alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
November 20, 2015 

Dear Mr. Cote: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition 

(Docket No. FAA−2015−3250). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition. 

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the 

maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the 

aircraft manuals. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 11/3/15. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust
2012-C3

The undersigned, David Co, a Director of Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas, as the Certificate Administrator (a “Certifying Servicer”) under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated
as of September 1, 2012 (the “Agreement”), by and among, UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization Corp., as Depositor,
Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special
Servicer, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and Park Bridge
Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor here by certifies in accordance with Section 10.11 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicer’s activities from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “reporting period”)
and of such Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | B) | That, as to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement, in all material respects during the reporting period.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

as Certificate Administrator



/s/ David Co

BY: David Co

Title: Director

Date: March 1, 2018
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 278

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 12, 1999

Referred to the Committee on Resources

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain

lands to the county of Rio Arriba, New Mexico.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 278 RFH

1 SECTION 1. OLD COYOTE ADMINISTRATIVE SITE.

2 (a) CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY.—Not later than one

3 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

4 of the Interior (herein ‘‘the Secretary’’) shall convey to

5 the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico (herein ‘‘the Coun6 ty’’), subject to the terms and conditions stated in sub7 section (b), all right, title, and interest of the United

8 States in and to the land (including all improvements on

9 the land) known as the ‘‘Old Coyote Administrative Site’’

located approximately 1 10 ⁄2 mile east of the Village of Coy11 ote, New Mexico, on State Road 96, comprising one tract

12 of 130.27 acres (as described in Public Land Order 3730),

13 and one tract of 276.76 acres (as described in Executive

14 Order 4599).

15 (b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—

16 (1) Consideration for the conveyance described

17 in subsection (a) shall be—

18 (A) an amount that is consistent with the

19 special pricing program for Governmental enti20 ties under the Recreation and Public Purposes

21 Act; and

22 (B) an agreement between the Secretary

23 and the County indemnifying the Government

24 of the United States from all liability of the

25 Government that arises from the property.
3

S 278 RFH

1 (2) The lands conveyed by this Act shall be

2 used for public purposes. If such lands cease to be

3 used for public purposes, at the option of the United

4 States, such lands will revert to the United States.

5 (c) LAND WITHDRAWALS.—Land withdrawals under

6 Public Land Order 3730 and Executive Order 4599 as

7 extended in the Federal Register on May 25, 1989 (54

8 F.R. 22629) shall be revoked simultaneous with the con9 veyance of the property under subsection (a).

Passed the Senate March 25, 1999.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 82971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23754]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-34-2024]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 29; Authorization of Production 
Activity; Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC; (Nonsteroidal Antiandrogen 
Tablets); Winchester, Kentucky

    On June 11, 2024, Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC, submitted a 
notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its 
facility within FTZ 29, in Winchester, Kentucky.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (89 FR 52022, June 21, 2024). On 
October 9, 2024, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision 
that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The 
production activity described in the notification was authorized, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including 
section 400.14.

    Dated: October 9, 2024.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-23754 Filed 10-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
# i,DF Maryland Department

of Planning,Iarfin0\Ia//,vRicha,dEher/,artHa/IGoeworSe?ta?jAn/honyG.B,vwn1ciI/hewJ.Power1.1.DepuSecreIa’December14,2007Ms.DebbieRabinRegulationsCoordinator,AirandRadiationManagementAdministrationMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment1800WashingtonBoulevardSuite730Baltimore,MD21230STATECLEARINGHOUSEREVIEWPROCESSStateApplicationIdentifier:MD20071213-1207ProjectDescription:ProposedNewAirQualityRegulations/amendments:totheMarylandStateImplementationPlan:PublicHearingon1/23/2008ProjectLocation:MarylandClearinghouseContact:BobRosenbushDearMs.Rabin:,—Thankyouforsubmittingyourprojectforintergovernmentalreview.ParticipationintheMarylandIntergovernmentalReviewand 

# (2oordination(MIRC)processhelpsensureprojectconsistencywithplans,programs,andobjectivesofStateagenciesandlocalgovernments.NoticeofyourapplicationisbeingprovidedtoStateandlocalpublicofficialsthroughtheI,iterovernmeizIa1Monilor,whichisaweeklyInternetpublicationidentifyingprojectsreceivedbytheStateClearinghouseforIntergovernmentalAssistance.Thisdocumentmaybeviewedathttp://www.mdp.state.md.us/CLHOUSE/monitor_fyO4.htm.TheprojecthasbeenassignedauniqueStateApplicationIdentifierthatshouldbeusedonalldocumentsandcorrespondence.AllMIRCrequirementshavebeenmetinaccordancewithCodeofMarylandRegulations(COMAR14.24.04)andthisconcludesthereviewprocessfortheabovereferencedproject.Ifyouneedassistanceorhavequestions,contacttheStateClearinghousestaffpersonnotedaboveat410-767-4490orthroughe-mailatbrosenbush@mdp.state.md.us.ThankyouforyourcooperationwiththeMIRCprocess.Sincerely, 

# j/

t7LindaC.Janey,J.D.,AssistantSecretaryforClearinghouseandCommunicationsLCJ:BRcc:KathleenBlinebury-EPA07-!207.V.tI,VEJVdoc301WestPrestonStreet•Suite1101•Baltimore.Ma0/and21201-2305Te/ephone:410.767.4500•Fax:410.767.4480eTa/IFree:1.877.767.6272e7TYUse-s:Maij/andRe/uyInternet:www.A4DP.s/a/e.md.us
#### Kimmel, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Kimmel, Defendant: Pioneer Iron & Metal Corporation and others, Interpleaded Defendants and Respondents.

*February 2*

March *8, 1960.*

*485For the appellant there was a brief by *Eisenberg &*Kletske, attorneys, and *John W. Bernard*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Bernard.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Goldenberg &*McKay, attorneys, and *Samuel Goldenberg*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Samuel Goldenberg*and /. *Curtis McKay.*

Brown, J.

This is a divorce action by the wife against the husband. Order No. 1 denied plaintiff’s motion to inter-plead a corporation and a partnership in which plaintiff alleged that the parties have financial interests.

Orders from which appeals may be taken are designated by sec. 274.33, Stats. The part of the statute pertinent to Order No. 1 permits an appeal to the supreme court from:

> “(1) An order affecting a substantial right, made in any action, when such order in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken.”

Appellant submits that the order should be reversed as an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. We do not reach the question of the discretion exercised by the trial court. An order denying an application by one who is already a party to an action to implead some third party is not appealable. We held this most recently in *State v. McDonald Lumber Co.,*ante, p. 206, 100 N. W. (2d) 701, in which we reviewed the precedents establishing that conclusion.

*486When an order is determined to be unappealable, the supreme court has jurisdiction only to dismiss the appeal. *Wendt v. Dick*(1935), 219 Wis. 230, 262 N. W. 576.

Order No. 2 denied plaintiffs motion to require the defendant to deposit an adequate sum to the credit of the plaintiff to defray costs and attorney’s fees in taking an appeal from Order No. 1. Appellant submits that the denial of her motion was an abuse of discretion.

The part of the statute pertinent to Order No. 2 permits an appeal to the supreme court from:

> “274.33 (2) A final order affecting a substantial right made in special proceedings, without regard to whether the proceedings involve new or old rights, remedies, or proceedings and whether or not the right to appeal is given by the statute which created the right, remedy, or proceedings,

Sec. 260.03, Stats., defines special proceedings thus:

> “Action defined; special proceeding. An action is an ordinary court proceeding by which a party prosecutes another party for the enforcement or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense. Every other remedy is- a special proceeding.”

Appellant’s motion requiring respondent to finance an appeal is a special proceeding and the order affecting this alleged substantial right is therefore appealable. However, the denial of a motion to compel defendant to furnish funds to plaintiff to prosecute an appeal from an unappealable order cannot possibly be regarded by this court as an abuse of discretion.

*By the Court.*— Appeal from Order No. 1 is dismissed. Order No. 2 is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2802 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2802

To amend the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 to add 
     White Earth Tribal and Community College to the list of 1994 
                             Institutions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 27, 2000

 Mr. Wellstone introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 to add 
     White Earth Tribal and Community College to the list of 1994 
                             Institutions.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITION TO LIST OF 1994 INSTITUTIONS.

    Section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 
1994 (Public Law 103-382; 7 U.S.C. 301 note) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
            ``(31) White Earth Tribal and Community College.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Andrew MacMillan, Chief Executive Officer of UserTesting, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2021 (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 results of operations of the Company.








Dated: March 4, 2022





UserTesting, Inc.By:/s/ Andrew MacMillanName:Andrew MacMillanTitle:Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
**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**

In      connection with the Quarterly Report of SFH II Acquisition Corp. (the "Company")      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Armen Karapetyan,      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of      the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|   |                                                                                                    |                                |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                    | /s/                Armen Karapetyan |
|   | Armen                KarapetyanPrincipal                Financial OfficerAugust                14, 2007 |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3635 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3635

To provide for the compensation of Federal employees furloughed during 
                         a Government shutdown.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2015

   Mr. Beyer (for himself, Mr. Wittman, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Pocan, Mr. 
Ashford, Mr. Vela, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Scott of 
  Virginia, Mr. Vargas, Mr. McGovern, Mrs. Bustos, Mrs. Comstock, Mr. 
Ruppersberger, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms. Norton, Mr. Perlmutter, 
  Mr. Takai, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Lynch, Mr. 
Bishop of Utah, Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, Ms. McCollum, 
Mr. Cummings, Mr. Levin, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Murphy of Florida, Mr. Brady of 
 Pennsylvania, Ms. Lee, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Sean 
  Patrick Maloney of New York, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Cole, Ms. Pingree, 
Mrs. Lowey, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, 
Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Rigell, Ms. Adams, Mr. Veasey, Mr. Clay, Mr. Honda, Mr. 
Conyers, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Moore, Mr. Payne, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. Plaskett, 
  Mr. Serrano, Mr. Langevin, Ms. Meng, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Rush, Mr. 
 Meeks, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Takano, Ms. Stefanik, 
    Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of 
   Pennsylvania, Mr. Visclosky, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Garamendi, and Mr. 
   Swalwell of California) introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the compensation of Federal employees furloughed during 
                         a Government shutdown.

    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 ``Federal Employee Retroactive Pay 
Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FURLOUGHED DURING A 
              GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.

    Federal employees furloughed as a result of any lapse in 
appropriations that begins on or about October 1, 2015, shall be 
compensated at their standard rate of compensation, for the period of 
such lapse in appropriations, as soon as practicable after such lapse 
in appropriations ends.
                                 <all>
```
Office of Personnel Management

Retirement and Insurance Service

1920 1954 1959 

 

1986

 

Federal Employee Benefit Programs

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT LETTER

Number: F-98-04 Date: April 24, 1998

SUBJECT: FERS OPEN SEASON

As you are probably aware, there has been, over the last several months, much discussion about

whether an opportunity will be made available to Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) covered

employees to elect Federal Employee Employees Retirement System (FERS) coverage. The

purpose of this letter is to provide an update on recent legislation affecting a possible FERS open

season. In his Fiscal Year 1999 budget, the President submitted a supplemental appropriation

request for 1998 which repeals the “FERS Open Enrollment Act”. If Congress approves the

President’s request for repeal, there will be no FERS open season. Conversely, if Congress fails to

act, the open season to allow CSRS covered employees to elect coverage under FERS will begin

July 1, 1998 and end on December 31, 1998.

The attached Benefits Administration Letter 98-105, dated March 16, 1998, provides additional

information on this issue. If you have any questions, please contact your agency Personnel Officer. 

 As new information becomes available, we will update you.

Robert A. Yuran, Chief

Financial Policy Staff

Retirement and Insurance Service

Enclosure
##### 



Exhibit 99.1
  
 
   
 SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES AUTHORIZES $350 MILLION
SHARE REPURCHASE PROGRAM
 Company intends to repurchase shares opportunistically under plan
that expires in December of 2009
#### Malvin J. Mayer, Plaintiff, *v.*John T. Livingston, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Westchester County,

February 5, 1958.

*288
      *Fuerst $ Tanenbaum,*for plaintiff.

*William, Scott, 2nd,*for defendant.

Robert Doscher, J.

Plaintiff brings this action to enforce restrictive covenants and to restrain and enjoin defendant from maintaining Ms premises in alleged violation of the covenants.

, Defendant’s premises, a bMlding constructed for use as a one-family dwelling, is located in that part of the city of New Rochelle known as Rochelle Heights. This park area, developed in accordance with uniform covenants and restrictions attached to and running with the land, has heretofore been held to be strictly residential with one-family dwellings therein. Other uses have been enjoined *(Todd*v. *North Ave. Holding Corp.,*121 Misc. 301, affd. 208 App. Div.*854; Kiernan*v. *Snowden,*123 N. Y. S. 2d 895). Since the latter case, decided in 1953 by my colleague, Mr. Justice Eager, there has been no material change in the area covered by the restrictive covenants.

The defendant acquired the premises in suit in August, 1955, and entered into possession in September of that year. He occupied and is still occupying, the dwelling as a home for himself and his immediate family. However, there have been, and still are, others living in the premises.

It may be that the taking into a one-family dwelling of a roomer or two, when strictly incidental to the maintenance of a family relationship would not violate a covenant restricting the use of a building to a one-family dwelling *(Gallon*v. *Hussar,*172 App. Div. 393). In the case at bar, the letting of rooms to outsiders goes beyond a mere incidental maintenance of a one-family residence. This defendant has been, and still is, operating a rooming house. Under such circumstances, he was in violation of the covenant. The fact that some of the roomers may have been remotely related to defendant does not change the result *(Kiernan*v. *Snowden,*123 N. Y. 8. 2d 895, *supra).*

Defendants urge that (1) the plaintiff himself violates a restrictive covenant and (2) the plaintiff lives too far from *289the scene of defendant’s violation to be entitled to a restraining order.

A reading of the restrictive covenants clearly shows that there is a prohibition against putting the foundation walls closer than 50 feet from the lot line. While it is true that plaintiff’s porch, which is a part of the dwelling *(McDonald*v. *Spang,*55 Misc. 332), is closer than 50 feet from the line, there is no showing that such porch is borne by the foundation walls. As long as the foundation walls are 50, or more, feet from the line, no violation exists.

Plaintiff lives about one-half mile from defendant on a different street. Both live within the development, laid out with a single scheme in mind. The interests of all living within the park development are more closely bound than would be two property owners in a nonpark area 500 feet apart.

Under all the circumstances in this case, it is equitable and just that judgment be granted plaintiff.

Settle judgment on notice.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Rosca, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christian Mancillas,
Chief Executive 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; and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
5th day of November, 2007.


/s/ Christian Mancillas
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer