alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CEDAR CITY

REGIONAL AIRPORT 12September 2013

Dennis J. DeVany Office ofAviation Analysis USDepartment ofTransportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington DC, 20590

Dear Mr. DeVany, REGIONAL AIRPORT 2560 West Aviation Way Cedar City, UT 84720



# ., :\1o-J';"]1J\d\-I\'Yl:).' [ill.l"d CJnirnun Don Marchai'll !Lonl MC'lllhcr~ Ken Be37.er Jyl Schulc-r Jeff Middleton Scott Jolly Karl Hugh BQ'id Hall Oaie Brinkerhoff r\iijlPrt :-'1":.llil);"'- Russ Volk

U1 0,,) Re: Essential Air Service in Cedar City, Utal'l

Iappreciate the opportunity to comment onthe Skywest proposal thathas been submitted forthe Essential Air Service Grant forthe Cedar City Regional Airport.

I ampleased to support the SkyWest proposal for another two years of scheduled airline service. Since the arrival ofRegional Jet service, our passenger flow has dramatically increased. The added passenger flow repn;sents new economic opportunities forthe entire Cedar City area. Acritical factor inmy decision to support the SkyWest bid is their affiliation with major airline carriers such as Delta and. United. This affiliation is critical to our Frequent Flyerpassengers.
The 2005 construction ofa new Airport-Terminal, 2012 opening ofthe newly constructed Airport Fire Station andrecent rehabilitation ofthe main runway were efforts designed to support Regional Jet service to Cedar City. The SkyWest proposal ensures we continue our currentjet service for another two years. The currentjet service has generated additional passenger flows, thus creating increased economic development opportunities and tourism travel to visit local attractions aswell as our many regional National Monuments and Parks. 

# P!1u- £:;;Olk
Airport Manager

Airport Administration 435-867-9408 Airport Manager 435-691-3577 Airport Operations 435.463-7720 Airport Maintenance 435-233-0073 FAX 435.865.7051
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2213 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain food choppers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. LIEBERMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain food choppers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FOOD CHOPPERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Food choppers each with a 

reversible motor and a dual 

function blade, for grinding 

or chopping, with a bowl capacity of 0.6 liters or more, 

but not more than 1 liter 

(provided for in subheading 

8509.40.00) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2213 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
31.1




Certification


Pursuant
to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Exchange Act




I,
Gregory Webster, certify that:




1.           I
have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Fund.com Inc.;




2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4.           The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:




(a)           Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;




(b)           Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and




(c)           Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




5.           The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):




(a)           All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b)           Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.




Date:           August
14, 2008









/s/
      Gregory WebsterName:
            Gregory
      WebsterTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2279 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2279

         To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on DiTMP.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Voinovich) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on DiTMP.

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

SECTION 1. DITMP.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.97 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to DiTMP) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective column period and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2426 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2426

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain children's footwear.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

 Mr. Brownback introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain children's footwear.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN CHILDREN'S FOOTWEAR.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Other footwear for  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        persons other                                                      31/2011.......
                        than men or
                        women, with outer
                        soles and uppers
                        of rubber or
                        plastic, with
                        open toes or open
                        heels, other than
                        house slippers;
                        footwear of the
                        slip-on type,
                        that is held to
                        the foot without
                        the use of laces
                        or buckles or
                        other fasterners,
                        the foregoing
                        except footwear
                        of subheading
                        6402.99.20 and
                        except footwear
                        having a foxing
                        or foxing-like
                        band wholly or
                        almost wholly of
                        rubber or
                        plastics applied
                        or molded at the
                        sole and
                        overlapping the
                        upper (provided
                        for in subheading
                        6402.99.40)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 15

- 00004

- CR

LESLIE LEE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 42954

- A

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O R D E R

Leslie Lee appeals from her conviction of theft and the resulting sentence of six months’

confinement . The clerk’s record in this matter was filed February 5, 2015, and the reporter’s record

was filed March 30, making Lee’ s brief originally due April 29. This deadline was extended twice

by this Court on the motions of Lee’s retained counsel, Clement Dunn, resulting in the most recent

due date of June 10, 2015. Dunn has now filed a third motion seeking an additional extension of

Lee’s briefing deadline.

We have reviewed the third motion to extend time as well as the appellate record, and we

f ind no compelling information to convince us that this brief requires more time to prepare. The

motion to extend time to file Lee’s appellate brief is overruled.

We order Dunn to file Lee’s appellat e brief with this Court on or before July 1, 201 5

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: June 16, 2015
**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 Amended Quarterly Report of Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A filed on November 14, 2012 for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary C. Evans, chairman 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 the best of 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

November 14, 2012

 

 
|   | /s/   Gary C. Evans                      |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                     |   |
|   | **Gary C. Evans,**                       |   |
|   | **Chairman and Chief Executive Officer** |   |

 

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A filed on November 14, 2012 for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald D. Ormand, chief 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 the best of 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

November 14, 2012

 
|   | /s/   Ronald D. Ormand      |   |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   |                        |   |
|   | **Ronald D. Ormand,**       |   |
|   | **Chief Financial Officer** |   |

 

----
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Cavalier Group
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended February 28, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Periodic
Report), I, Gerald W. Williams, Chief Financial 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:

|1. | the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: April 12, 2007

/s/ Gerald W. Williams

Gerald W. Williams Chief Financial Officer

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Martin, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered October 13, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress a statement he made to the police and certain physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Much weight must be accorded the determination of the suppression court with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761; *People v Norris,*122 AD2d 82, 83). That determination should not be disturbed where it is supported by the record *(see, People v Norris, supra; People v Gee,*104 AD2d 561). Here, the court credited the officer’s testimony that he responded to a radio transmission about a family dispute, and observed, stopped and inquired of the defendant who, when asked, responded that he had had a fight with his girlfriend. When the girlfriend arrived, she told the officer that she had called 911 and that she wanted the defendant arrested for *565assaulting her. Thereafter, the officer arrested the defendant and conducted a search incident to that arrest, recovering the physical evidence the defendant now claims should have been suppressed.

Contrary to the defendant’s assertion that the action or, rather, inaction of the arresting officer in the face of the possibility that the defendant was armed, shows that his testimony was patently tailored to meet constitutional objections, the officer’s behavior is easily explainable under the circumstances herein. Upon initially encountering the defendant, the officer was not sure who he was or if a seizure would be reasonable. Because innocuous behavior is not enough to generate a founded or reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, it would be a violation of constitutional rights to seize, search and arrest an individual in the absence of any specific knowledge that the individual committed or intended to commit a crime, without affording that individual an opportunity to explain his or her conduct *(see, People v Carrasquillo,*54 NY2d 248, 254; *People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210; *People v Thompson,*132 AD2d 719). Thus, the officer here did not act unreasonably in choosing not to arrest the defendant until his girlfriend approached and confirmed that he had assaulted her.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### William J. SANCHEZ et al. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS et al.

No. 89-C-0883.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 26, 1989.

In re Sanchez, William J.; Gallodoro, Steven; Bums, Thomas J.; Reed, Nyles; Hampton, Richard J.; Felton, Nicholas; Charlet, John B.; Carbo, Larry L.; New Orleans Fightfighters #632; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-7040; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “J”, No. 86-5936.

Prior report: La.App., 538 So.2d 709.

Denied.
49764.

#### BENEFICIAL FINANCE COMPANY OF ATLANTA v. TREFF.

Bell, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff brought suit on a promissory note. The defendant did not file an answer and a default judgment was entered. Subsequently, defendant moved to set aside the judgment on the ground that the note reflected on its face that plaintiff contracted for interest in excess of that allowed under the Georgia Industrial Loan Act (Code Ann. § 25-301 et seq.; Ga. L. 1955, p. 431 et seq.). The court granted the motion. *Held:*

Plaintiff complains that the trial court erred by holding that this case was controlled by *Lawrimore v. Sun Finance Co.,*131 Ga. App. 96 (205 SE2d *110); Hardy v. G. A. C. Finance Corp.,*131 Ga. App. 282 (205 SE2d 526), affirmed, 232 Ga. 632 (208 SE2d 453). The contracts or notes in the cited cases and in this case all contain acceleration clauses to the effect that on default of an instalment a denominated sum would become immediately due and payable. In *Lawrimore,*the sum was described as "all instalments”; in *Hardy,*as "the entire balance”; and, here as "the entire amount.” Despite the synonymity of the language in *Hardy*with that here, plaintiff urges that the language must be read, "The entire amount [lawfully] due hereon.” We disagree. The insertion of the word "lawfully” is no more applicable here than in *Hardy.*Also, it is settled that no construction is either required or permitted when the contract language is plain, unambiguous, and capable of only one reasonable interpretation. Language must be afforded its literal *18meaning and ordinary words given their usual significance. *Wolverine Ins. Co. v. Jack Jordan, Inc.,*213 Ga. 299 (99 SE2d 95). The contract here discloses the face amount of the loan due to be the amount borrowed, a fee and interest for 24 months. The language as to the sum accelerated is unambiguous. It means that upon default of an instalment the balance of the face amount of the loan remaining unpaid becomes due, and that sum includes unearned interest. The note does not contain a provision for the rebate of unearned interest, but does contain a provision authorizing its collection. That is sufficient to void the obligation under *Lawrimore.*

Argued October 7, 1974

Decided January 29, 1975

Rehearing denied February 19, 1975

*Gambrell, Russell, Killorin, Wade & Forbes, Sewell K. Loggins, Douglas N. Campbell,*for appellant.

*Kendric E. Smith,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Quillian and Clark, JJ., concur.*
#### Buell, Trustee, *v.*Williamsport Staple Co., Appellant.

*Contracts*— Lease—Machinery—Lessee’s *option to pur chas e-^-Exercise of option*— Subsequent *bankruptcy of lessor*— Lessee’s *liability for purchase price.*‡

Where a corporation leased certain machinery and equipment to another company giving the latter the right to purchase same at a fixed price and providing that if lessor filed a petition in bankruptcy title should immediately pass to defendant, and defendant thereafter elected to purchase before proceedings in bankruptcy were instituted, its liability to pay the purchase-price became fixed and in an action by the trustee in bankruptcy, who sued in affirmance of the contract and did not interfere with defendant’s possession of the property, a verdict was properly directed for the plaintiff.

Argued Feb. 18, 1918.

Appeal, No. 281, Jan. T., 1917, *181by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lycoming Co., Sept. T., 1916, No. 195, on directed verdict for plaintiff, in case of Edwin D. Buell, Trustee of the G. A. Webster. Company, v. Williamsport Staple Company.

Before Potter, Stewart, Frazer and Walling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit on a contract. Before Whitehead, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict for plaintiff by direction of the court for $2,-957.20 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

*C. E. Sprout,*with him *John E. Cupp,*for appellant.

*Mortimer C. Rhone,*with him *A. R. Jackson,*for appellee.

April 22, 1918:

Per Curiam,

Under its contract with the G. A. Webster Company, the defendant acquired the right to use the machinery and equipment of that company during the period of the contract. It also had the right to purchase the machinery and equipment, together witji the stock and merchandise at a fixed price. It was further provided that, in case a petition in bankruptcy was filed against the Webster company, title to the machinery, equipment and merchandise should immediately vest in the defendant company upon certain conditions set forth. The defendant, however, exercised its right under the contract and became the purchaser of the property of the Webster company, before any proceedings in bankruptcy were instituted, and its liability to pay for the property the price named in the contract, therefore, became fixed. The trustee in bankruptcy brought this suit in affirmance of the contract, and there was no interference with defendant’s possession of the property. The court below *182was right, in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, and in overruling defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. The judgment entered upon the verdict for the plaintiff is, therefore, affirmed.