alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AAM-12-069-E November 16, 2011

Exemption No. 10388 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1235

Mr. Robert Ceravolo

President Tropic Ocean Airways, Inc. 726 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, FL 33606

Dear Mr. Ceravolo:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 31, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Tropic Ocean Airways, Inc. (Tropi c Ocean Airways), for an exemption from part 120 Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would permit Tropic Ocean Airways, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Tropic Ocean Airways.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Tropic Ocean Airways, Inc., an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to permit Tropic Ocean Airways, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Tropic Ocean Airways are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Tropic Ocean Airways part 135 operation, not under the part 91.

This exemption terminates November 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
No. 86-745.

#### Vermont Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services *v.*Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### SARAH HAYS *vs.*SAMUEL SMITH.

When a demand id made for payment of an agent, who haa collected money,- and he fails to pay, that failure is in law a refusal to pay, so as to entitle' the principal to his action against the agent.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Buncombe County at Spring Term, 1844, his Honor Judge Settle presiding.

This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained two counts. *First,*on a special promise and undertaking, that, in consideration the plaintiff would trust and confide to the defendant’s care a note for $80 against one New-land, lie, the defendant, would use ordinary diligence in collecting and paying OYer the same; whereupon the said note was put into his hands for collection, and he had failed, through gross negligence, to collect and pay OYer the same. The *second*count was for money had and *received by the*defendant to the plaintiff’s use. Plea,- *non assumpsit.*The evidence was, that a note against Newland for $80 was put by the plaintiff into the hands of the defendant to collect, and that he undertook to collect the same, and that he subsequently acknowledged he had received $60 of the money. It was also in evidence, that the defendant delivered up this note to the debtor and gave him a receipt for the amount; aild that he received from Newland a note of one M’Craw for $800, out of which he had collected $640.- The plaintiff, by her agent, demanded of the defendant the money due to her. He failed *to*pay it, stating that he had not the money by *him.■ The*court charged the jury upon the first count, that if the defendant omitted to collect the debt from Newland, by failing to use such diligence as a man of common and ordinary prudence would use in the mana.gem.eiit of his own business, then the plaintiff was entitled to recover. On the second count the court charged the jury, that, if the defendant had collected the *255debt from Newland or any part of it, the plaintiff was enti-lied to recover such part. And the Court charged, that the demand, which was made on the defendant, was sufficient.

The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the note and interest. Judgment was rendered accordingly, and the defendant appealed.

No counsel appeared for either party in this Court.

Daniel, J.

We have examined the whole1 charge of the Judge, and it seems to us1 to1 be free from any error in law. When the demand was made, the defendant, it is true, did not deny the1 debt, but he failed to pay it; and that failure, in law, was a refusal to pay, so as to enable the plaintiff to commence her action. The judgment must be affirmed.

Per Curiam,. Judgment affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27235]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 21, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 15, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 732 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-416, K2025-414.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27235 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 44 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the 

Interior relating to Bureau of Land Management regulations that establish the procedures used to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HJ 44 EH 

1 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bu2 reau of Land Management of the Department of the Inte3 rior relating to ‘‘Resource Management Planning’’ (pub4 lished at 81 Fed. Reg. 89580 (December 12, 2016)), and 

5 such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 7, 

2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 44 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department 

agement Act of 1976. pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Manused to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans agement regulations that establish the procedures of the Interior relating to Bureau of Land Man-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Mariera, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 317]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Max Sayah, J.), rendered June 4, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 10 years to life and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilt was proven by legally sufficient evidence. Defendant was in the complainant’s apartment when she arrived home on the day in question and he fled when she screamed for help. Defendant was chased and overtaken by two men, one of whom was on the scene and told by the complainant that defendant was a thief, and the other of whom was in the building and heard the complainant’s scream. When apprehended, defendant was searched by one of his subduers in front of a crowd of the building’s residents and found to have the complainant’s property in his possession.

*497The issues raised by defendant concerning the credibility of prosecution witnesses, including those that arose from the differing accounts of defendant’s capture by the two men who chased him, and the discrepancies between the description of defendant’s facial hair as recollected by the complainant and recorded in the arresting officer’s paperwork, were properly placed before the jury, and we see no reason to disturb its determination.

Defendant’s claim that the readback of the entire chase sequence was not a meaningful response to the jury’s request for a readback of only defendant’s capture as testified to by one of the two men who chased him, even if meritorious, does not warrant corrective action since defendant was not "seriously prejudiced” thereby *(People v Lourido,*70 NY2d 428, 435; *People v Hawkins,*173 AD2d 358, *lv denied*78 NY2d 1076). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
#### Frank J. VERDERBER, petitioner, v. CANTELLO PLUMBING CORPORATION.

No. 86-2071.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 5, 1987.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Denied.
Kssfe/! AAy HuDs.oa/*:iiz620/ [O^AhMiS~

MicHael Mxt payed

"K6G¥ FM 7^o£~¥

Tsa/a/ssssb CoLotvy/Tj(,76~%2t>

fit'. Court of aaPsaas a/uaibw:• M-az~0o*is=-cA

J rial Cou/it cass a/hm/sba; 104,. cur/

57ylE : /fef/fef fiAy tfo,j)soA/ KsMTa ofTeM?

6F /(f£ FourtTse/iTft CollAT OF A/T£A£r

30/ fAMacta/, SOXTs Z*5J /fousfcM,7X< 77A>2

"JX&t^ •tftvi. TZoy U/A/iDj

MA^Ux- gt^wi "OFFjTcTA/- Au7ffaA3rzz£>'/

(CAS £ DSSC #Jz/>72reAA!/ 5 HouU OUMt JZ U/AS

OFFjzcXAkLy ConvscTej) of f

vtAy TAuiy youas,

yytrcMASL 'unit

tUi-FM%.0S~YTs-A/A/sssse CoA°A/y/X7S~Sfy

\

'iiMfUA >£«, ;&**£**-
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20659

                                   FORM 10-QSB/A

         [ X ] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
                        SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.

For the Quarterly period ended                  December 31, 1996


                         Commission File Number 0-25030


                       PLAY CO. TOYS & ENTERTAINMENT CORP.
             (Exact Name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware                                94-3024222
(State or other jurisdiction of         ( I.R.S. Employer ID No.)
incorporation or organization) .

550 Rancheros Drive,  San Marcos,  California                   92069
(Address of principle executive offices)                        (Zip Code)

                                 (619) 471-4505
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
<PAGE>

(Former name, former address and formal fiscal year, if changed since last
report)

Check  whether  the issuer  (1) has filed all  reports  required  to be filed by
Section 13 or 15(d) of the  Exchange  Act during the past 12 months (or for such
shorter period that the  registrant was required to file such reports),  and (2)
has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

YES [ X ]      NO [ ]


     Common Stock, $.01 par value:  11,700,558 shares outstanding as of December
31, 1996.
<PAGE>
PART II   OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1    Legal Proceedings:

              N O N E

Item 2    Changes in Securities:

              N O N E

Item 3    Defaults Upon Senior Securities:

              N O N E

Item 4    Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders:

              N O N E

Item 5    Other Information:

              N O N E

Item 6.   Exhibits and Reports on Form 8K.

Exhibit  27    - Financial Data Schedule

<PAGE>
                                   SIGNATURES

In accordance with the  requirements of the Exchange Act, the Registrant  caused
this  report to be  signed on its  behalf  by the  undersigned,  thereunto  duly
authorized, this 1st day of April, 1997.


                              PLAY CO. TOYS & ENTERTAINMENT CORP.


                              BY: /S/Richard L. Brady
                                  Richard L. Brady
                                  President


                              BY: /s/ Angela Burnett
                                  Angela R Burnett
                                  Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.1   CANCER CAPITAL CORP.   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officer of Cancer Capital Corp. certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  • the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  • the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  March 18, 2010/s/ John W. Peters
John W. Peters
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 24.1





                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

                         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS

     WHEREAS, ALCAN INC., a Canadian corporation (the "Company"), proposes
shortly to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the
provisions of the Securities Act of 1934 as amended (the "Act"), the Annual
Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Act.

     WHEREAS, the undersigned is an Officer and/or a Director of the Company as
indicated below;


     NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Serge
Fecteau, D. McAusland and R. Millington and each of them, as attorneys for the
undersigned and in the undersigned's name, place and stead, and in each of the
undersigned's offices and capacities as an Officer and/or a Director of the
Company, to execute and file such Annual Report on Form 10-K, hereby giving and
granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and
every act and thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and about
the premises as fully, to all intents and purposes, as the undersigned might or
could do if personally present at the doing thereof, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys may or shall lawfully do, or cause to be
done, by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 22rd day of
March 2001.

                                 /s/  W.R.C. Blundell
                              ---------------------------
                              Name:   W.R.C. Blundell
                              Title: Director
<!--/* //NOSONAR */-->
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	USINDOPACOM Statement on DPRK Missile Launches
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4870" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/Joint/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/55/INDOPACOM2018_100x100.png?ver=J6xEsvouw9aaqHcHjhoIIQ%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">USINDOPACOM Statement on DPRK Missile Launches</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div> <span class="date">/ Published July 24, 2023</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p>We are aware of the DPRK missile launches and are consulting closely with our allies and partners. While we have assessed that these events do not pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel or territory, or to our allies, the missile launches highlight the destabilizing impact of the DPRK’s illicit weapons program. The U.S. commitment to the defense of the Republic of Korea and Japan remains ironclad.</p>
<br />
</div>
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
[Cite as Percio v. Smith, 2016-Ohio-3482.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 CLARK COUNTY 

VALERIE PERCIO, et al. 

Plaintiffs-Appellants 

v. 

DAVID C. SMITH, et al. 

Defendant-Appellee

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

C.A. CASE NO. 2015-CA-81 

T.C. NO. 12-CV-491 

(Civil Appeal from 

 Common Pleas Court) 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N 

Rendered on the ___17th___ day of ____June____, 2016. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

BRYAN O. STEWARD, Atty. Reg. No. 0082014 and WILLIAM W. JOHNSTON, Atty. Reg. 

No. 0021772, 800 Cross Pointe Rd., Suite E, Gahanna, Ohio 43215 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants 

 

DAVID C. SMITH, 12811 E. National Road, South Vienna, Ohio 45369 

Defendant-Appellee 

DENNIS HANEY, 12811 E. National Road, South Vienna, Ohio 45369 

 Defendant-Appellee 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 

FROELICH, J. 

{¶ 1} Valerie Percio appeals from a judgment of the Clark County Court of 

Common Pleas, which entered judgment in favor of Percio and Joan Grieco and against 
-2- 

Dennis Haney in the amount of $66,500.1 The trial court’s judgment did not address the 

claims against David Smith, another defendant. 

{¶ 2} In a prior appeal, this court reversed the trial court’s June 5, 2013 judgment 

in favor of both Haney and Smith, and remanded for further proceedings. As a result of 

that reversal, the June 5, 2013 judgment in favor of Smith was no longer effective. Upon 

remand, the trial court was required to address the claims against both Smith and Haney 

in order to have a final appealable order. 

{¶ 3} Because the trial court’s judgment failed to dispose of the claims against 

Smith, and in the absence of a proper Civ.R. 54(B) certification, this appeal must be 

dismissed for want of a final appealable order. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

DONOVAN, P.J. and WELBAUM, J., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

Bryan O. Steward 

William W. Johnston 

David C. Smith 

Dennis Haney 

Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter 

 

1 A merit brief was filed by Percio and Joan Grieco. However, only Percio filed a notice 

of appeal.
PORT OF OAKLAND 

June 10, 2015 

Mr. Paul Gretch, Director 

Mr. Robert Finamore, Chief 

Office of International Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket: DOT -OST -2013-0204 

DEBORAH ALE FLINT 

Director of Aviation 

Telephone: (510) 627-1133 

Fax: (510) 835-0178 

ANSWER OF THE PORT OF OAKLAND IN SUPPORT OF NORWEGIAN AIR 

INTERNATIONAL LIMITED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER 49 U.S.C. § 40109 AND A 

FOREIGN AIR CARRIER PERMIT PURSUANT TO 49 U.S.C. § 41301 (U.S.- EU OPEN 

SKIES) 

On behalf of the Port of Oakland and the Oakland International Airport ("OAK"), I appreciate 

the opportunity to submit this Answer in continued support of the Norwegian Air International 

Limited ("Norwegian") application for an air carrier permit. Norwegian's current operations 

between OAK and Norway and Sweden, respectively, have consistently delivered strong 

economic, job creation and travel benefits to the residents of the San Francisco Bay Area region. 

I understand that Norwegian has indicated in correspondence to you that they are making a 

voluntary commitment of to utilize U.S. and European-based crew on their transatlantic flights, 

and believe that speaks favorably to its current application. 

As outlined in our previous correspondence, the San Francisco Bay Area is the third-largest U.S. 

origin and destination market. OAK is the most centrally located airport in the region, being the 

closest airport to nearly 50 percent of the Bay Area population according to the 2010 US Census. 

The international flight operations conducted by Norwegian at OAK have been extremely 

successful and we look forward to continued opportunities to grow the European air service 

market for the benefit ofthe residents of the Bay Area. 

In addition to the expanded travel benefits accorded by these flights, Norwegian's operations are 

also delivering tremendous positive economic and job creation impacts through an expansion of 

ground-handling, cargo, maintenance, and provisioning services required for their operations. 

Norwegian remains a valued partner of OAK and the San Francisco Bay Area, and we 

530 Water Street • Jack London Square • P.O. Box 2064 • Oakland, California 94604-2064 

Telephone: (510) 627-1100 • Facsimile: (510) 627-1826 • Web Page: www.portofoakland.com 
= 

respectfully request that their application for authority to operate as they have proposed be 

granted at this time. 

Respectfully, 

Deborah Ale Flint 

Director of Aviation
#### In the Matter of Unifirst Corporation, Appellant, v Town of Hamburg et al., Respondents.

[631 NYS2d 973]

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding because respondents did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in basing petitioner’s initial sewage treatment charges upon information supplied by petitioner in its application for a sewer permit. Actual flow figures are now available and will form the basis to compute subsequent charges for sewage treatment. Petitioner’s argument that the sewage treatment charge is unlawful is raised for the first time on appeal *823and therefore is not properly before this Court for review *(see, Alberti v Eastman Kodak Co.,*204 AD2d 1022, 1023). Furthermore, that argument is without merit. Where there is no actual data to compute the charges for the preceding year, the taxing authorities may determine the charges based upon "any equitable basis” (County Law § 266 [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.