alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Francis J. SALEMME, et al.; UNITED STATES of America v. John MARTORANO.

Cr. Nos. 94-10287, 97-10009.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

June 27, 1997.

*391Anthony M. Cardinale, Boston, MA, for Robert P. Deluca.

MaryEllen Kelleher, Law Office of Richard Egbert, Law Office of Richard Egbert, Boston, MA, Anthony M. Cardinale, Boston, MA, for Francis P. Salemme, Sr.

Kenneth J. Fishman, Bailey, Fishman & Leonard, Boston, Ma, Richard M. Egbert, Boston, MA, for Stephen J. Flemmi.

Sean E. Curran, Manchester, NH,. for George Kaufman.

Michael C. Bourbeau, Boston, MA, Robert A. George, Boston, MA, Paul J. Haley, Law Office of Paul J. Haley, Hillsborough, NH, for James M. Martorano.

Martin G. Weinberg, Oteri, Weinberg & Lawson, Boston, MA, Anthony M. Cardinale, Boston, MA, for John Y. Martorano.

Fred M. Wyshak, Jr., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Boston, MA, for U.S.

*ORDER*

WOLF, District Judge.

On June 18, 1997, Angelo “Sonny” Mercurio responded to an inquiry by the court and acknowledged that he was cooperating with the government in connection with the October 29, 1989 La Cosa Nostra induction ceremony he attended at 34 Guild Street, Med-ford, Massachusetts that was electronically surveilled. On June 20, 1997, the Acting Deputy Attorney General (“ADAG”), Seth P. Waxman, responded to the court’s Orders by stating that Robert Donati had not been a confidential source of information for any agency, attorney or agent of the Department of Justice. While defendants continue to believe that the Department of Justice may have received information from Donati that was relevant to the October 27, 1989 application for a roving bug through a state law enforcement agency, they correctly agree that their June 4, 1997 motion that Mr. Wax-man be held in civil contempt for his failure to respond to the court’s Orders to disclose whether Mercurio and/or Donati was an informant for the Department of Justice is now moot. This conclusion is, however, subject to the usual duty the ADAG has to supplement his prior response concerning Donati if the Department of Justice learns that it was inaccurate.

As stated during the ongoing hearings, recent developments have caused the court to defer addressing the motion to suppress the December 11,1991 electronic surveillance conducted at the Hilton Hotel. Thus, no action is now being taken on defendants’ motion that Mr. Waxman be held in civil contempt to the extent that it relates to that electronic surveillance.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27203]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Intent To Rule on Proposed Land Use Changes to Surplus 
Property at Page Field Airport, Fort Myers, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request 
from Lee County, Florida to change 24.4 acres of airport property from 
aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use for commercial development. 
The surplus property land is no longer required for aviation use. The 
land has been designated for non-aeronatucal use on the Airport Layout 
Plan. The County will have land lease agreements with commercial 
developers that will generate non-aerouatical revenue to be deposited 
in the airport operation and maintenance fund.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 12, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the Lee County Port 
Authority, 11000 Terminal Access Road, Fort Myers, FL 33913, and the 
FAA Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark Circle, Suite 524, 
Orlando, FL 32819. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be 
delivered or mailed to: Marisol Elliott, Community Planner, Orlando 
Airports District Office, 8427 Southark Circle, Suite 524, Orlando, FL 
32819.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisol Elliott, Community Planner, 
Orlando Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark Circle, Suite 524, 
Orlando, FL 32819, (407) 487-7231.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the 
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to 
the ``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to 
use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.
    Revision Date: August 23, 2022.

Bartholomew Vernace,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2023-27203 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Noxious Weeds Program Resources

Last Modified: 

Print

On-Line Resources

Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious or Exotic

Weeds (FICMNEW)

National Invasive Species Council - gateway to Federal efforts concerning

invasive species

National Agricultural Pest Information System (NAPIS) Database

National Plant Board link to States' Noxious Weeds List

National Plant Board

Weed Science Society of America
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (including registration of shares for resale by means of a Form S-3
prospectus) Nos. 33-95282 and 333-3438 and 333-26135 pertaining to the 1993
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1995 Director Stock Option Plan, the 1989
Stock Plan and the Nonstatutory Stock Plan of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc.
of our report dated October 27, 1997, except for Note 17 as to which the date is
December 3, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-K/A) for the year ended September 30, 1997.



San Jose, California
April 14, 1998
Breadcrumb

1. Hogar

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Phytosanitary Issues Management

Last Modified: 

Print

The Phytosanitary Issues Management (PIM) unit facilitates and negotiates, through

the use of scientifically based processes, the safe export and import of agricultural

commodities.

PIM acts on behalf of APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program as the

recognized National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) for the United States under

the International Plant Protection Convention. Consistent with responsibilities of this

role, PIM does the following:

Serves as the primary point of contact for communications with trading

partners (NPPO) concerning phytosanitary issues

Works to remove trade technical barriers by:

Encouraging trading partners to harmonize with international standards

and guidelines

Initiating and presenting scientific and technical studies to support safe,

science-based trade

Building domestic and international consensus among trading partners,

industry, scientific community, PPQ, and other U.S. agencies for feasible,

science-based solutions to technical trade barriers

Working with the PPQ field organization and State regulatory officers to

implement new programs and procedures to support science-based trade

Plant Health Technical Bilateral Meetings 
View information about upcoming Plant Health Technical Bilateral Meetings

Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms 

The International Plant Protection Convention's Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms is a

reference standard, listing terms and definitions with specific meaning for

phytosanitary systems worldwide.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Edward J. Puisis, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Dayton
Superior Corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

       The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the period ending
       December 31, 2002 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the
       requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
       1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and

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

Dated: December 10, 2003

                                /s/ Edward J. Puisis
                                -----------------------
                                Edward J. Puisis
                                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

                                       88
EX-10.12.5




 Exhibit 10.12.5 

[Amendment No. 4 to Credit Agreement] 
  

 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CREDIT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CREDIT AGREEMENT dated April 27, 2018 (this “Amendment”) is entered into
between MESA AIRLINES, INC., (“Mesa”) and MESA AIR GROUP AIRLINE INVENTORY MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., (together with Mesa, the “Borrowers”), MESA AIR GROUP, INC., (the “Guarantor”) and
CIT BANK, N.A., a national banking association, as lender and administrative agent (“Administrative Agent”),. 

WHEREAS, the Borrowers, Guarantor and the Administrative Agent have entered into that certain Credit and Guaranty
Agreement dated as of August 12, 2016, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Credit Agreement dated June 5, 2017, as amended by Amendment No. 2 to Credit Agreement dated June 27, 2017, as amended by Amendment No. 3 to Credit
Agreement dated September 19, 2017 (and as further amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, subject to the terms and conditions of this Amendment, the parties hereto have agreed to amend the Credit
Agreement as provided herein. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein, the
parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 
 Section 1.      
Definitions. Terms used but not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Credit Agreement. 

Section 2.       Amendment to Article 8.01(a) of the Credit
Agreement. Article 8.01(a) of the Credit Agreement will be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

(a)            Consolidated Interest and Rental
Coverage Ratio. The Consolidated Interest and Rental Coverage Ratio as of the end of each Fiscal Quarter ending on the dates set forth below shall not be less than the ratio set forth opposite such Fiscal Quarter: 

 

			
	 Fiscal Quarter Ended
	  	 Consolidated
Interest and Rental
Coverage
Ratio

	September 2016	  	1.20 to 1.00
	December 2016	  	1.20 to 1.00
	March 2017	  	1.20 to 1.00
	June 2017	  	1.20 to 1.00
	September 2017	  	1.20 to 1.00
	December 2017	  	1.20 to 1.00
	March 2018	  	1.30 to 1.00
	June 2018	  	1.30 to 1.00
	September 2018	  	1.40 to 1.00
	December 2018	  	1.50 to 1.00
	Thereafter	  	1.75 to 1.00









 [Amendment No. 4 to Credit Agreement] 

 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, by their officers thereunto
duly authorized, have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	 MESA AIRLINES, INC.

	
	 By:
                                         
                                       


	 Name:
	  	
	 Title:
	  	
	
	 MESA AIR GROUP AIRLINE

INVENTORY MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.

	
	 By:
                                         
                                       


	 Name:
	  	
	 Title:
	  	
	
	 MESA AIR GROUP, INC.

	
	 By:
                                         
                                       


	 Name:
	  	
	 Title:
	  	
	
	 CIT BANK, N.A.

	
	 By:
                                         
                                       


	 Name:
	  	
	 Title:
February 4, 2004

25046

#### Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Ramolete

Affirmed
#### Theophilus Pascoe and Dixie Pascoe, His Wife, *Ap*pellants, v. Arthur W. Tobias, as Trustee, *Appellee.*

Decision Filed February *24,*1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court for Walton County; J. Emmit Wolfe, Judge.

Per Curiam.

This cause having been submitted to the court at a former day of this term upon the transcript of the record of the decree aforesaid, and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said decree; it is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed; it is further ordered that the appellee do have and recover of and from the appellants his costs by him in this behalf expended, which costs are taxed at the sum of $.........., all of which is ordered to be certified to the court below.
EXHIBIT 99.1



May 15, 2003



To The Holders of

Government Trust Certificates

Zero Coupon Class 1-D



In accordance with Section 4.1 of the Declaration of Trust (Trust), Bank one Trust Company, NA (formerly The First National Bank
of Chicago), as Trustee and not in its individual capacity (Trustee), hereby provides the holders of the above-mentioned certificates this Semi-annual Report relating to the May 15, 2003 Certificate Payment Date.



Any capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Trust.



|1. | The aggregate dollar amount distributed to holders of Class 1-D Certificates: $141,382,899.88.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The Principal Balance of the Class 1-D Note after the May 3, 2003 Note Payment Date: $986,965,000.00
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | The Deficient amount of the Note Payment: $-0-
|-- | ----------------------------------------------



Neither a delinquency in payment under any of the Notes nor an Event of Default has occurred and is continuing.



I, Joan E. Blume, a Responsible Officer of the Trustee, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, certify that this Semi-annual Report is complete and accurate.





Joan E. Blume

Assistant Vice President



For Bank One Trust Company,
NA (formerly The

First National Bank of Chicago), as Trustee and not

in its individual capacity.



---

November 15, 2003



To The Holders of

Government Trust Certificates

Zero Coupon Class 3-C



In accordance with Section 4.1 of the Declaration of Trust (Trust), Bank One
Trust Company, NA (formerly The First National Bank of Chicago), as Trustee and not in its individual capacity (Trustee), hereby provides the holders of the above-mentioned certificates this Semi-annual Report relating to the November
15, 2003 Certificate Payment Date.



Any capitalized terms used herein shall
have the meaning assigned to them in the Trust.



|1. | The aggregate dollar amount distributed to holders of Class 3-C Certificates: $28,462,351.04.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The Principal Balance of the Class 3-C Note after the November 3, 2003 Note Payment Date: $283,814,945.82.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | The Deficient amount of the Note Payment: $-0-
|-- | ----------------------------------------------



Neither a delinquency in payment under any of the Notes nor an Event of Default has occurred and is continuing.



I, Joan E. Blume, a Responsible Officer of the Trustee, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, certify that this Semi-annual Report is complete and accurate.



Joan E. Blume

Trust Officer



For Bank One Trust Company, NA (formerly The

First National Bank of Chicago), as Trustee and not

in its individual capacity.
#### Gregory F. MILLER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 7431.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1963.

*731Richard L. Bohanon, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.

Joseph J. DeFrancesco, Office of The Judge Advocate General (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Abraham Nemrow, Office of The Judge Advocate General, on the brief), for appellee.

Before PICKETT, LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, while an enlisted man in the United States Army, was convicted by a general court martial and brought habeas corpus to obtain relief from the sentence imposed. After the trial court had denied his petition, the Secretary of the Army remitted the unexecuted portion of his sentence and ordered his separation from the service with an undesirable discharge. The government has moved to dismiss on the ground that the ease is moot.

 Habeas corpus will not issue unless the petitioner “is presently restrained of his liberty without warrant of law.” See Macomber v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 115 F.2d 114, 116, certiorari denied 313 U.S. 558, 61 S.Ct. 833, 85 L.Ed. 1519. Petitioner argues that this rule does not require dismissal because he received an undesirable discharge and he is entitled to free himself of the stigma resulting therefrom.

“An undesirable discharge is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable.” Army Regulations, Art. 635-200, para. (11) (a). Such discharge may be reviewed administratively by application to the Army Discharge Review Board established by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1553. Habeas corpus lies against a person having the petitioner in custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Jones v. Biddle, 8 Cir., 131 F.2d 853, 854, certiorari denied 318 U.S. 784, 63 S.Ct. 856, 87 L.Ed. 1152. After the petitioner is released from all restraint, the reason for the writ fails. This is not a case like Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285, where the petitioner was on parole and subject to the restraints incident to that status. Objections to the form of discharge must be made in accordance with the established administrative procedure.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.
# C_2018436EN.01002003.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2018 — BGL BNP Paribas SA v TeamBank AG Nürnberg

(Case C-548/18)

(2018/C 436/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: BGL BNP Paribas SA

Respondent: TeamBank AG Nürnberg

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I Regulation) (1) applicable to the third-party effects of multiple assignments of claims? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I Regulation) (1) applicable to the third-party effects of multiple assignments of claims?

| 2. | If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, to which law are the third-party effects subject in this case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, to which law are the third-party effects subject in this case?

| 3. | If the first question is to be answered in the negative, is that provision applicable mutatis mutandis? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the first question is to be answered in the negative, is that provision applicable mutatis mutandis?

| 4. | If the third question is to be answered in the affirmative, to which law are the third-party effects subject in this case? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the third question is to be answered in the affirmative, to which law are the third-party effects subject in this case?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF FINANCIAL FEDERAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES AS
AT JULY 31, 1996 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                            2426
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   437706
<ALLOWANCES>                                      8008
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  433087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         317787
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          4980
<OTHER-SE>                                       89211
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    433087
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 43523
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  1710
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               19271
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  15429
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5819
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               9610
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      9610
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01
<FN>
<F1>THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDE AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>