class frigates MARVIN

25 SHIELDS (FF 1066), HAROLD E. HOLT (FF
3

•HR 3471 EH

1 1074), OUELLET (FF 1077), and TRUETT (FFT

2 1095).

3 (8) TURKEY.—To the Government of Turkey,

4 the ‘‘KNOX’’ class frigates BOWEN (FFT 1079),

5 McCANDLESS (FFT 1084), DONALD B. BEARY

6 (FFT 1085), and AINSWORTH (FFT 1090).

7 (9) VENEZUELA.—To the Government of Ven8 ezuela, the ‘‘KNOX’’ class frigates ROARK (FF

9 1053) and GRAY (FF 1054).

10 SEC. 2. APPLICABLE LAW.

11 The leases authorized by section 1 shall be in accord12 ance with chapter 6 of the Arms Export Control Act (22

13 U.S.C. 2796 and following), except that section 62 of that

14 Act (22 U.S.C. 2796a; relating to reports to Congress)

15 shall apply only to renewal of the leases.

16 SEC. 3. COSTS OF LEASES.

17 Any expense of the United States in connection with

18 a lease authorized by section 1 shall be charged to the

19 recipient.

20 SEC. 4. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.

21 The authority granted by section 1 shall expire at the

22 end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the en-
4

•HR 3471 EH

1 actment of this Act, except that leases entered into under

2 that authority during that period may be renewed.

Passed the House of Representatives November 18,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Ethel KURZWEIL and William Schwartz, Appellants, v. Edwin O. SIMON, as Curator of the Estate of Morris Kurzweil deceased; Alan Kurzweil as Custodian for Jodi Lynn Kurzweil and Melba, Inc., Appellees.

No. 70-288.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 1, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
AAM-10-212-E 

April 9, 2010 

 Exemption No. 10048 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0359 

Mr. David MacDonald 

President 

Flamingo Air 

262 Wilmer Avenue 

Cincinatti, OH 45226 

Dear Mr. MacDonald: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated March 20, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Flamingo Air (Flamingo Air) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Flamingo Air, which 

is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees 

under one testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Flamingo Air. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 
2 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant 

of exemption; 

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Flamingo Air, an exemption from part 120 to the extent 

necessary to allow Flamingo Air, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to 

cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and 

limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Flamingo Air are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

 2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

 Flaming on Air part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

                  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), Anthony J. Bettencourt, III., President and
Chief Executive Officer of Verity, Inc. (the "Company"), and Steven R.
Springsteel, Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of their
knowledge:

         1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
         February 28, 2003, and to which this Certification is attached as
         Exhibit 99.1 (the "PERIODIC REPORT"), fully complies with the
         requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, and

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

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of
         the 10th day of April, 2003.

         /s/ ANTHONY J. BETTENCOURT, III.
         -------------------------------------------------
         Anthony J. Bettencourt, III., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

         /s/ STEVEN R. SPRINGSTEEL
         -------------------------------------------------
         Steven R. Springsteel, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE AND
         ADMINISTRATION AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Verity, Inc. and will be retained by Verity, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification "accompanies" the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any
filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the
date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**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 Santo Mining Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alain French, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 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.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Santo Mining Corporation and will be retained by Santo Mining Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. William H. JONES, Respondent.

No. 42813.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 12, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 265 So.2d 514.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-14-00284- CV In re State F arm Lloyd s, Ke nneth Ed ward An derson and Gle nn H art

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. SeeTex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Filed: June 19, 2014
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add Global Expedited Package Services 10 to the Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice:*                         August 21, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kyle R. Coppin, (202) 268-2368.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642, on August 15, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of The United States Postal Service to add Global Expedited Package Services 10 to the Competitive Products List*. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-207 and CP2018-289.                

Christopher C. Meyerson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-17968 Filed 8-20-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Williams, Renee (OST) From: Sent: Rich Corbett [tiparrotheads@yahoo.com] Saturday, August 21,20102:52 PM To: EAS (OST) Subject: Support for Cape Air at Watertown, NY

Hello, We have already sent in a letter ofsupport for Cape Air's EAS proposal for the North Country stations in New York. Seeing the newspaper story today showing Jefferson Countyhas decided to announce their support for Cape Air's compeititor onthe last day ofsubmissions has forced me to write one more time. Since the 1000 Islands Parrot Head Club has already expressed our support for the Cape Airproposal and since there was no public forum byJefferson County for people to express their opinion, we hope you will accept this as arebuttal to the Jefferson Countyendorsement. In ourprevious letter ofsupport, we told ofhow Cape Air had supported the 1000 Islands Parrot Head Club and how they havehelped us raise over $10,000 for MakeA Wish over the past three summers. We are sure you know, but we want to point out the added cost ofthe Gulfstream International proposal for service that is being offered by Cape Air albeit with a quick stop in Albany. Gulfstream is offering less flights perday. Yes, on weekdays, this would providenine more seats ontwo flights than Cape Air offers onthree, but on weekends, it would actually offer less seats with only one flight per day, again at a much higher subsidy. Newspaper (WatetownDailyTimes) reports say Gulfstream swayed Massena's endorsement after the Townhad already voted to support Cape Airby offering Albany service out ofOgdensburg ifthey receive the contract. It is unfair to change their proposal in midstream after they have seenthe opposing proposal. Ontop ofthat, Ogdensburghas endorsed Cape Air with a connecting flight, Albanyto Boston, at a much lower subsidy level. Gulfstream says they will maintain flights for $39 to Boston. With aproposed $15 million in subsidies for the three airports overtwo years, they could afford to fly people for free! Is this what EAS is intended to do? We also feel it was unfair for Jefferson Countyto hold backtheir endorsement until the last day ofpublic comment, ineffectkeeping the public from responding to their endorsement. Ifthe community was filling the CapeAirflights, we could understand the need for larger aircraft. The Beech 1900 has serviced this area before without being able to produce the numbers Jefferson Countyis looking for. Is it worth a $15 million gamble overtwo years to move away from a stable air carrierthat continues to provide reliable service while being a good partner in the community? Wehope you consider our comments. Thank you Andrea Bos President 1000 Islands Parrot Head Club P.O. Box 8263 Watertown, NY 13601

1
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3455

To amend title 39, United States Code, to prevent mass mailings from

being sent as franked mail, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 4, 1993

Mr. PORTMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Post Office and Civil Service and House Administration

A BILL

To amend title 39, United States Code, to prevent mass

mailings from being sent as franked mail, 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. MASS MAILINGS NOT MAILABLE AS FRANKED

4 MAIL.

5 Paragraph (6)(A) of section 3210(a) of title 39, Unit6 ed States Code, is amended to read as follows:

7 ‘‘(6)(A) It is the intent of Congress that a Member

8 of, or Member-elect to, Congress may not mail any mass

9 mailing as franked mail.’’.
2

•HR 3455 IH

1 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

2 (a) TITLE 39, UNITED STATES CODE.—Section 3210

3 of title 39, United States Code, is amended—

4 (1) in subsection (a)(3)—

5 (A) in subparagraph (G) by striking ‘‘, in6 cluding general mass mailings,’’; and

7 (B) in subparagraphs (I) and (J) by strik8 ing ‘‘or other general mass mailing’’;

9 (2) in subsection (a)(6) by repealing subpara10 graphs (B), (C), and (F), and the second sentence

11 of subparagraph (D);

12 (3) by repealing paragraph (7) of subsection

13 (a); and

14 (4) by repealing subsection (f).

15 (b) LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT,

16 1990.—Section 316 of the Legislative Branch Appropria17 tions Act, 1990 (39 U.S.C. 3210 note) is repealed.

18 (c) LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT,

19 1991.—Subsection (f) of section 311 of the Legislative

20 Branch Appropriations Act, 1991 (Public Law 101–520;

21 104 Stat. 2280) is repealed.
3

•HR 3455 IH

1 SEC. 3. RETURN OF EXCESS AMOUNTS FROM OFFICIAL AL2 LOWANCES OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF

3 REPRESENTATIVES TO THE TREASURY FOR

4 DEFICIT REDUCTION.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other law, or

6 any rule or other authority, any amount remaining in an

7 official allowance of a Member of the House of Represent8 atives at the end of the session of Congress or other period

9 for which the allowance is made available shall be returned

10 to the Treasury, to be used for deficit reduction.

11 (b) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—

12 (1) the term ‘‘Member of the House of Rep13 resentatives’’ means a Representative in, or a Dele14 gate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;

15 and

16 (2) the term ‘‘official allowance’’ means, with

17 respect to a Member of the House of Representa18 tives, the Official Mail Allowance.

19 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

20 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect

21 at the beginning of, and shall apply with respect to ses22 sions of Congress beginning with, the first session of the

23 One Hundred Fourth Congress.

Æ
# C_2014336EN.01002102.xml

| 26.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/21

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2014/C 336/07)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 28.8.2014 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 28.8.2014-31.12.2014 |
| Member State | Ireland |
| Stock or Group of stocks | PCR/N1GRN |
| Species | Snow crab (Chionoecetes spp.) |
| Zone | Greenland waters of NAFO 1 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 33/TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

28.8.2014

Duration

28.8.2014-31.12.2014

Member State

Ireland

Stock or Group of stocks

PCR/N1GRN

Species

Snow crab (Chionoecetes spp.)

Chionoecetes

Zone

Greenland waters of NAFO 1

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

33/TQ43

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
#### PASCO LAND, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. PASCO RANCHES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 7215.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Feb. 15, 1967.

Rehearing Denied March 20, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WISBEN SANON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-713

[April 12, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Lawrence M. Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562017CF001914.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

FORST, J.

Appellant Wisben Sanon appeals his conviction for several sexual 

assault crimes, raising two arguments on appeal. First, Sanon argues his 

conviction by a six-person jury violated his rights under the Sixth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution. We have recently 

addressed this issue and affirm without discussion. See Guzman v. State, 

350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Second, Sanon contends the State made improper rebuttal closing 

argument when it showed the jury a placard with the reasonable doubt 

instruction juxtaposed with the phrase “motive plus opportunity is not 

reasonable doubt.” The State explained this was a reference to Sanon’s 

defense that he had been framed for the charged crimes and the jury 

should find reasonable doubt attributable to the accusers’ motive and 

opportunity to plant damaging evidence. 

We review a trial court’s control of prosecutorial closing comments for 

abuse of discretion. Narcisse v. State, 166 So. 3d 954, 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2015). In exercising that discretion, trial courts will properly permit the 
parties “wide latitude in closing argument to a jury.” Stephens v. State, 

975 So. 2d 405, 421 (Fla. 2007). 

As a response to Sanon’s primary defense, the State’s rebuttal closing 

argument was well within that latitude. See State v. Compo, 651 So. 2d 

127, 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (“Fundamental notions of fairness require[] 

that the state be allowed to comment on . . . issues raised by the 

defendant.”). Moreover, the State informed the jury that the objected-to 

statement “is obviously not part of the instruction [on reasonable doubt].” 

Upon further defense objection, the trial court clarified that the 

prosecution was merely emphasizing what was and what was not in the 

agreed-upon reasonable doubt jury instruction, with the court informing 

the jury “what is and what isn’t reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen, 

will ultimately be for you to decide.” The trial court’s comments, on top of 

the State’s explanation, “remov[ed] any question of an improper taint on 

the jury’s understanding of the burden of proof.” Thomas v. State, 726 So. 

2d 369, 372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We accordingly find no error. 

Affirmed.

GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Felix MONTALDO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-969.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 18, 1969.

Felix Montaldo, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.