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

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54223-54224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21697]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Chapter 1

[Docket Number No. FAA-2014-0463]

Policy on the Non-Aeronautical Use of Airport Hangars; Extension 
for Comments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy; 30 day extension for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has recently issued 
a notice of proposed policy. Significant interest among the aviation 
community, industry representatives, and congressional representatives 
has compelled the FAA to extend the comment period by 30 days. FAA will 
consider comments submitted to the docket by Monday, October 6, 2014.

DATES: Comments regarding this policy must be received on or before 
October 6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments [identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-
0463] using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing 
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: To Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the 
ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin C. Willis, Manager, Airport 
Compliance Division, ACO-100, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-
3085; facsimile: (202) 267-4629.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Privacy: We will post all comments we 
receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information you provide. Using the search function of our 
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into 
any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the 
comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor 
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Statutory Authority

    This notice is published under the authority described in Title 49 
of the United States Code, Subtitle VII, part B, chapter 471, section 
47122(a).

[[Page 54224]]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 5, 2014.
Randall S. Fiertz,
Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2014-21697 Filed 9-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Exhibit 4.1

 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

  NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON

 2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR,
  BROOKLYN, N.Y. 11217

 March 24, 2009


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.

2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza

Parsippany, New Jersey 07054

 Smart Fund, Tax Free Income Fund (2009 Series A)


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Fund, Tax Free Income Fund (2009 Series A) set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices
indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on March 23, 2009, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon
as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-157671) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of
this consent as an exhibit thereto.

		
	 	 Very truly yours, 
	 	  
	   	 /s/ MICHAEL KAUFHER 

      Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           7
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                              685,277
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                   0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                     0
<EQUITIES>                                         16,271
<MORTGAGE>                                              0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                           0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                    838,320
<CASH>                                              8,332
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                  7,519
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                             32,871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,246,407
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                   639,073
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                               186,728
<POLICY-OTHER>                                          0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                   0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                         0
<COMMON>                                              147
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        268,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,246,407
<PREMIUMS>                                        265,989
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                37,226
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  1,707
<OTHER-INCOME>                                         55
<BENEFITS>                                        155,991
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        57,540
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                               30,540
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    56,659
<INCOME-TAX>                                       16,592
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                40,067
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       40,067
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        2.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        2.73
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                    294,393
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                               213,478
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                       0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                 27,626
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                  102,160
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                   373,606
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                             4,479
        






</TABLE>
Raul DUBE and Mark Dube, Appellants, v. Valter PROIETTI, derivatively and on the behalf of, Miami Air Lease, Inc., Appellee.

No. 3D17-861

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 14, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.3


                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's best knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership I-F ("Issuer") for the period ending
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

      Dated this 29th day of March, 2006.

                                   GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                   PARTNERSHIP I-F
                                   ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,139,974
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,645,918
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,855,229
<PP&E>                                         952,442
<DEPRECIATION>                                 205,480
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,910,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,733,648
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        80,215
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,673,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,910,109
<SALES>                                      7,785,250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,834,739
<CGS>                                        6,482,542
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,482,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,981
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (519,451)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,397
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (544,848)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (544,848)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1752

SUZANNE BERGER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00064-LKG)

Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 23, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Rignal W. Baldwin, V, BALDWIN SERAINA, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellant. Thurman W. Zollicoffer, Jr., Deborah St. Lawrence Thompson, Peter W. 

Sheehan, Jr., NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1752 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Suzanne Berger appeals the district court’s order granting Baltimore County, 

Maryland’s, motion to dismiss Berger’s complaint raising multiple discrimination claims, 

brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e17; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634; and the Maryland 

Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-606(a)(1)(i). We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. See Berger v. Baltimore Cnty., Md., No. 1:22-cv-00064-LKG 

(D. Md. June 13, 2022). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1752 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                         3,217,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,704,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               15,564,000
<PP&E>                                         278,750,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 125,927,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 175,634,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          17,910,000
<BONDS>                                        115,249,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       240,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     42,235,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   175,634,000
<SALES>                                        38,901,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               38,901,000
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  47,456,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,881,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15,646,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,100,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (12,646,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12,546,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.52)
        




</TABLE>
S.C., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3841

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### State ex rel. Ark. Publicity & Parks Comm. *v.*Woodward.

5-1479

310 S. W. 2d 803

Opinion delivered March 10, 1958.

*Bruce Bennett, Atty. General; Bussell J. Wools, Asst. Atty. Gcn’l.,*for appellant.

*Hugh M. Bland*and *Shaw, Jones*& *Shaw,*for ap-pellee.

Ed. F. McFaddiN, Associate Justice.

The appeal herein must be dismissed because of lack of a final and appealable order.

Woodward filed suit to quiet title to certain lands; and the Arkansas Publicity and Parks Commission (hereinafter called “Commission”) demurred to the complaint. The Court overruled the demurrer in an order which reads:

> “IT IS THEEEFOEE CONSIDEEED, OE-DEEED, ADJUDGED, AND DECEEED that the demurrers of the defendant be and the same are hereby overruled since the Court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter herein and the defendants are given 20 days to file an answer to the amended complaint of the plaintiff. The defendants objected to the action of the Court and asked that their objections be noted of record and the same is hereby done.”

From the foregoing copied order the Commission has attempted this appeal. In *Radford*v. *Samstag,*113 Ark. 185, 167 S. W. 491, an appeal was attempted from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. We said: “The chancery court in overruling the demur*857rer did not adjudge tlie rights of the parties, and consequently there was no final order from which an appeal could he taken.” In *Arkansas State Board of Architects*v. *Larsen,*226 Ark. 536, 291 S. W. 2d 269, we reviewed many of our cases, all to the effect that when there is no final order, an appeal will not lie.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
#### Hofler vs. The State.

This court will not entertain an application for a supersedeas of the judgment in a criminal case, unless application bo first made to, and refused by tho Circuit Court. *Bixby vs. The State,*13 *Ark.*286.

*On Appeal from Olm'Jc Ci/rcuil Gou/rb.*

Motion, for supersedeas.

Stillwell, for tbe motion.

Mr. Chief Justice ENglisii

delivered the opinion of tbe Court.

Ilofler was convicted, in tbe Clark Circuit Court, of an assault with, intent to kill, &c., and sentenced to the Penitentiary for three years. Whereupon, the record states, he “Piled his prayer of appeal herein, to the Supreme Court, which being considered by the court, it is ordered that- the said prayer be granted, and that the defendant have an appeal in this case to the Supreme Court, and that the clerk of this court make, certify, and send into said Supreme Court, a true and complete copy thereof.

Whereupon, on motion of said defendant, Ilofler, it is ordered by the court, that the execution of the judgment be stayed for the time and term of twenty days, that said Ilofler, in the mean time, may apply to *the Supreme Court for a supersedeas',*whereupon it is ordered by the court, that said defendant be remanded to the custody of the sheriff from whence he came.”

The appellant has filed a transcript of the record in this court; and applied for a supersedeas of the sentence of the court be*215low, until tbe case can be finally adjudicated here upon bis appeal.

The appellant was entitled to the appeal as a matter of right. Digest, *ch.*52, *sec. 225.*lie had also the right to apply to the Circuit Judge, for a stay of the execution of the sentence, until the appeal could be heard and determined in this court. *Ib. sec.*226.

Had he applied to the Cricuit Court for such stay of execution, and the application had been overruled, it would have been the duty of the court, nevertheless, to have stayed the execution of the judgment, except as to costs, for a sufficient time to enable the appellant to make application to this court, or one of its judges, for a supersedeas. *Ib. sec. 228.*

But the appellant having made no application to the court below, for an order staying the execution of the judgment, until his appeal could be heard and determined here, this court cannot grant the supersedeas now asked for by him, according to the decision in *Bixby Ex parte,*13 *Ark. R.*286. The rule is, that the application for supersedeas must first be made to the Circuit Court and refused by it, before this court will hear such application.

The appellant is privileged notwithstanding, to prosecute his appeal, but, in the mean time, there can be no stay of execution, on this application, at least.

Absent, Mr. Justice "Walkee.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 90 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 90

Redesignating the Robert E. Lee Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery 
           as the ``Arlington House National Historic Site''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2022

   Mr. Beyer (for himself, Ms. Wexton, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Connolly) 
  submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Redesignating the Robert E. Lee Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery 
           as the ``Arlington House National Historic Site''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That--
            (1) the site administered by the National Park Service and 
        dedicated as a memorial to Robert E. Lee pursuant to the joint 
        resolution of June 29, 1955 (Public Law 84-107; 69 Stat. 190), 
        as amended by the joint resolution of June 30, 1972 (Public Law 
        92-333; 86 Stat. 401), shall after the date of the enactment of 
        this joint resolution be redesignated and known as the 
        ``Arlington House National Historic Site'';
            (2) any reference in any law, regulation, map, document, 
        paper, or other record of the United States to the site 
        referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered to be a 
        reference to the Arlington House National Historic Site; and
            (3) the joint resolution of June 29, 1955 (Public Law 84-
        107; 69 Stat. 190) and the joint resolution of June 30, 1972 
        (Public Law 92-333; 86 Stat. 401) are repealed.
                                 <all>
```