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

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, SGS North America, Inc., 12650 McManus Blvd., Suite 103, Newport News, VA 23602, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov*. Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                    

*http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​*

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on September 8, 2011. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2014.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

      ( print page 12866)    
Dated: February 21, 2012.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. 2012-5103 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
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
 
 
 I, Gabriel Battista, Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors of Talk America Holdings, Inc., have reviewed Talk America Holdings, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 and, based on the inquiries I have made or caused to be made in the fulfillment of my responsibilities as the Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors of Talk America Holdings, Inc., I hereby certify that:
 
 (i) the Talk America Holdings, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Talk America Holdings, Inc.
 
 This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors of Talk America Holdings, Inc. with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be used for any other purposes. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Talk America Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Talk America Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 /s/ Gabriel Battista
 Gabriel Battista
 Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors
 March 12, 2004
#### In the Matter of Sterling Idea Ventures, Appellant, v Plannning Board of the Town of Southold, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Planning Board of the Town of Southold that an application for site plan approval would be reviewed under the Town’s new zoning code, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), dated August 16, 1989, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Commencing in June 1987 the petitioner and the respondent Planning Board of the Town of Southold engaged in negotiations concerning the petitioner’s application for site plan approval to construct retail office space in Southold, New York. The negotiations continued beyond February 1, 1989, the effective date of a new Town zoning code, and when the Planning Board notified the petitioner by letter dated March 22, 1989, that its pending application would be reviewed under the new code, the petitioner brought this proceeding. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the March 22, 1989, letter was not a final determination and that, therefore, the matter was not ripe for adjudication. We agree.

The Planning Board’s letter states explicitly that the petitioner’s application was "pending” and that it would continue the review process "[u]pon receipt of revised site plans”. Thus, there has been no showing by the petitioner that the Planning Board’s action had a " 'direct and immediate’ ” effect on it *(Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew v Barwick,*67 NY2d 510, 519-520, *cert denied*479 US 985, quoting *Abbott Labs. v Gardner,*387 US 136, 152), and the March 22, 1989, letter cannot be considered a final administrative action. Further, there is no indication in the record that the petitioner sought a variance from the new zoning code before initiating this proceeding *(see, Williamson Planning Commn. v Hamilton Bank,*473 US 172, 186). Therefore, the Supreme Court prop*476erly dismissed the proceeding, because the controversy is not ripe for adjudication. Harwood, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
### Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0998 **Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted **Date** Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  3/10/11 **Regional Airline Associati on**  **Dave Lotterer Connie**  **Arnold** 3/10/11 **Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman**  3/10/11 **ATA Joe White**  3/10/11
Certificate ofService

In the matter of: FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION



### v. BRIAN WALLAESA Complainant,

Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )



# ___________________________) FDMS No. FAA-2010-0628 Docket No. CP10WP0010 Hon. Ronnie A. Yoder

I hereby certify that I have sent on this date byFedEx a copy ofall motions and filings contained herein addressed to the following: John C. Stuart, Jr., Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591 TEL: 202-267-9958 FAJ(:202-267-5106 The Hon. Ronnie A. Yoder, ChiefAdministrative Law Judge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20, Room E12-320 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2142 FAJ(: 202-366-7536 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000Brian A. Wallaesa Respondent 11272 Wortham Crest Circle Manassas, VA 20109 (570) 778-1335 Dated May 19,2012In the matter of: FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION



### v. BRIAN WALLAESA BRIAN A WALLAESA

Complainant,

Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FDMS No. FAA-2010-0628 Docket No. CP10WP0010 Hon. Ronnie A. Yoder



# ___________________________)
Respondent Witness List and Summary ofTestimony
Brian Wallaesa (the Respondent) herby files a witness list and summaries of testimony as requested by the Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder. This filing is a response to the incorrect filing ofMay 15, 2012. The Respondent respectfully requests the option to call the following individuals
as witnesses in the hearing on May 22,2012 at 10:00 AM in Washington, D.C. (1) Brian Wallaesa Respondent and Passenger on Southwest Airlines, Flight 3049 11272 Wortham Crest Circle Manassas, VA 20109 

### Mr. Wallaesa is expected to testify as to his interactions with the flight attendants, the Jamie Tomchik (the female passenger), and Agent James Mollica.Dated May 18, 2012 Respectfully

## Sul;nnit'f'~

# ~dit!<~/**~{;:o/· ~·** **£~.**

# _**____)/'~ ~**  

# ... . . ... Brian A. Wallaesa Respondent 11272 Wortham Crest Circle Manassas, VA 20109 (570) 778-1335
EX-10.18


     

    Exhibit
      10.18

    
 

    
      	
              Notice
                of Grant of Stock Options 

              and
                Option Agreement

            	
              Greater
                Community Bancorp

              ID:
                22-2545165

              55
                Union Boulevard

              Totowa,
                New Jersey 07512

            
	 	 	 
	
              [Grantee
                NAME]

            	
              Option
                Number:

            	
              XXXXXXXX

            
	
              [Grantee
                ADDRESS]

            	
              Plan:

            	
              XXXX

            
	 	
              ID:

            	
              XXXXXXXXX

            
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 


    

    


    Effective
      XX/XX/200X, you have been granted a(n) Non-Qualified Stock Option to buy X
      shares of Greater Community Bancorp (the Company) stock at $XX.XXXX per
      share.

    


    The
      total
      option price of the shares granted is $X,XXX.XX.

    


    Shares
      in
      each period will become fully vested on the date shown.

    


    
      	
              Shares

            	 	
              Vest
                Type

            	 	
              Full
                Vest

            	 	
              Expiration

            
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 


    

    


     

     

     

     

     

     

    
      
        

      



    By
      your
      signature and the Company's signature below, you and the Company agree that
      these options are granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of
      the
      Company's Stock Option Plan as amended, which is attached and made a part of
      this document.

     

    
      
        

      



    
      	 	 	 
	
              Greater
                Community Bancorp

            	 	
              Date

            
	 	 	 
	
              [Grantee
                SIGNATURE]

            	 	
              Date
OFFIf OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

questing 

matter. 

4th 

Honorable I. I. Masale 

County Auditor 

Xllbarger Couuty 

Vernon, Texar 

Dear Sir: 

r of resent date reII the above ~stated 

s of September 

Distrlo t Clerk 

eal on any copy 

hat the two ohargee are ldentloal.’ 

me where one aharga 1s applioable 

provisiona or Ii. B, No. 642, 49th Legislature, referred to 

in your lcttsr, as well at the type of rrerrlor coritaaaplated 

for t&e respeotlre fees prescribed, yc?a are adrisad, a8 

follows : 

(1) *Certlfloate and seal on any oooy” involves the 

dbtrlat elerk.8 service la preparing a eertlfloato and atflxlng his seal thereto, and attaohlng 
- . 

Honorable F. L. Masai*, page 2 

said aertliloats and oral to s oopy of an ln#trumant on lile in his otrioe, when said oopy~4ias 

bean proparrd by aam psraon other than th& dir-. 

triot olerk. In thla lnstanoe the oler merely 

aartlfles that a partloular aopy of M L ntrwmt 

is a true an4 eorrrot aopy o? sn original lnstrasent on ills In his oftios, and it doaa not fnvalve the duty of the aotual preparation of the 

COPY l 

(2) “Faoh oertlflaats o? any fasts aontalnsd in him 

ii “lnld th di tl rot 8lork*8 8rrrloes 

&%ohi~“h2~ reiordi. meparing a rtatrmrnt 

of the laatter or iaot tovdiiofi he ~ertliler and 

his aertltleatr to sama. This ir dlatingalshable froa the serviaes oantemplated in (1) ia 

that it ir not oontsqplated that the olerk ln 

(1) will prepare the oo+ ,of the instrmant 

whioh he oertlfirn f8 a rue and oorreot oopy, 

while in (2) It is oontsmplated that the 61erk 

will prepare tha rtatsmenh of the matter m 

taot to xhlah he aertltlrs, or will transorlbo 

name from the original, aa well as maka the 

oartifioats to suoh faot. 

?#a trust that tha foregohg ratlsfaotori.lY anmars 

your lnquirle*, 

Your8 rery trulf, 

&f .:, f ~> ;.‘: ATTORHBY OlcNmAL or TEXAS 

aAB:ddt
Exhibit 32.2      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES- OXLEY ACT OF 2002    I, John E. Mack, Principal  Financial Officer of International Power Group, Ltd. (the Company), do hereby 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:  1.This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.     Date:  November 3, 2006   /s/ John E. MackJohn E. Mack(Chief Financial Officer)
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1977 

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on 9, 10- 

Anthracenedione. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

Ms. CANTWELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty 

on 9, 10-Anthracenedione. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 9, 10-ANTHRACENEDIONE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.05 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 9, 10-Anthracenedione) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking the article description and in8 serting the following: ‘‘Mixtures of 2-tert-amyl 9, 10- 

9 anthraquinone (CAS No. 32588–54–8) and 2-iso10 amyl-9, 10-anthraquinone (CAS No. 68892–28–4) 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1977 IS

1 (provided for in subheading 2914.69.60) or in or2 ganic solution (provided for in subheading 

3 3824.90.28)’’; and 

4 (2) by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

8 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *574Rodrick H. Peters, Also Known as Peter H. Roger, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Zweibel, J.), rendered June 23, 1989, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant unlawfully entered the home where the complainant resided and caused physical injury to an occupant thereof *(see,*Penal Law § 140.30 [2]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
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 Souvall-Page and Company, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), we, David C. Merrell, President and director, and Todd D.
Ross, Secretary/Treasurer 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:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

Dated: 11/7/06                           /s/David C. Merrell
       -------                            ---------------------------
                                         David C. Merrell
                                         President and director

Dated: 11/7/06                           /s/Todd D. Ross
      --------                            ---------------------------
                                         Todd D. Ross
                                         Secretary/Treasurer and director
[4910-I3-P]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Adm..inist.-ation

14 CFR Part 39

30/0

[Docket ,No. FAA-2010-0176; Directorate [dentine.- 2009-NM-201-AD; Arnendmen LJ ING,YMBOl

39!~9.!\r,201O)J_:J)3 ,,,,,";,,

, C.C~

RlN 2120-AA64 flATE

'Ii5"1, 0

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EJ'vfBRAER) Mod T

u:rr4-

KOUTI SYMIK>

5 ID

ROUT' 0 SYMBO"

-10

originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FA.A.), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for tbe products list

ERJ 170 Airplanes

During ERJ 170 airplane full scale fatigue test, cracks were found in some

structural components ofthe airplane. Analysis of these cracks resulted in

modifications on the airplane Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALl), to

include new inspections tasks or modification of existing ones and its

respective thresholds and intervals.

INITLAUlIS,G

ROUT''''' ~YM80l

Failure to inspect these components according to the new tasks, thresholds

and intervals, could prevent a timely detection of fatigue cracks.

Undetected fatigue cracks in these areas could adversely affect the

structural integrity of these airplanes.

DATE

QlITlNGSYMllOc

* * * * * * *
#### Eric Erwig, Appellant, v Edward F. Cook Agency, Inc., Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for the defendant’s failure to recommend that the plaintiff obtain insurance coverage for underinsured motorists, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated October 26, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered December 14, 1989, which is in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, *Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

We are satisfied that no issues of material fact precluded the granting of summary judgment in the defendant’s favor. There is no common-law duty of an insurance company or its agency to advise a client to procure coverage not already provided in the client’s policy *(see, Downey v Allstate Ins. Co.,*638 F Supp 322, 323 [SD NY]; *Callahan v American Motorists Ins. Co.,*56 Misc 2d 734). Moreover, even if there is an issue of fact as to whether the defendant was an agent of the plaintiff’s parents (under whose policy he was named), the issue is not material. While an insurance broker acting as an agent of its customer has a duty of reasonable care to the customer to obtain the requested coverage within a reasonable time after the request, or to inform the customer of the agent’s inability to do so, the agent owes no continuing duty to advise, guide or direct the customer insured to obtain additional coverage *(see, Blonsky v Allstate Ins. Co.,*128 Misc 2d 981). The record establishes only that the plaintiff’s mother inquired of the defendant whether she had good coverage for the plaintiff taking a car out of State. She made no specific request for coverage that would have provided protection in the event of an accident with an underinsured motorist. In the absence of a specific request, the defendant had no duty to recommend or *440obtain that coverage. Harwood, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.