alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 25, 2011

Esta Rosenberg, Chief U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: American Airlines, Request for Consolidated U.S.-Mexico Certificate (Streamlining Docket DOT-OST-2005-22228)________________________

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

Under the Department’s February 13, 2009 Notice in the above-referenced docket, American Airlines hereby requests that its U.S.-Mexico exemption authority be consolidated into its U.S.-Mexico certificate for Route 560 (Order 2000-5-31, timely renewal application pending in DOT-OST-1999-6172). We are not seeking consolidation of our U.S.-Mexico certificate for Route 628, which we wish to keep separate.

We request that the following exemptions be consolidated
into Route 560:

**Chicago-Cancun** (year-round), DOT-OST-2000-8101

**Chicago-Cozumel** (seasonal), DOT-OST-2010-0247

**Chicago-Puerto Vallarta** (seasonal), DOT-OST-2002-13389

**Dallas/Ft. Worth-Cozumel** (year-round), DOT-OST-2002-13389

**Dallas/Ft. Worth-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo** (seasonal), DOT-OST-

2003-16495

**Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo** (year-round), DOT-OST-

2000-8361- 2 -

Our request is consistent with the Department’s streamlining policy, and with U.S.-Mexico route consolidation granted to other carriers, including JetBlue (Order 2009-9-4), Delta Air Lines (Order 2010-3-12), and United Air Lines (Order 2010-5-17).

Respectfully submitted,

Carl B. Nelson
Associate General Counsel American Airlines, Inc.

1101 17 th Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 496-5647
carl.nelson@aa.com

cc: Docket Branch
Paul Gretch
Linda Lundell
Service List**CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document by email on the following persons:

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com jhill@dlalaw.com
scott.mcclain@delta.com bill@mietuslaw.com sametta.c.barnett@delta.com mgoldman@sgbdc.com kquinn@pillsburywinthrop.com rsilverberg@sgbdc.com bkeiner@crowell.com dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com
esahr@eckertseamons.com mcmillin@woa.com bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com eskraft@jamhoff.com jeffrey.manley@united.com dpdean@jamhoff.com bob.kneisley@wnco.com dkirstein@yklaw.com robert.land@jetblue.com jyoung@yklaw.com msinick@ssd.com donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov cdonley@ssd.com dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil gbleopard@fedex.com john.allen@faa.gov dvaughan@kelleydrye.com urskr@state.gov kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com recohn@hoganlovells.com jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com lhalloway@crowell.com pmurphy@lopmurphy.com efaberman@wileyrein.com lachter@starpower.net
mroller@rollerbauer.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com howard.kass@usairways.com rpommer@atlasair.com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com gmurphy@crowell.com dan.weiss@coair.com russell.bailey@alpa.org
david.heffernan@wilmerhale.com

________________________________ CARL B. NELSON

March 25, 2011
<PAGE>
                                                                            99.2

                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 Annual Report of The Judge Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2003, as amended by
Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2003 and Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
G. Alessandrini, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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



Robert G. Alessandrini
-----------------------
Robert G. Alessandrini
Chief Financial Officer
May 16, 2003
EXHIBIT24.6

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESEPRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints each ofDamien M. Sullivan, Ross G. Landsbaum and Barry F. Schwartz or any ofthem, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact andagent, with full power of substitution, for him and in his name, placeand stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with thePANAVISION INC. (the "Corporation")Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 underthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, withoutlimiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in thename and on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf of the undersignedas a director or officer of the Corporation, and any amendments to theForm 10-K and any instrument, contract, document or other writing, ofor in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments thereto, and to filethe same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connectiontherewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities andExchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange orsecurities self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-factand agents, each acting alone, full power and authority to do andperform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be donein and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as hemight or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all thatsaid attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substituteor substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtuehereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed thesepresents this 30th day of March, 2006.

|  | /S/ JAMES R. MAHER JAMES R.MAHER |
|--|----------------------------------|

----
#### Trumbull vs. Peck.

In an action upon a contract for the payment of money only, where the defendant has appeared but failed to answer, an assessment by the clerk of the amount due, and prior notice to the defendant of such assessment, are not required in case the complaint is verified.

EEEOE to the Circuit Court for *Racine*County.

*Paine &*Millet, for plaintiff in error.

*J. IT.*Carpenter, for defendant in error.

*By the Court,*

DlXON, 0. J.

*Pech*sued *Trumbull*upon a prom - issory note, commencing bis action in the circuit court for Dane county. The complaint was duly verified, and together with the summons was personally served upon the defendant at Eacine. Before the expiration of the time for answering, *Trumbull*appeared in the action, and by his attorneys demanded that the trial be had in the county of Eacine, to which the plaintiff’s attorney consented in writing. The cause was accordingly transferred to Eacine. After default, the attorney for the plaintiff filed his affidavit of no answer or demurrer^and caused judgment to be entered by the clerk in conformity with the demand of the complaint. This was done without notice to the attorneys for the defendant, who now claim that they were entitled to notice and assessment of damages. This is the only error assigned. A glance at the statute will show the fallacy of this claim. R. S., ch. 132, sec. 27, subd. 1.

It is only where the complaint is '“ not sworn to ” thát there is to be an assessment; and of course where there is no assessment there can be no notice of it.

Judgment affirmed.
---

---

# SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION

# WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

# FORM 8-K

# CURRENT REPORT

# PURSUANT TO SECTION 13
OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934

Date of Report (date of
earliest event reported):  February 3, 2004

# LAS VEGAS SANDS, INC.

(Exact name of
registrant as specified in its charter)

|NEVADA                       | 333-42147                | 04-3010100         
|---------------------------- | ------------------------ | -------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction | (Commission File Number) | (IRS Employer      
|of incorporation)            |                          | Identification No.)

|                                         |           
|---------------------------------------- | ----------
|3355 LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD SOUTH           |           
|LAS VEGAS, NEVADA                        | 89109     
|(Address of principal executive offices) | (Zip Code)

Registrants
telephone number, including area code: (702) 414-1000

# NOT APPLICABLE

(Former name or former
address, if changed since last report)

---

---

---

Item
9. Regulation FD Disclosure.

The
following information is being furnished under Item 12  Results of Operations and
Financial Condition.

On
February 3, 2004, Las Vegas Sands Inc. issued a press release announcing its results of
operations for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2003. The press release is attached as Exhibit
99.1 to this report and is incorporated by reference into this item.

---

# SIGNATURES

| | Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report on Form 8-K to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto
duly authorized.
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Dated:
February 3, 2004
| | -----------------------

| |  | LAS VEGAS SANDS, INC.By:       /s/ Harry D. Miltenberger            
Name:   Harry D. MiltenbergerTitle:     Vice President - Finance
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

# INDEX TO EXHIBITS

|99.1 |  | Press
Release, dated February 3, 2004
|---- |  | -------------------------------------
Exhibit 32

Certification of the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NYMEX Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James E. Newsome as Principal Executive Officer of the Company, and Jerome H. Bailey, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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.



By:

/s/    JAMES E.
NEWSOMEName:

James E. NewsomeTitle:

President & CEO (Principal Executive Officer)Date: May 15, 2006By:

/s/    JEROME H.
BAILEYName:

Jerome H. BaileyTitle:

Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)Date: May 15, 2006
#### Commonwealth v. Wenrich

*David Dautrich,*assistant district attorney for the Commonwealth.

*William R. Bernhart,*for defendant.

May 2, 1982

EDENHARTER, *P.J.,*

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of possession of a Schedule I Controlled Substance, i.e. hashish, possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance, i.e. cocaine, and possession with intent to deliver a Schedule II *568Controlled Substance, i.e. cocaine.1 In his post verdict motions, defendant asserts, inter alia2 that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty, and that the suppression court erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence, i.e. hashish, cocaine and various identification papers, and certain statements made by defendant.

Defendant contends that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of proof by failing to establish that cocaine is a controlled substance, and that on this basis the trial judge should have directed a-verdict of not guilty. We find no merit in this contention.

The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act defines Schedule II Substances at §104(2)(i)(4) to include:

“4. Coca leaves and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of coca leaves, and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation thereof which is chemically equivalent or identical with any of these substances, but shall not include decocainized coca leaves or extracts of coca leaves, which extracts do not contain cocaine or ecgonine. ”

While the statute does not refer to cocaine expressly, we take judicial notice that cocaine is commonly defined as a derivative of coca leaves,3 and therefore considered a Schedule II Controlled Substance for the purposes of the statute. U.S. v. Siak, *569432 F. Supp. 1035 (U.S.D.C., W. Dist., Pa., 1977). Thus, once the Commonwealth established that the substance possessed by defendant was, in fact, cocaine, its burden of proving that defendant was in possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance was met. In this context, defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict.

Defendant also raises the issue that the suppression court erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence and statements. We conclude that the findings and conclusions of the suppression court were proper and that this issue is also without merit. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for new trial and/or arrest of judgment shall be dismissed.

ORDER

And now, May 20, 1982, after argument held thereon, the motions of defendant Ricky Barth Wenrich for a new trial and in arrest of judgment are dismissed.

1

 Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233, No. 64, §1, Eff. June 14, 1972; 35 P.S. §780-113(a), §§31, 16 and 30, respectively.

2

 Defendant’s boiler plate statements in his motion, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, the weight of the law, and the charge of the court were not briefed nor argued, and are therefore conclusively abandoned. See Commonwealth v. Dessus, Pa. Super. , 398 A.2d 1254 (1978).

3

 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1968), page 434.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2534 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide assistance for increasing 

the frequency and availability of public transportation service, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 29, 2021 

Mr. OSSOFF (for himself, Mr. WARNOCK, and Mr. PADILLA) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide assistance 

for increasing the frequency and availability of public 

transportation service, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Expanded Transit 

5 Service Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS. 

7 Section 5307(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2534 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph 

2 (D) and inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(D) operating costs of equipment and fa4 cilities for use in public transportation— 

5 ‘‘(i) in an urbanized area with a popu6 lation of fewer than 200,000 individuals, 

7 as determined by the Bureau of the Cen8 sus; or 

9 ‘‘(ii) as provided under paragraph (2), 

10 (3), or (4).’’; and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(4) EXCEPTION FOR INCREASING THE FRE13 QUENCY AND AVAILABILITY OF TRANSIT SERVICE.— 

14 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A recipient in an ur15 banized area with a population of not fewer 

16 than 200,000 individuals may use not more 

17 than 10 percent of the amounts made available 

18 to the recipient under this section for operating 

19 costs that increase the frequency and avail20 ability of public transportation service. 

21 ‘‘(B) MEASUREMENT.—Operating costs de22 scribed in subparagraph (A) shall be related to 

23 increasing or maintaining the frequency and 

24 availability of public transportation service as 

25 measured by a comparison of— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2534 IS

1 ‘‘(i) the planned number of vehicle 

2 revenue hours of service provided by the 

3 recipient in the current fiscal year; to 

4 ‘‘(ii) the number of vehicle revenue 

5 hours of service provided by the recipient 

6 in— 

7 ‘‘(I) the fiscal year preceding the 

8 first fiscal year in which the recipient 

9 uses amounts under this paragraph; 

10 or 

11 ‘‘(II) a different fiscal year, as 

12 determined by the Secretary, in the 

13 case of emergency or disaster. 

14 ‘‘(C) ELIGIBILITY.—Eligible operating 

15 costs under this paragraph include costs associ16 ated with— 

17 ‘‘(i) decreasing headways; 

18 ‘‘(ii) expanding service hours or days; 

19 ‘‘(iii) providing service to new routes; 

20 or 

21 ‘‘(iv) expanding routes.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                            99.1

                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 of The Judge Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2003, as amended by
Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2003 and Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin
E. Judge, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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



Martin E. Judge, Jr.
-----------------------
Martin E. Judge, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
May 16, 2003
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




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 filing of the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report") by Atrinsic,
Inc. ("Registrant"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best
of their 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
      Registrant.





Date:
      March 30, 2010
            /s/
      Jeffrey SchwartzJeffrey
      SchwartzChief
      Executive OfficerDate:
      March 30, 2010
            /s/
      Thomas PlottsThomas
      PlottsChief
      Financial Officer (Interim)




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




EX-7
#### Boughton *against*Carter.

turap?kfhcom-faa,"'fui'rightto rePair their road, so as *to*prevent the ef-fectsofrainsor freshets, yet in the exercise of this right, they must take care not to injure the owners of the adjoining land. They have no right to turn the water which washes the road on to the land of a private person; and if a damage arises to the owner of the adjoining land, in consequence of their want of care and negligence, in this respect, he may have an action on the case, to recover the damages he has sustained.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, to a Justice’s Court.

*Carter*sued *Boughton*before the Justice, for obstructing the turnpike road and ditch, opposite to the land and garden of the plaintiff, so as to cause freshets, and the water to 4 7 run upon* and wash his land and garden* The defendant, , . 7 at the trial, admitted that he made the obstructions com*406plained of, and contended that he had legal right .to do so, jn or(jer (uaké the necessary repairs to the road, and to prevent its being injured by the rain or freshets. The cause was tried by a jury. The plaintiff proved that the defendant had made a bar across the turnpike road, above the plaintiff’s garden, and thereby obstructed one of the ditches, in such a manner, that it caused the water to flow in upon his garden, and washed away the soil, and injured the vegetables, &c. There was a contrariety of evidence as to the fact of the plaintiff having consented to have the bar so made across the road, and of a similar one having been made near the same place, in 1818, and as to the necessity and manner of its construction, as .well as to the plaintiff’s having forbidden the making of it. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for eight dollars damages, on which the justice gave judgment.

*Per Curiam.*

We ought not to disturb this verdict. It appears that the question before the jury was, whether the bar across the road had been properly constructed, and whether the damage done to the plaintiff’s garden might not, with reasonable care and diligence, have been avoided. A turnpike company have a legal right to repair their road, in such a manner as to prevent the effect of rains or freshets; but in the exercise of this right, they are bound so to make the repairs, as not to injure the owner of the adjoining land. They have no authority to turn the water which washes the road upon the land belonging to private persons. They can guard against this injurious consequence, and it is their duty to do so. If they will not, however, take this reasona. ble care, and the property of individuals is damaged by their' unskilfulness or negligence, they are responsible. The jury were the proper judges of the facts contested at the trial,'and had all the means of coming to a right decision upon them, as the Court below was held in the immediate vicinity of the place where the injury complained of was done. We are of opinion, therefore, that the judgment given on. the verdict, ought to be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Security Service Federal Credit Union

,

Appellant

,

v.

Michelle Rodriguez

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 0 0154

- CV

Appeal from the

168 th District Court

of El Paso County , Texas

(TC# 2018DCV397 9 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appell ee ’ s third motion for extension of time within which to file

the b rief until Janu ary 23

, 20 20

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

F ILE THE APPEL LEE ’ S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon

. Jo hn P. Mobbs

, the Appell ee’ s attorney, prepare the

Appel lee ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before Janu ary 23

, 20 20

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30 th day of December

, 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.