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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 272 

Recognizing the many contributions made by general aviation pilots and 

operators to the Haiti earthquake relief efforts, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2010 

Mr. EHLERS (for himself, Mr. BOYD, Ms. RICHARDSON, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. 

RAHALL, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. POSEY, Mr. 

PETRI, Mr. FILNER, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. DENT, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. 

REHBERG, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, and Mr. OBERSTAR) 

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the many contributions made by general aviation 

pilots and operators to the Haiti earthquake relief efforts, and for other purposes. 

Whereas, on January 12, 2010, the Republic of Haiti suffered a devastating earthquake; 

Whereas after the earthquake, general aviation pilots rallied 

to provide transportation to Haiti for medical staff and 

relief personnel; 

Whereas more than 4,500 relief flights to assist Haiti were 

made by general aviation pilots in the 30-day period after 

the earthquake; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 272 IH 

Whereas during this period business aircraft alone conducted 

more than 700 flights to assist Haiti, transporting 3,500 

passengers and over 1,000,000 pounds of cargo and supplies; 

Whereas relief flights to assist Haiti were fully paid for by 

individual general aviation pilots and aircraft owners; 

Whereas smaller general aviation aircraft were able to deliver 

supplies and medical personnel to areas of Haiti outside 

of Port-Au-Prince, which larger aircraft could not serve; 

and 

Whereas the selfless efforts of the general aviation community have saved countless lives in Haiti and provided humanitarian assistance in a time of need: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) recognizes the many contributions made by 

4 general aviation pilots and operators to the Haiti 

5 earthquake relief efforts; and 

6 (2) encourages the continued generosity of gen7 eral aviation pilots and operators in ongoing human8 itarian relief efforts in Haiti. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
May 25, 2016

Mr. Thomas C. Grossman Chief Flight Instructor Western Michigan University College of Aviation 237 N Helmer Rd., Battle Creek, MI 49037

Dear Mr. Grossman :

This is in response to your letter dated September 19, 2014

, petitioning the Fed eral Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Western Michigan University ( WMU ) [Docket No.:

FAA

- 2014

- 0734] for an exemption from Part 141 Appendix B4, C4, and D4 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

You state that WMU currently holds an F AA issued Letter of Authorization (LOA) for the two Frasca training devices that allows WMU to use these devices, in part, in accordance with “section 141.41(b)

– As allowed within the FAA

- approved part 141 training course”, “section 141.55 (d) & (e)

– As allowed within the FAA

- approved part 141 reduced hours training course” and “section 141.57

– As allowed within the FAA

- approved part 141 special training curricula.” This exemption, if granted, would allow WMU to continue to train
students in the same de vices and to the same standard s that w ere previously allowed.

The FAA determined that WMU does not require relief from Appendix B paragraph (4)(c) or Appendix D paragraph (4)(c) because allowances for pilot schools with an approved 141
course curriculum f or the private pilot certificate or commercial pilot certificate can use the current FAA approved Frasca Advanced Aviation Training Device (AATD) for the same credit allowances as provided in the former LOA’s. These maximum credit allowances for the privat e and commercial pilot certificate applications concerning minimum experience requirements remain intact.

O n April 21, 2016 the FAA published a final rule titled “Aviation Training Device Credit for
Pilot Certification” i n the Federal Register [Docket No. : FAA

– 2015

– 1846; Amdt. Nos. 61

– 136, 141

– 18]. This rule which became effective on May 12, 2016

, increases the allowed use of AATD’s under part 141 Appendix C for the instrument rating training requirements.

Because the rule increased allowance s when using an AATD during training, your petition for exemption from Part 141 Appendix C is no longer necessary.2 Because the relief you seek is now covered under the new rule, we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/ / s //
John S. Duncan
Director , Flight Standard Services
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6300

WARREN MAT T HEW GIDDINGS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CORIZON; MR. RORHER; MCTC NURSE; CENTURION BEHAVIORAL HEALTH STAFF , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Lydia Kay Griggsby , District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 03166

- LKG )

Submitted : January 31, 2024 Decided: February 2 3 , 2024

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and RICHARDSON and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion

. Warren Matthew Giddings, Appellant Pro Se. Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee Corizon

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6300 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Warren Matthew Giddings appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Corizon on his claims raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and dismissing the remaining Defendants. On appeal, Corizon has filed a suggestion of bankruptcy and notice of automatic stay informing this court that it commenced Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in February 2023. The automatic stay precludes us from reviewing the district court’s disposition of Giddings’ claims against Corizon. As to the court’s disposition of Giddings’ claims against the remaining Defendants, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Giddings’ motion to proceed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) , and affirm the district court’s order as to all defendants except Corizon

. Giddings v. Corizon , No. 1:21

- cv - 03166

- LKG (D. Md. Jan. 25, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART USCA4 Appeal: 23-6300 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Katherine Gargiulo, Respondent, v Robert G. Gargiulo, Appellant.

Judgment insofar as appealed from unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: We agree with defendant husband’s argument on appeal that the court’s award of child support for his three children was excessive. We therefore reduce the amount ordered, retroactively to the date of the decree, to $50 per week per child until the oldest child is emancipated or turns 21; $60 per week per child until the middle child is emancipated or turns 21; and $70 per week per child until July 1, 1994, when the youngest child is expected to graduate from high school.

The judgment also provided that plaintiff would have exclusive occupancy of the marital residence, with defendant paying the mortgage, property taxes and homeowner’s insurance until it is sold, at which time he will receive 65% of the sale proceeds and plaintiff will receive 35%. The court ordered that the sale of the house would occur on the happening of the earliest of the following events: the wife’s death or remarriage, or the youngest child’s graduation from high school or her eighteenth birthday.

We further modify the judgment by eliminating the alternative trigger of the youngest child’s eighteenth birthday, and we order that, upon the sale of the house, child support for the youngest child is to increase to $150 per week until she is emancipated or turns 21.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions on appeal and find none that requires reversal. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kane, J.—divorce.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-81,718-01

EX PARTE DAVID LEN MOULTON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2008F00339-A IN THE 5TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM CASS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and

sentenced to sixty years’ imprisonment. The Sixth Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of 

conviction. Moulton v. State, 360 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011). We reversed the

judgment of the court of appeals. Moulton v. State, 395 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). 

Applicant now contends, among other things, that trial counsel failed to object on

Confrontation Clause grounds when affidavits the medical examiner relied on were read to the jury, 

request a limiting instruction after the affidavits were read to the jury, and request a continuance after
2

the State disclosed the affidavits during trial. 

On June 22, 2016, we remanded this application for a second response from trial counsel and

further findings of fact and conclusions of law. On February 8, 2017, we received the trial court’s

supplemental findings and conclusions, but counsel’s response was not forwarded with the

1

supplemental record. Accordingly, the trial court shall order the District Clerk to forward counsel’s

response to this Court.

This application will be held in abeyance. Counsel’s response shall be forwarded to this

Court within 30 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall be obtained from this

Court.

Filed: March 1, 2017

Do not publish

 According to the supplemental findings and conclusions, counsel filed a second 1

affidavit and a supplement to that affidavit.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 71097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30356]



[[Page 71097]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-410-000]


Consumers Energy Company; Notice of Filing

November 22, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 9, 2000, Consumers Energy Company 
(Consumers) tendered for filing a Facilities Agreement between 
Consumers and SEI Michigan, L.L.C. [SEI] (Agreement). Under the 
Agreement, Consumers is to provide electrical connection facilities 
between a generating plant to be built by SEI and Consumers 
transmission system. Consumers requested that the Agreement be allowed 
to become effective October 4, 2000.
    Copies of the filing were served upon SEI and the Michigan Public 
Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before November 30, 2000. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30356 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 on
Form 10-K of Digital Donations Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ending December 31, 2016, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Keith Orlean, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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



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





|Dated:  May 19, 2017 | By: | /s/ | Keith Orlean                                                  | 
|-------------------- | --- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                     |     |     | Keith Orlean
Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer | 





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 31.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I,David Lieberman, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of World Health Energy Holdings, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4.  The  registrant's other certifying  officer and I are  responsible  for establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a.  designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or caused  such disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that  material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including  its consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;


b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over  financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent fiscal  quarter  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting; and


5. I have  disclosed,  based on our most recent  evaluation of internal  control over financial reporting,  to the registrant's  auditors and the audit committee of the  registrant's  board of directors (or persons  performing  the equivalent functions):
 
 a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and


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





Date: November 12, 2010/s/David LiebermanDavid LiebermanChief Executive Officer
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            Joint Forces Staff College
                Joint Forces Staff College
        Search
                    Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                        Search
                Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                    Search
    Home

    Coronavirus

    About 
        Overview

    College Leadership

    College Chaplain

    Contact Information

    Denton Learning Center

    Employment

    History

    Institutional Research

    JFSC Faculty

    Women, Peace, and Security (WPS)

    Academics
    
        Accreditation

    Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    Joint and Combined Warfighting School (JCWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    JCWS Hybrid (JCWS-H)

    JCWS Satellite (JCWS-S)

    Joint Information School (JIS)
        
        C4I Division

    Information Division

    Joint Transition Course (JTC)

    International Fellows
        
        Incoming Fellows

    Programs

    Alumni

    Contact Us

    Senior Fellows Program

    Libraries

    Faculty Resources

    Students
    
        All Course Schedules

    Incoming Students

    NDU Academic Policies

    Security Manager/SSO

    Uniform Policy

    Registrar

    Media
    
        Campaigning Journals
        
        About Us

    Issues & Articles

    Submissions

    Masthead

    News

    Commentary  News News
 Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense: Simplifying an Increasingly Complex Problem Joint and Combined Warfighting School, Joint Forces Staff College, National Defense University
 JFSC's students published "Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense: Simplifying an Increasingly Complex Problem". *Published January 1, 2018.* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
 SHARE
 PRINT
 DoD Link Disclaimer
   DoD Annual Performance Plans
   NDU FOIA RequestsDoD Privacy Policy
   DoD Plain Writing
   NDU System of Records NoticeDoD Open Government
   DoD Information Quality
   NDU Privacy PolicyDoD Privacy Program
   DoD Section 508
   NDU Privacy ProgramDoD No FEAR Act
   USA.gov
   NDU.edu Site Map
                    Joint Forces Staff College
   7800 Hampton Blvd.
   Norfolk, VA 23511-1702

   Contact JFSC

   Report JFSC Website Issues
   or Suggestion for Improvement

   SAPR Resources
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### Eudemio Guillen, Respondent, v 652 Broadway Corp. et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated July 5, 1989, which, on condition that the plaintiff’s attorney pay $500 to each of the appellants’ attorneys within 20 days, granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior order of the same court, dated April 28, 1989, granting the defendants’ separate motions to dismiss the complaint upon his default in responding to those motions.

Ordered that the appeal by L & R Administration Services, Inc., is dismissed, and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by 652 Broadway Corp., and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs, payable by the appellants.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by granting the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior order dated April 28, 1989, which had dismissed the complaint against the appellant 652 Broadway Corp., on condition that the plaintiff’s counsel pay appellant’s counsel the sum of $500 *(see,*CPLR 5015 [a]; *see, e.g., Stark v Marine Power & Light Co.,*99 AD2d 753; *N & J Foods v Shopwell Plaza Corp.,*63 AD2d 899, 900).

The appeal by L & R Administration Services, Inc. is dismissed because its counsel’s conduct in depositing in his bank account the $500 check from the plaintiff’s counsel, *487without restriction, constituted a waiver of the right to appeal from the conditional order *(see, Chirkis v Hutton & Co.,*155 AD2d 411; *Campion v Alert Coach Lines,*137 AD2d 647; *Carmichael v General Elec. Co.,*102 AD2d 838, 839-840). The mere retention of the $500 check by counsel for 652 Broadway Corp., without depositing it for collection, does not bar the appeal by 652 Broadway Corp. *(see, Carmichael v General Elec. Co., supra,*at 839). Lawrence, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Raul Cuesta et al., Respondents, v Immaculate Conception Roman Catholic Church et al., Appellants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.), dated November 3, 1988, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff Raul Cuesta was injured when he was struck in the eye by a baseball thrown by the catcher as Raul stood behind the pitcher, while serving as a volunteer umpire at his son’s Little League game. The game was being played under the sponsorship of the defendant Immaculate Conception Youth Program, Little League of Astoria.

Pursuant to the doctrine of assumption of risk, an injured party may not seek compensation for injuries incurred as the consequence of some risk or danger usually associated with a pursuit voluntarily undertaken. Thus, when it is shown indisputably that a particular injury was caused by a condition or practice which is common to a particular sport *(see, e.g., Turcotte v Fell,*68 NY2d 432), summary judgment is warranted. We find this to be such a case. The injury is one common to the sport of baseball, and was foreseeable by the plaintiff prior to accepting the job as umpire. Moreover, the injured plaintiff has failed to present any evidence that he had no choice but to follow the direction of the man in the stands who said, "Come on, get your butt out there and be the umpire”. Therefore, there has been no showing of inherent compulsion as a matter of law *(see, Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ.,*73 NY2d 650).

*412Finally, we find that the injured plaintiff’s level of understanding of the game of baseball was sufficient to constitute an acceptance of the dangers of the sport *(see, O’Neill v Daniels,*135 AD2d 1076). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.