alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25814]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 00-120]


NASA Advisory Council, Life and Microgravity Sciences and 
Applications Advisory Committee, NASA-NIH Advisory Subcommittee and 
Life Sciences Advisory Subcommittee; Joint Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 
92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, Life and Microgravity 
Sciences and Applications Advisory Committee, NASA-NIH Advisory 
Subcommittee and Life Sciences Advisory Subcommittee Joint Meeting.

DATES: Wednesday, October 18, 2000, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters, 
300 E Street, SW., MIC-3, Room 3H46, Washington, DC 20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David Tomko, Code UL, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 202/358-
0220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to 
the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as 
follows:

--Action Status
--NASA Life Sciences Division Update
--Biology and Life Sciences at NASA
--Status of Studies on ISS NGO
--Life Sciences Division FY'00 Performance Metrics
--NASA-NIH Interaction Report
--Preparation of Committee Findings and Recommendations
--Review of Committee Findings and Recommendations

    It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors 
will be requested to sign a visitor's register.

    Dated: October 2, 2000.
Beth M. McCormick,
Federal Advisory Committee Act Management Officer, National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-25814 Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-U
Exhibit32.1

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the annual report ofEagle Bulk Shipping Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’)on Form 10-K for the year ending December  31,  2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the‘‘SEC’’) on or about the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), I, Sophocles Zoullas,Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|  |           |                                                                                                                     |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. |

A signed original of this written statement has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

Date:February  28,  2007

/s/Sophocles Zoullas                    SophoclesZoullasChief Executive Officer

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

SITO MOBILE R&D IP, SITO 

MOBILE, LTD.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

HULU, LLC,

 Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

6-20-CV-00472-ADA

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Hulu’s Motion to Transfer is GRANTED and 

the above-captioned case is hereby transferred to the United States District Court for the Central

District of California under § 1404(a).

SIGNED this 4th day of August, 2021.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00472-ADA Document 77 Filed 08/04/21 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
32.A


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 on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2008, of Southern Natural Gas Company (the “Company”) as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, James C. Yardley, Chairman of the Board and President, certify (i)
that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ James C. YardleyJames
      C. YardleyPresident(Principal
      Executive Officer)Southern
      Natural Gas CompanyAugust
      8, 2008
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Southern Natural Gas Company and will be retained by Southern Natural Gas
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
SCHUMA N AVIATIO N COMPANY , LT D 

130 lOLANA PLACE, 

H I 96819 8()8-8.')4-58i:} 

7 EMAIT^ Richard@makanikai.com 

July 10, 2010 

Damon Walker -^' 

Docket Operations ''^ 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE Rm W12-140 - :' 

Washington, DC. 20590 i j 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0006 ^ 

RE: PACIFIC WINGS LIMITED OBJECTION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Dear Mr. Walker 

I received a copy of Pacific Wings limited objection to order to show cause and I would 

like to respond to their unfounded and ridicules claim. 

If you do a quick search of the Hawaii DCCA web site for companies that have 

registered to do business in Hawaii and enter PACIFIC, there are 300 possible 

company names. If you enter PACIFIC AIR, there are 33 possibilities. If you enter PW, 

there are 46 possibilities. 

As far as possible "significant potential for public confusion with Pacific Wings", nowhere 

can anyone find Pacific Air Express advertised but on the side of my airplane and or a 

small brochure only passed out & available thru Pacific Air Cargo. Pacific Air Express 

does not have a listed phone number with information and the phone number printed on 

the brochure goes directly to Pacific Air Cargo. 

Pacific Air Express has two Cessna Caravan's that are only configured for air cargo. 

Pacific Air Express only conducts air cargo operations under a sole & exclusive ACMI 

arrangement with Pacific Air Cargo. 

Makani Kai Helicopters - MakanI Kai Air Cliarters - Ko Olina Helicopters - Pacific Air Express - Hawai i 

Aviation Services 
Schuman Aviation Company Ltd is a completely separate company to Pacific Air Cargo 

and is in no way affiliated, connected, or related in any way but as a sole supplier for air 

cargo service. 

As far as Pacific Wings and or PW Express potentially or someday operating their 

current fleet of Caravan's to and from Honolulu and Kauai, they should know better. 

Unless they are successful in someday getting the FAA to change the regulations for 

single engine over water, they will never be able to fly single engine Caravan's between 

Oahu and Kauai. 

As far as the Princeville airport, Princeville is private airport currently managed by 

Resort Air / Resort Group and no aircraft can operate to and from that airport without 

express permission. 

Schuman Aviation Company Ltd has an exclusive agreement and permission to operate 

to and from Princeville when Schuman Aviation Company Ltd receives Commuter 

status. 

Schuman Aviation Company Ltd is and will be using the name Makani Kai Air Charters 

for our own inter island passenger service and should an ACMI agreement be reached 

with Island Air, it is Island Air that will be advertising and marketing Island Air passenger 

service to and from Princeville. 

Therefore, it is my opinion that Pacific Wings / PW Express concern is unwarranted and 

there request to "preclude Schuman from using Pacific Air Express name in passenger 

service" should not be given any consideration. 

Sincerely 

Richard Schuman 

President 

Makani Kai Helicopters - Makani Kai Air Charters - Ko Olina Helicopters - Pacific Air Express - Hawai i 

Aviation Services
#### Melina Hannon et al., Appellants, v Dunkirk Motor Inn, Inc., Doing Business as Holiday Inn, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: On this appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding no cause for action on plaintiffs’ slip-and-fall claim, plaintiffs contend that the court erred in denying their motion for a mistrial and their posttrial motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of unfair surprise, and that the court’s instructions attempting to remedy the surprise were erroneous. Plaintiffs are entitled to a new trial. CPLR 4402 and 4404 authorize the court to grant a new trial in the interest of justice, on the ground that a party was surprised during the progress of the trial without fault on his own part *(see,*8A Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 62:30, at 251; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 4402.02). Introduction of unduly prejudicial evidence which was withheld by the movant’s opponent and which the movant could not have anticipated in the exercise of due diligence constitutes unfair surprise *(Xavier v Grunberg,*67 AD2d 632). Although determination of a motion for a mistrial or for a new trial is within the discretion of the trial court, denial of a mistrial motion is reversible error where it appears that the motion should have been granted to prevent a substantial possibility of injustice *(Reome v Cortland Mem. Hosp.,*152 AD2d 773, 774, quoting *Cohn v Meyers,*125 AD2d 524, 527). We conclude that plaintiffs were unfairly surprised and *835prejudiced by defendant’s introduction of time cards to impeach plaintiffs’ witness, defendant’s former employee, concerning whether the witness was working on the day of the accident. We conclude that plaintiffs could not have anticipated the devastating impeachment of their witness and that the court thus should have granted their mistrial motion.

Plaintiffs are also entitled to a new trial on the ground that the court’s instructions attempting to cure the surprise were erroneous. In instructing the jury not to draw a negative inference against plaintiffs as a result of their calling the witness, the court asserted that the witness "apparently” and "in fact” had not been on the premises on the day of the accident. That instruction erroneously removed from the jury’s consideration a critical factual issue, viz., whether the witness observed the icy condition of the parking lot and defendant’s failure to remedy that condition. Whatever the probative force of the time cards, they were not determinative on the issue of the witness’s presence and did nothing more than raise a factual issue. Thus, it was error for the court to resolve that issue as a matter of law. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.—negligence.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
<PAGE>



Ex. 4.4 - 2

                                   EXHIBIT 4.4
                                ADDENDUM No. 1 to
                      DEFINITIVE RULE 419 ESCROW AGREEMENT




                   AMENDMENT TO Letter of Escrow Instructions



To:         First Union National Bank
            Corporate Trust Group
            5847 San Felipe, Suite 1050
            Houston, Texas 77057


      Win or Lose Acquisition Corporation - Rule 419 escrow,
      First Union National Bank Escrow No. 757000449

      This Letter shall serve to amend that certain Letter of Escrow
Instructions between First Union National Bank, hereinafter called Escrow Agent
and Win or Lose Acquisition Corporation (the "Company") dated July 12, 2001
which is described more fully in the Company's Form S-1 Registration Statement
under the Securities Act of 1933 (Registration No. 333-52414). Except as
specifically changed by this letter, all terms and provisions of the original
Letter of Escrow Instructions shall remain in full force and effect.

1.    AMENDMENTS RELATING TO LENGTH OF OFFERING PERIOD:

1.1   Paragraphs 1.2 and 3.1 of the original Letter of Escrow Instructions shall
      be and are hereby amended to read in their entirety as set forth below:

1.2   The Company intends to offer 500,000 shares of its $.001 par value common
      stock (the "Common Stock") to the public at a price of $0.25 per share
      (the "Offering") for a period of 180 days commencing on the effective date
      of the Company's registration statement (the "Offering Period"). During
      the Offering Period, the purpose of the escrow shall be to receive, clear
      and hold subscription payments ("Subscription Funds") from certain persons
      ("Investors") who subscribe to purchase shares of Common Stock in the
      Offering.

3.1   In the event that (a) the Escrow Agent has not received and cleared a
      total of $125,000 in Subscription Funds on or before the close of business
      on the last day of the Offering Period (the "Termination Date"), or (b)
      the Company has not, within three days after the Termination Date,
      delivered a certificate to the Escrow Agent which states that all
      conditions precedent to the closing of the Offering have been satisfied,
      the Escrow Agent shall, within five days after the Termination Date,
      refund to each Investor the Subscription Funds submitted on his behalf,
      together with any interest earned on his Subscription Funds during the
      time the Subscription Funds have been collected and are available for
      investment.

     Approved and accepted by the Parties this 14th day of September 2001.

Win or Lose Acquisition Corporation       First Union National Bank





By:              /s/                      By:              /s/
   ---------------------------------         ---------------------------------
   Sally A. Fonner, President                R. Douglas Milner, Vice President
----

Action brought on 2 May 2006 — de Albuquerque v Commission

(Case F-55/06)

(2006/C 154/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Augusto de Albuquerque (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission transferred in the interest of the service to the post of head of unit INFSO.G.2 ‘Micro and nanosystems’, claims that that transfer is contrary to the interest of the service. He relies on a breach of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of assessment of the concept of ‘interest of the service’, a misuse of powers and a breach of the principle of equal treatment.

----
#### ODOM v. STATE.

No. 26386.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 22, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of chicken theft, and his punishment was assessed at 70 days confinement in jail.

The indictment and all matters of procedure appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 26, 2010 

s0519 

Order 

 

May 26, 2010 

140290 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140290 

 COA: 293561 

Saginaw CC: 07-029101-FC 

MARLO ALEXANDER MEDINA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 30, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal.
|   | 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 this report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tennessee      Valley Financial Holdings, Inc. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  March      31, 2008 |        /s/      Kenneth F. Scarbro                     |
|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |        Kenneth      F. Scarbro                         |
|                                 |        Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer |
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 Annual Report of Radium Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-KSB, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shane
Whittle, the Chief Executive Officer and 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
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.
  
 Date:
      June 1, 2005
      
      /s/
      Shane Whittle
      Name:
      Shane Whittle
      Its:
      Chief Executive Officer
      and
      Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                    ------------



              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Paragon Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
J. Semanick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



                           /s/ Ronald J. Semanick
                           ----------------------------------------------------
                           Ronald J. Semanick
                           Chief Financial Officer and Vice President - Finance
                             and Treasurer
                           May 13, 2005
In the Matter of 

SERVED MAY 15, 2012 .( ..... , -~ ~ , ';~. >';J,J I Mt:NT OF 

U.S. DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATI(,jt4:~2r;yJm\T/0N .. , OFFICE OF HEARINGS · ·",~_I c.)r ERh fiOfv;) 

WASHINGTON, DC 

z IS J...,,. ?: • ~3 'I 

) 

DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DocketNo. FAA-2010-0620 

Respondent (CPl OEA0004) 

ORDER 

GRANTING CONTINUANCE AND 

SETTING FIFTH LITIGATION SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 the parties appeared by telephone for a Fourth Litigation 

Scheduling Conference. The parties discussed the status ofthe case, which included 

information about an arbitration that had been scheduled on January 17, 2012 that might resolve 

the issue as to whether the Respondent, Diamond Air Charter, Inc. would be filing and obtaining 

a Certificate of Dissolution from the state ofNew York. The parties agreed that although the 

arbitration had been held, there was still pending litigation. As a· result, in this case they would 

discuss a discovery plan for litigation, and be ready to address litigation scheduling at the next 

Conference. 

It Is Hereby Ordered: . 

I. The Fifth Litigation Scheduling Conference is now set for Thursday, June 7, 2012 

at 9:30am Eastern time. The Office of Hearings shall initiate the conference call. 

2. Pursuant to 14 <:;:.F.R. § 13.217 and Civ. R. 26(f), prior to convening with the Judge 

for the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, the parties shall priyately conduct 

a Rule 26(f) planning meeting and prepare a jointly written proposed 

scheduling/discovery plan, which must be completed and filed with the undersigned 

Judge on or before Friday, June 1, 2012 (i.e., six (6) calendar days before the 

Conference). 

Attachment - Service List 
FDMS No. FAA-2010-0620 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

REVISED SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Counsel 

Aviation Law Experts 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

TEL: 301-294-8550 

FAX: 301-294-2525 

Zachary M. Berman, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, EAL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable J. E. Sullivan,Administrative Law Judge ~ 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.