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

 26180 Curtiss Wright Parkway 

 Cleveland, Ohio 44143 

February 21, 2017 

US Department of Transportation 

Docket Management Facility 

West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Subject: Petition for Exemption Extension-14 CFR 91.203(a) & (b) and 47.49 

RE: Docket FAA-2015-1818 and Exemption 12476, Expiration 08/31/2017

Greetings, 

Flexjet, Air Carrier Operating Certificate J7SA150H, represented by Rachel Anesi, 

ranesi@flightoptions.com, Director of Quality Systems, 26180 Curtiss-Wright Parkway, Cleveland, 

OH 44143 petitions for an extension of Exemption Number 12476. 

Granting of this exemption extension would continue to provide relief for Flexjet from the 

requirement of 14 CFR 91.203(a) & (b) and 47.49 to the extent necessary to permit temporary 

operation of our U.S. registered aircraft in domestic operations without the registration and/or 

airworthiness certificates on board. Exemption 12476 was issued to Flexjet on August 13, 2015 and 

will expire on August 31, 2017, unless superseded or amended. 

In weighing the decision to grant this exemption extension to Flexjet, I respectfully request parallel 

consideration equal to those CFR Part 121 and 135 operators who are exempt from this regulation 

and have received an extension, given our ability to sustain the same equivalent level of safety. 

Extending Exemption 12476 does not adversely affect safety and is in the public interest, which 

warranted the original issuance of the exemption. 

The conditions and limitation memorialized in Exemption 12476 will continue status quo to assure; 

(1) administrative procedural controls remain in effect and (2) the airworthiness status and 

operational control remain unchanged. 

Exemption 12476 has been in use for almost two years; safety has not been compromised from the 

regulatory exemption and the absence of any unfavorable feedback from government agencies or 

aircraft owners demonstrates that the public interest has not been negatively impacted. If granted 

this extension, we will continue to sustain the equivalent level of safety every day. 

Respectfully, 

Rachel Anesi 

Rachel Anesi 

Flexjet 

Director of Quality Systems/Agent for Service
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors

MAF Bancorp, Inc. 

Weconsent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.’s 33-79110, 333-83534, 333-61792, 333-72863, 333-72865, 333-110986, 333-110990 and 333-132231) on Form S-8 of MAF Bancorp, Inc. of our reports dated March 13, 2006,relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition of MAF Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flowsfor each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005 and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of MAF Bancorp, Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

March 13, 2006
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

School Express, Inc., :

Appellant :

: No. 711 C.D. 2021

v. :

: Upper Adams School District :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3 rd d a y o f October

, 2023 , it is ORDERED that the

above

- captioned opinion filed on January 9 , 2023 , shall be designated OPINION

rather than MEMORANDUM OPINION, and it shall be reported.

________________________________ PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 131398 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131398 COA: 255255 Wayne CC: 04-001097-01 ANTRELL VONIQUE BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
#### Security National Bank, Plaintiff, *v.*Alfred Nardone et al., Defendants.

District Court of Suffolk County, First District,

February 3, 1971.

*Mullovly, Jeffrey & Rooney*for plaintiff. *Goetz <& Fitzpatrick*for defendants.

Alexander W. Kramer, J.

This is a motion to transfer the action to the Nassau County District Court. Defendant had previously moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently, a stipulation was entered into between the parties consenting to the transfer of the case to Nassau County. Plaintiff then wrote to the court requesting that defendants’ original motion to dismiss be withdrawn.

The court does not find any authority for it to transfer this action to Nassau County. Article VI (§19, subd. i) of the New York State Constitution reads as follows: “As may be provided by law, the district court or a town, village or city court outside the city of New York may transfer any action or proceeding, other than one which has previously been transferred to it, to any court, other than the county court or the surrogate ’ s court or the family court or the supreme court, having jurisdiction of the subject matter in the same or an adjoining county provided that such other court has jurisdiction over the classes of persons named as parties.”

The power to transfer which is authorized by the Constitution is limited by the phrase, ‘ ‘ As may be provided by law ’ ’. If the District Court is to have the power to transfer its cases to an adjoining county, there must be a statute specifically granting that power. Neither the Uniform District Court Act, nor the Civil Practice Law and Rules contains any provision specifically and unequivocally granting the power to transfer to this court. Therefore, although the Constitution says that the District *440Court may have the power to transfer, the Legislature has not as yet seen fit to enact a statute which specifically grants it that power.

The motion to transfer is denied without prejudice to the parties’ proceeding in any manner as they may be advised.
Order No. 97-33

20005

April 21, 1997

#### Souza v. Board of Trustees of the Employees’ Retirement System

Affirmed
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 10(s)

                   ANNUAL TOP MANAGEMENT CASH BONUS PROGRAM


The Corporation maintains a cash bonus plan whereby the executive officers are
eligible to receive cash bonuses equal to a percentage of the executive
officer's base salary if certain corporate pretax profit objectives are
achieved. The executive officers selected each year to participate in the cash
bonus plan, as well as the performance targets on which the cash bonuses are
based and the amount of the cash bonuses are determined each year at the
discretion of the Chairman and the Board of Directors.

Specifically, the Chairman recommends to the Board of Directors certain
executive officers who will participate in the plan each year. Such executive
officers who will participate in the plan as evidenced by written notice from
the Corporation. The amount of the actual cash bonus paid to the various
executive officers participating in the cash bonus plan is calculated based on
the attainment of the corporate pretax profit objectives set-at the commencement
of each fiscal year.

The cash bonuses are normally paid within the sixty (60) days after the end of
the fiscal year.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00823-CV

WILLIAMSBURG CARE CO., LP d/b/a Princeton Place Rehabilitation and Healthcare,

Appellant

v.

Jesus Acosta, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Maria Acosta, Deceased; et 

Jesus ACOSTA, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Maria Acosta, Deceased; et 

al.,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-16420

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE BARNARD

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the stay of proceedings in trial cause 

number 2012-CI-16420 is hereby LIFTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that costs of this appeal are assessed against the party that incurred them.

SIGNED July 15, 2015.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
#### Eleanor Vander Kamp, Plaintiff, *v.*Charles Vander Kamp, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Monroe County,

March 10, 1971.

*Stanley G. Curtis*and *Kenneth Nelson*for plaintiff. *Elliott, Stern é Calabrese (Richard Elliott*of counsel), for defendant.

*935Jambs H. Boomer, J.

In this divorce action the complaint was served with the summons. After the termination of conciliation proceedings plaintiff served another copy of the complaint which the defendant answered. On the trial defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the service of the complaint with the summons voided not only the first complaint, but also the summons. The motion is denied. The prohibition against service of the complaint prior to termination of conciliation proceedings (Domestic Relations Law, § 211) voided the first complaint, but it did not void the summons even though the summons did not bear the indorsement, “Action for a Divorce,” as required by section 232 of the Domestic Relations Law. Since the defendant was fairly advised of the nature of the action, the summons may be deemed amended to include this indorsement *(Apploff*v. *Apploff,*55 Misc 2d 781).

[Balance of opinion, in this divorce action on ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, is omitted as factual.]
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

9:30 a.m. EST, Wednesday, December 13, 2023.

# PLACE: 

CFTC Headquarters Conference Center, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC.

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) will hold this meeting to consider the following matters:
      -  Proposed Rule:                          Operational Resilience Framework for Futures Commission Merchants, Swap Dealers, and Major Swap Participants;                    
      -  Proposed Rule:                          Capital and Financial Reporting Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants;                    
      -  Proposed Rule:                          Protection of Clearing Member Funds Held by Derivatives Clearing Organizations;                    
      - Amended Application of Bitnomial Clearinghouse, LLC for Registration as a Derivatives Clearing Organization; and
      -  Proposed Rule:                          Amendments to Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.                    

                        The agenda for this meeting will be available to the public and posted on the Commission's website at                         *https://www.cftc.gov.*                         Members of the public are free to attend the meeting in person, or have the option to listen by phone or view a live stream. Instructions for listening to the meeting by phone and connecting to the live video stream will be posted on the Commission's website.                    

In the event that the time, date, or place of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, or place of the meeting, will be posted on the Commission's website.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5964.

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

      ( print page 85881)    
Dated: December 6, 2023.

Christopher Kirkpatrick,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2023-27175 Filed 12-7-23; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Chapter 2.4.4. – Infection with Marteilia refringens

Annex 26. Item 6.5.3. – Article 10.10.3. of Chapter 10.10. ‘Infection with VHSV’

CHAPTER 10.10.

INFECTION WITH VIRAL HAEMORRHAGIC SEPTICAEMIA VIRUS

[...]

Article 10.10.3.

Measures for the importation or transit of aquatic animal products for any purpose regardless of the infection with VHSV status of the exporting country, zone or compartment

The *aquatic animal products*listed below have been assessed as meeting the criteria for safety of *aquatic animal****products*in accordance with Article 5.4.1. When authorising the importation or transit of these *aquatic animal products*, *Competent Authorities*should not require any sanitary measures related to VHSV, regardless of the VHSV status of the *exporting country*, *zone*or *compartment*:

1)	*aquatic animal products* that have been subjected to a heat treatment sufficient to attain a core temperature of at least ~~90~~60°C for at least 60 ~~seconds~~minutes, or a time/temperature equivalent that inactivates VHSV;

~~2)~~~~mechanically dried eviscerated fish that have been subjected to a heat treatment sufficient to attain a core temperature of at least 90°C for at least 60 seconds, or any a time/temperature equivalent that inactivates VHSV;~~

~~3~~2)	fish *meal* that has been subjected to a heat treatment sufficient to attain a core temperature of at least ~~90~~60°C for at least 60 ~~seconds~~minutes, or a time/temperature equivalent that inactivates VHSV;

~~4~~3)	naturally dried, eviscerated fish (i.e. sun-dried or wind-dried);

~~5~~4)	fish oil;

~~6~~5)	fish skin leather.

[...]

____________

WOAH *Aquatic Manual* 2025	8
#### State v. Smalls

17777

10/29/96

Vacated and Remanded
18390

#### State v. Jernigan

Affirmed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeAbout UsOrganizational Structure
Office of the Chief Engineer
        
                  The Basics
      
Chief Engineer

Chere RexroatThe Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) oversees long-range facility planning, architectural and engineering design, historic preservation and project, program and construction management.

The office conducts master planning, building performance audits, retro-commissioning and facility condition assessments (FCA). The office also manages the energy and sustainability program, provides project-funded, in-house construction services, supports critical Capitol campus systems and oversees the enterprise asset management (EAM) and building automation systems.
          
    
      Recent Stories
Related Articles
            
          History & Discoveries

  Capitol Illumination

Learn more about the history of lighting this iconic building including the part of the Dome called the "tholos."
    Behind the Scenes

  Cool Tools: Squaring Off With History

Many of the tools we use around the Capitol campus are unique, historic and essential to our mission — in other words, they are cool tools!
    Projects

  Crumbling Down and Building Up

Addressing the stone pandemic across the Capitol campus takes a team of historic preservationists, structural engineers and stonemasons, among others.
Image
    A talented employee of an Architect of the Capitol sheet metal shop.

Expertise

Skillful Craftmanship

We serve in diverse roles applying both modern techniques and historical tradecrafts in the care and preservation of the Capitol campus.

Areas of Expertise Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
19173

#### State v. Wright

Affirmed
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NOS.   2-09-338-CR

						  2-09-339-CR

LEROY GARY RUSHING III							APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered “Appellant's Motion To Dismiss Appeals.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). 							

								PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 20, 2010
#### State v. Ross

20901

8/27/98

Vacated & Remanded
Order No. 97-43

18571

April 28, 1997

#### Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright

Affirmed
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 D0 00 6 . MI KE REDFORD v . TARMARSHE SMI TH, W ARDEN.

M i k e Red fo rd has fi l ed i n t hi s Co u rt an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal o f

t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ord er g ran t i ng t h e res po n d en t ’ s m o t i o n t o q u as h su b p o en a in
Red fo rd ’ s p ro ceed in g fo r hab eas co rp us rel i ef. Un der o u r Co ns t i t u ti o n , t h e Su p rem e Co u rt h as ex cl u s i v e ap p el l at e ju ri s d i ct i o n o ver al l h ab eas co rp u s cas es

. See Ga.
Co n s t

. 1 9 8 3, Art

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (4 ). Th is ap p l i c a t i o n i s t h erefo re TRANSFERRED t o t h e Su prem e Co u rt fo r d i s p os i t i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. July 28, 2020

07/28/2020
# C_2019399EN.01004601.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Venezuela v Council

(Case T-65/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela - Action brought by a third State - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 399/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by P. Mahnič and L. Ozola, and subsequently by P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment, first, of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2017 L 295, p. 21), secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation 2017/2063 (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), and, thirdly, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10), in so far as their provisions concern the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 134 du 16.4.2018.

---