alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 20 13 - 0445 Directorate ID : 20 12 - SW - 098 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model MBB - BK 117 C - 2 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 109 Helicopters in th e US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent a workload situation whereby stabilizing the helicopter in flight would be difficult if not impossible, resulting in possible loss of helicopter control. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 0 Labor per Helicopter ( 0.2 work-hour x 

### $ 8 5 /workhour to place the AD in the RFM limitations section. ) $ 17 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 17 Total US Fleet Cost $ 1,853 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : George Schwab
1 "'l 

February 24,2010 

;;..n Ur :r.;.;,:;rUi1ihnUN 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 

20590 

Subject: Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

As a dedicated travel partner of American Airlines, I am writing in support of American's 

application to provide new service from New York's John F. Kennedy International 

Airport and Los Angeles International Airport to Tokyo International Airport at Haneda. 

I recognize and applaud you and the Obama administration for your success last 

December in reaching a landmark Open Skies agreement with Japan, which opens up 

Haneda to service by U.S. airlines. 

I encourage your selection of American Airlines to provide nonstop service from New 

York and Los Angeles to Haneda in order to provide an essential connection between 

three of the world's largest financial and commerce centers. 

Recent events, including the successful preservation of Japan Airlines' oneworld Alliance 

membership, have underscored American's strong commitment to the trans-Pacific 

market. American is likewise committed to New York and Los Angeles - both vital focal 

points of business, trade, entertainment, technology and education - providing 

unsurpassed air service since the mid-1900s 

Both the New York and Los Angeles metro areas will gain significant economic benefits 

from these proposed new flights, as will American's customers and employees. 

However, we need your help to make the JFK/Haneda connection a reality. 

Therefore, I strongly urge you to say yes to American Airlines and its request for slots to 

fly from Kennedy to Haneda! 

Sincerely, 

/ ^ 

Patty Snodgrass 

Dell, Inc
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 210 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27865]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice

October 25, 2000.
    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section 
3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), 5 
U.S.C. 552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

DATE AND TIME: November 1, 2000, 9 am

PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Docket No. EL00-95-000, San Diego Gas & 
Electric Company, v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services Into 
Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator and the 
California Power Exchange; Docket No. EL00-98-000, Investigation of 
Practices of the California Independent System Operator and the 
California Power Exchange; Docket No. EL00-107-000, Public Meeting in 
San Diego, California; Docket No. ER00-3461-000, California Power 
Exchange Corporation; Docket No. ER00-3673-000, California Independent 
System Operator Corporation.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: David P. Boergers, Secretary, 
Telephone (202) 208-0400.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27865 Filed 10-26-00; 10:51 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Getty Realty Corp. (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

      (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (subject to the resolution of the remaining SEC comment, as
more fully described in the Report); and

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

Dated: March 9, 2006

By: /s/ LEO LIEBOWITZ
    -------------------------------
Leo Liebowitz Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Getty Realty Corp. and will be retained by Getty Realty Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I,Ed H. Bowman, Jr., certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q/A of *SOURCECORP*,Incorporated (the “registrant”);

 

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

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

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

 

(a)   Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

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

 

(c)   Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting;

 

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

 

(a)   All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  March 23, 2005 | By:    |    /s/ Ed H. Bowman, Jr. |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |   | Ed  H. Bowman, Jr.                      |
|                                 |   | Chief  Executive Officer and President  |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification********Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002****(Subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of *SOURCECORP*, Incorporated, a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2003 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   November 13, 2003 |    /s/ Barry  L. Edwards                    |
|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                            | Barry L. Edwards                                      |
|                            | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code).

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERSON ECHEVERRIA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-71751 

Agency No. A095-750-694 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 8, 2022**

Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Gerson Echeverria, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to 

reopen removal proceedings and his motion to reconsider the denial of sua sponte 

reopening. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 13 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-71751 

of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or to reconsider. Mohammed v. 

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Echeverria does not challenge, and therefore waives, the BIA’s

determinations that the motion to reopen and motion to reconsider were untimely, 

the motion to reopen was number-barred, he did not establish a regulatory 

exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, and he did not raise a 

factual or legal error to warrant reconsideration. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 

F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a 

party’s opening brief are waived). Echeverria also waives a challenge to the denial 

of reopening based on ineffective assistance of counsel and error by the 

immigration judge. See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2020) 

(petitioner waived review of issue raised for the first time in reply brief).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Echeverria’s motion to 

reconsider where he failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior 

decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 

2004) (“A petitioner’s motion to reconsider must identify a legal or factual error in 

the BIA’s prior decision.”). 

We do not consider the materials Echeverria references and submits for the 

first time in his reply brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher 

v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
3 17-71751 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.4(c)

                           [PERRY JUDD'S LETTERHEAD]

March 24, 2000


Mr. Howard Sullivan
Sr. Vice President Publication Sales
Perry Judd's Incorporated
7777 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, Virginia 22043

Dear Howard,

I wanted to confirm and formalize our conversation over the telephone yesterday.

As a direct result of your past performance at Judd's Incorporated, your more
recent performance for Perry Judd's Incorporated and our desire not only to
recognize your performance and commitment, but to encourage your continued
performance and commitment to our company and its objectives, we would like to
offer you a $200,000 recognition bonus if you remain active and effective in
your position of Senior Vice President of Publication Sales through at least
March 31, 2002. Besides that, we all like you and recognize that having you on
the team is, as Martha Stewart says, "a good thing."

The $200,000 will be paid to you if or when you leave the employ of Perry Judd's
Incorporated or retire, as long as that departure or retirement is on or after
March 31, 2002. It will also be paid to you if there is a change of control of
the company at any time on or prior to March 31, 2002, or if there is a change
of control of the company while you are still in its employ after March 31,
2002.

Of course, Howard, should there be reason for termination prior to March 31,
2002, for good cause, this agreement would terminate immediately and be of no
further force or effect. Good cause means a willful breach or habitual neglect
of your duties, chronic alcoholism or addiction to narcotics (lawful or
otherwise), criminal conviction for fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation of
assets, malicious mischief or any act of moral turpitude or any felony or any
other material breach.

Should you, during your employment with Perry Judd's Incorporated, become
permanently physically disabled and you are no longer able to perform your
duties, you will be entitled to the $200,000 on a pro rata basis. Also, in the
incomprehensible event of your untimely death during your employment, the
$200,000 will be payable pro rata to your designated beneficiary.

If, during your employment from April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2002, the corporation
should desire for any reason whatsoever to terminate your employment and does,
the $200,000 would still be payable pro rata to you as long as the termination
is not for good cause as defined.

We hope that you understand our regard for you personally as well as the
significant contributions you have made and will make to the well-being and
value of Perry Judd's Incorporated. I'm looking forward to working with you in
the years ahead, Howard, and I'm truly very pleased to recognize your efforts in
this way.

Sincerely,



Craig Hutchison
President/CEO

CH/rs
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**CAREADVANTAGE,
      INC**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








Pursuant
      to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Dennis J. Mouras, Chief
      Executive Officer and acting principal financial officer of CareAdvantage,
      Inc.
      (the “Company”), hereby certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      August 14, 2008




/s/
                Dennis J. MourasDennis
                J. Mouras,Chief
                Executive Officer and acting Principal Financial
                Officer
Diagram – Reactants

Sanitized
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3515 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3515

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the age limit for 
      children using transferred Post-9/11 Educational Assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 15, 2013

Mr. McDermott introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the age limit for 
      children using transferred Post-9/11 Educational Assistance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Increased Age Limit for Post-9/11 
Education Assistance Dependents Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE OF AGE LIMIT TO USE TRANSFERRED POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL 
              ASSISTANCE.

    (a) Increase in Age Limit.--Section 3319(h)(5) of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ``26 years'' each place it appears 
and inserting ``29 years''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this Act shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of the Post-9/11 Veterans 
Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (title V of Public Law 110-252).
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 211 (Tuesday, October 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28018]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade 
Commission.

Time and Date: November 6, 2000 at 2:00 p.m.

Place: Room 101, 500 E Street S.W., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered:
    1. Agenda for future meeting: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. No. 731-TA-891 (Preliminary) (Foundry Coke from China)--
briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit 
its determination to the Secretary of Commerce on November 6, 2000; 
Commissioners' opinions are currently scheduled to be transmitted to 
the Secretary of Commerce on November 14, 2000.)
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    Issued: October 26, 2000.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28018 Filed 10-27-00; 1:47 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
AO 399 (01/09) Waiver of the Service of Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To:

(Name of the plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

Date:

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Printed name of party waiving service of summons Printed name

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons

and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff located in

the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure.

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the plaintiff

and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been served.

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC

ZTE CORP., ZTE (USA) INC., AND ZTE (TX), INC.

6:20-CV-00494-ADA

James L. Etheridge

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, 

two copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 07/01/2020 , the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the 

United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

07/01/2020

ZTE (USA) INC. Eric S. Robinson

DUNLAP BENNETT & LUDWIG

7215 Bosque Boulevard

Waco, Texas 76710

erobinson@dbllawyers.com

(254) 870-7302

s/ Eric S. Robinson

Case 6:20-cv-00494-ADA Document 14 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 1