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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

___________________________

)

In The Matter of )

) Docket No. OST-2013-0048

)

Agreement Adopted by the )

Passenger Services Conference )

Of the International Air )

Transport Association as )

Resolution 787 )

__________________________ )

SURREPLY AND MOTION OF THE TRAVEL TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN OTHERWISE UNAUTHORIZED DOCUMENT

The Travel Technology Association (“Travel Tech”) hereby moves, pursuant to Section 

302.6(c) of the Department’s Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R. § 302.6(c), for leave to file this 

Surreply to the June 21, 2013 Reply of the International Air Transport Association (“IATA”). 

Travel Tech respectfully submits that the Department should accept this Surreply because it will 

assist the Department’s understanding of the issues and help to ensure a complete and accurate 

record in the case. 

Travel Tech is the association representing online travel companies (OTCs) and global 

distribution systems (GDSs). Travel Tech members connect consumers with travel suppliers, 

such as airlines, hotels, rental cars, cruises and others. Travel Tech’s members consolidate travel 

options from different travel providers, giving consumers and travel agents, both online and 

brick-and-mortar, the ability to efficiently research travel destinations and compare and purchase 

travel services. Travel Tech members also help travel sellers promote their services and 

destinations making consumers aware of their services and helping fill otherwise unoccupied 

airline seats and hotel rooms.

Travel Tech and its members are deeply concerned about the implications and impact of 

IATA Resolution 787, if approved by the Department, and the risk it presents to the current proconsumer system for airline distribution where consumers can shop anonymously to compare the 

full-range of publicly available fares on multiple airlines,. As the many filings in this docket, 

and especially that of Open Allies for Airfare Transparency, have shown, IATA and its member 
airlines have confirmed that the current transparent system has constrained their ability to raise 

prices to consumers.

Travel Tech thus endorses the Surreply submitted by Open Allies for Airfare 

Transparency on Monday, July 15th and joins with thousands of other travel stakeholders in 

urging the Department to reject Resolution 787 in its entirety, so IATA can begin a more 

consultative process on a more pro-consumer future resolution that could thereafter be filed with

DOT.

Travel Tech hereby moves the Department to accept this Surreply, which provides 

information that will clarify the issues in this proceeding and develop a more complete record. 

Respectfully submitted,

Chris Chiames

Chairman

The Travel Technology Association

1150 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 825

Washington, DC 20036

202-870-8924

chris.chiames@orbitz.com

Date: July 16, 2013
#### Lyman T. Kinney v. Board of Supervisors of Kent County.

*Be-a/rrest on application iy bail*— Sheriff’s *charges.*

Comp. L. § 7877 enabling the bail in criminal cases to take out a mitti-mus from a justice for the re-arrest of their principal, is for private purposes, and not public, and maybe served by a private person; the sheriff’s charges for executing such a precept are therefore not a public charge.

A bench warrant is sufficient for the re-arrest, on public grounds, of a person on bail.

Motion for order to show cause.

Submitted and denied October 30.

*Godwin, <& Earle*for the motion.

Per Curiam.

One Gale, being convicted in the Superior Court of Grand Rapids of the offense of forgery, proceeded to remove the cause to this Court by writ of error. 50 Mich. 237. He was admitted to bail to await judgment here, but after some little time the bail became anxious to surrender him, and applied to a justice of the peace under Comp. L., § 7877 for a mittimus which was granted. It was directed to the relator who is sheriff of Kent county, and he executed it by arresting Gale and committing him to jail. In the performance of this duty he incurred certain expense, and lie presented a bill therefor and for mileage to the respondents who refused to allow the claim on the ground that it was not one properly chargeable against the county. The relator applies for a mandamus to require the board to audit the bill.

We are satisfied that the view taken by the supervisors is correct. The statute under which the mittimus was issued *621and executed is intended merely to afford aid to sureties in making surrender of their principals. It is a regulation to subserve private purposes and protect private interests. It does not profess to be a provision to be exerted at the instance of the People, and it is not at all necessary to have the precept executed by a public • officer. The service may be made by a private person. There was no occasion for the statute, for any public purpose. Por that end a bench warrant would suffice.

We are satisfied that the county is not liable, and consequently deny the motion for an order.
February 5, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket 

Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition of Grand Valley State University – Annis Water Resources Institute for

Summary Grant of Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Reform Act) and 14 C.F.R.

Part 11,Grand Valley State University – Annis Water Resources Institute (GVSU-AWRI) hereby applies for a

Summary Grant of Exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) identified below, to

operate small unmanned aerial vehicles (i.e., small unmanned aircraft systems or UAS) for the

purpose of conducting aerial data collection, including aerial imaging, remote sensing, surveying, and 

air/water quality analysis in support of its education and research operations. GVSU-AWRI

respectfully submits that this Petition for Exemption qualifies for expedited approval, as the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) has previously issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all

material respects to those presented herein.

FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the FEDERAL 

REGISTER, should it be determined that publication is needed:

Grand Valley State University – Annis Water Resources Institute seeks an exemption from the 

following rules in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

Part 21, Subpart H; Part 27; 45.23(a) and (b); 45.27(a); 61.23(a) and (c); 61.101(e)(4) and (5); 61.113 (a) 

& (b); 61:133; 61.315; 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) & (2); 91.417 (a) & (b) 91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2) & 

(c); 91.103; 91.109(a); 91.119(c); 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a) & (b).

The exemption will enhance safety by reducing risk to the general public and property owners from 

the substantial hazards associated with using conventional fixed-wing aircraft or rotorcraft for aerial 

data collection in support of university education and research programs.
Page 2 of 2

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket

February 5, 2016

The name and address of the applicant’s representative is:

John K. Koches

Associate Research Scientist

Annis Water Resources Institute 

Grand Valley State University

Lake Michigan Center

740 W. Shoreline Drive

Muskegon Michigan, 40441-1678

kochesj@gvsu.edu

616-331-3792

Signed:
Exhibit 32.1

THE FOLLOWING  CERTIFICATION  ACCOMPANIES AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE ISSUER'S ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB AND IS NOT FILED, AS PROVIDED IN SEC RELEASE NOS. 33-8238,
34-47986 AND IC-26068, DATED JUNE 5, 2003.

                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  Amendment  No.  2 to  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-KSB  of
BrandPartners Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                  By: /s/  Edward T. Stolarski
                                      --------------------------------------
                                      Edward T. Stolarski
                                      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

                                      August 25, 2003

A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS  WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO THE ISSUER AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE ISSUER AND  FURNISHED  TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION *v.*ALVIN SAMUEL GIN COMPANY, INC. et al

74-30

510 S.W. 2d 65

Opinion delivered June 3, 1974

*Thomas B. Keys*and *Philip*.V. *(ionrn,*for appellant.

*Cathey, Brown, Goodwin & Hamilton,*for appellees.

*670GEORGE Rose Smith, Justice.

In this condemnation proceeding the highway department, in order to widen Highway 25 in the city of Paragould, is taking about 2,000 square feet of the Alvin Samuel Gin Company’s property. The strip being taken had been used as a parking and service area for the company’s cotton gin. In appealing from a verdict and judgment for $10,000 the highway department contends that the testimony of Alvin Samuel, the company’s president and active manager, should have been stricken, and that there is no substantial evidence to support the award.

We find no merit in either contention. Samuel had been engaged in the ginning business in Paragould for 18 years. In addition to being the president of the corporate landowner, he was a bank director and in that capacity had become familiar with property and loan values. He had also bought and sold property himself.

Samuel estimated the company’s damages at $18,000. He explained that the taking deprived the company of ten parking spaces for 5-bale trailers. The company would also be compelled to change its parking pattern, effectively depriving it of another 2,000 square feet of usable space. Two additional men would be needed to handle the parking. Samuel also relied upon a sale of comparable property, about a block and a half from the gin site, at a price confirming his estimate of the company’s damages. Counsel for the appellant cite no authority for their suggestion that one comparable sale is not a sufficient basis for a witness’s opinion as to market value, nor can we discern any basis for such a rule. We find that Samuel’s testimony was competent substantial evidence supporting the $10,000 verdict.

Affirmed.
Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 1 of 18  PAGEID #: 1

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 2 of 18  PAGEID #: 2

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 3 of 18  PAGEID #: 3

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 4 of 18  PAGEID #: 4

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 5 of 18  PAGEID #: 5

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 6 of 18  PAGEID #: 6

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 7 of 18  PAGEID #: 7

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 8 of 18  PAGEID #: 8

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 9 of 18  PAGEID #: 9

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 10 of 18  PAGEID #: 10

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 11 of 18  PAGEID #: 11

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 12 of 18  PAGEID #: 12

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 13 of 18  PAGEID #: 13

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 14 of 18  PAGEID #: 14

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 15 of 18  PAGEID #: 15

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 16 of 18  PAGEID #: 16

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 17 of 18  PAGEID #: 17

Case: 2:18-mj-00521-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 18 of 18  PAGEID #: 18
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000881695
<NAME> PALOMAR MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      21,085,277
<SECURITIES>                                 2,401,550
<RECEIVABLES>                               25,504,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,679,000
<INVENTORY>                                 21,199,188
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            74,469,794
<PP&E>                                      16,610,578
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,765,619
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             101,397,948
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       38,923,768
<BONDS>                                     20,011,215
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        298
<COMMON>                                       330,832
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,045,785
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               101,397,948
<SALES>                                     44,900,033
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,900,033
<CGS>                                       43,204,343
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               43,204,343
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               450,660
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,569,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (30,178,133)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (30,178,133)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (30,178,133)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.01)
        




</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4547 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4547

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 119 Station Road in Cheyney, Pennsylvania, as the ``Captain Luther 
             H. Smith, U.S. Army Air Forces Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CAPTAIN LUTHER H. SMITH, U.S. ARMY AIR FORCES POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 119 Station Road in Cheyney, Pennsylvania, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Captain Luther H. Smith, U.S. Army Air Forces 
Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Captain 
Luther H. Smith, U.S. Army Air Forces Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 9, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4547

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 119 Station Road in Cheyney, Pennsylvania, as the ``Captain Luther 
             H. Smith, U.S. Army Air Forces Post Office''.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6199

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. SEAN JERVITT HOPKINS, a/k/a Sean Jackson, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the United States District Court of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:99-cr-00224-AW-1; 8:04-cv-00162-AW) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 30, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Jervitt Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. James Marton Trusty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Sean Jervitt Hopkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hopkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Intervistas, Department of Transportation Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION, INC.**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-K of Odyssey MarineExploration, Inc. for the period ending December 31, 2017, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 
 (1)
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 aspects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. 

 

/s/ Mark D. Gordon

**Mark D. Gordon**

**President and Chief Executive Officer**

September 27, 2018 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Odyssey MarineExploration, Inc. and will be retained by Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request. 
**
IV 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 105 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to present 

the statue of Harry S. Truman from the people of Missouri. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 

Mr. CLEAVER (for himself, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, and Mr. LUETKEMEYER) 

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a 

ceremony to present the statue of Harry S. Truman 

from the people of Missouri. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR CEREMONY FOR PRES4 ENTATION OF STATUE OF HARRY S. TRUMAN 

5 FROM THE PEOPLE OF MISSOURI. 

6 The State of Missouri is authorized to use the ro7 tunda of the Capitol on September 29, 2022, for a cere8 mony to present the statue of Harry S. Truman from the 

9 people of Missouri for placement in the rotunda of the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 105 IH 

1 Capitol. Physical preparations for the conduct of the cere2 mony shall be carried out in accordance with such condi3 tions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32



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 Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its
knowledge:



(1) 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 Trust.



|              |  |                                         |  |                    
|------------- |  | --------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|              |  | Bank of America, N.A.,                 
|              |  | Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust
|              |  |                                        
|July 20, 2005 |  | By                                      |  | /S/ NANCY G. WILLIS
|              |  |                                         |  | Nancy G. Willis    
|              |  |                                         |  | Vice President