alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14758]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Proposed Advisory Circular 21-12B, Application for U.S. 
Airworthiness Certificate, FAA Form 8130-6

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of Advisory Circular 
(AC) 21-12B, Application for U.S. Airworthiness Certificate, FAA Form 
8130-6, for review and comments. The proposed AC provides guidance and 
information on the preparation and submittal of FAA Form 8130-6 
Application for Airworthiness Certificate. This application will be 
completed to obtain an airworthiness certificate and for any amendment 
or modification to a current airworthiness certificate. This AC 
provides a means, but not the only means, of demonstrating compliance 
with the requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 
21, Certificate Procedures for Products and Parts.

DATES: Comments submitted must identify the proposed AC 21-12B and be 
received on or before August 3, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed AC can be obtained from and comments 
may be returned to the following: Federal Aviation Administration, 
Policy, Evaluation and Analysis Branch, AIR-230, Production and 
Airworthiness Certification Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis Hamler, Policy, Evaluation and Analysis Branch, AIR-230, 
Production and Airworthiness Certification Division, Room 815, Aircraft 
Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267-7990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Proposed AC 21-12B provides information and guidance on the 
preparation and submittal of FAA Form 8130-6. This application is 
completed to obtain an airworthiness certificate and for any amendment 
or modification to a current airworthiness certificate.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on proposed AC 21-12B 
listed in this notice by submitting such written data, views, or 
arguments, as they desire, to the aforementioned specified address. All 
communications received on or before the closing date will be 
considered by the Aircraft Certification Service before issuing the 
final AC.
    Comments received on the proposed AC may be examined before and 
after the comment closed date in Room 815, FAA headquarters building 
(FOB-10A), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, between 
8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27, 1998.
Frank P. Paskiewicz,
Manager, Production and Airworthiness Certification Division.
[FR Doc. 98-14758 Filed 6-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### Com. v. Wilson

12/02/2015

263 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 111 A.3d 747
# BISMARCK-MANDAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION 701-222-5530 • fax 701-222-3843 .1-888-222-5497 info@bmda.org' www.bmda.org July24,2013 Ms. Brooke Chapman, Associate Director Small Community Air Service Development Program U.S. Department of Transportation 8th Floor, Room W86-307 1200 New JerseyAvenue SE, Washington D.C. 20590 Reference: Docket DOT-OST-2013-0120 Dear Ms. Chapman, 

### ]>

The BismarckAirport hassubmitted to the Department of Transportation an application for a 2013 Small Community Air Service Development (SCASD)Grant. The Airport's application isfor funding to support new network air service, focused on American Airlines and flights to Dallas or Chicago. Aconsistent concern of our membership isconvenient and affordable air service. BismarckMandan ishost to a Fortune 500 company aswell as major employers and players in healthcare, energy, agriculture and technology industries. The BMDAfully supports the Bismarck-Mandan Airport's mission to expand service through the recruitment of a major carrier like American. AChicago route would have profound impact on the availability and affordability of flights east that impact all businesses, and the route to Dallas will pay huge dividends to the increased investment bythe energy industry. ,I encourage you to look favorably on the application bythe Bismarck Airport for the SCASD grant. Sincerely,

Brian Ritter, Acting Executive Director Bismarck-Mandan Development Association

HIGH PLAINS. HIGH STANDARDS 400 EastBroadwayAvenue PO Box2615 Bismarck,NO 58502
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (3)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended August
16, 2009 (the Report), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(4)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Kenneth L. HignettKenneth L. Hignett, Senior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dewitte Wyatt, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 469]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J., at jury trial; Edward McLaughlin, J., at plea and sentence), rendered July 9, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of petit larceny, and upon his plea of guilty, of at*219tempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of one year and four years, respectively, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence on the attempted robbery conviction to three years, and otherwise affirmed.

After a joint jury trial, defendant and his codefendant were convicted of petit larceny but the jury disagreed as to attempted robbery. Thereafter, the plea and sentencing court insisted upon a plea arrangement under which defendant was to receive a sentence of either three or four years depending on whether the codefendant pleaded guilty. The codefendant proceeded to a second trial and was convicted, and defendant was accordingly sentenced to four years. We find that it was improper to link defendant’s negotiated *sentence,*as opposed to a *plea,*to the codefendant’s decision whether to plead guilty. The legitimate purpose that linked plea agreements serve, that is, saving the State the expense and uncertainty of a trial, can be achieved only if all codefendants plead guilty *(see People v Fiumefreddo,*82 NY2d 536 [1993]). However, in this case, since defendant was permitted to plead guilty whether or not his codefendant pleaded guilty, that purpose was not implicated. In effect, defendant received an enhanced sentence for the codefendant’s decision to proceed to trial, and this sentencing condition served no legitimate public purpose *(compare People v Avery,*85 NY2d 503 [1995]).

Since it is clear that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, there is no reason to vacate the plea. Instead, an appropriate remedy would be to reduce the sentence to the lawful, bargained-for term of three years *(see People v Wein, 294*AD 2d 78, 89-90 [2002]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Ellerin, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raul Medero, Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 674]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered May 13, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence, or remanding for resentencing. Defendant did not preserve his argument that his presentence report was deficient because he was not produced for an interview, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. As in *People v Rosa*(150 AD3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2017], *lv denied*29 NY3d 1094 [2017]), “[djefendant received the precise sentence he bargained for, and had he wished to be interviewed by the Probation Department, he could have called the court’s attention to the fact that he had not been produced for such an interview. Moreover, there is no indication that defendant was inclined to ask the court to exercise its discretion to impose a more lenient sentence than the one the parties agreed upon” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In any event, there is no statutory requirement that a defendant be interviewed *(see*CPL 390.30; *People v Perea,*27 AD3d 960, 961 [3d Dept 2006]), and defendant’s presentence report contained all the necessary information.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.
AGREEMENT TO GRANT LICENSE

WHEREAS  Southern   Research   Institute  (SRI)  of  2000  Ninth  Avenue  South,
Birmingham,  Alabama 35205 and Eurobiotech Group, Inc. (Eurobiotech), a Delaware
company have entered into an Agreement to co-develop certain technology, and;

WHEREAS SRI has granted to  Eurobiotech a license to co-develop  the  technology
and to market product(s)  developed from the technology in certain  territories,
as defined by the  Co-development  Agreement entered into by the parties,  it is
further agreed;

SRI shall allow  Eurobiotech  to license the technology to  Bioenvision,  Inc, a
Delaware  company that has acquired 100% of the equity  holdings in Eurobiotech.
It is agreed that Bioenvision shall be bound by the terms of the  Co-development
Agreement  and  shall  make  the  payment  due to SRI  under  the  terms of that
Agreement.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF the parties  have  caused this  Agreement  to be executed by
their duly  authorized  officers on the  respective  dates and at the respective
places hereinafter set forth.


EUROBIOTECH:                              SRI:

/s/ [ILLEGIBLE]                           /s/ G. E. Dwyer
--------------------------------          --------------------------------
Signature                                 Signature


[ILLEGIBLE]                               G. E. Dwyer
--------------------------------          --------------------------------
Print Name                                Print Name


19/8/98                                    9/1/98
--------------------------------          --------------------------------
Date                                      Date
*January 9, 2018*

2018-Ohio-55.]

2018-0037.

#### Clean Energy Future, L.L.C. v. Clean Energy Future-Lordstown, L.L.C.

Trumbull App. No. 2017-T-0110, 2017-0hio-9350. The trial court’s judgment entry is temporarily stayed pending this court’s ruling on appellant’s emergency motion to stay the trial court’s order issuing a preliminary mandatory injunction in advance of the trial court’s scheduled January 12, 2018 contempt hearing.
Advance coordination smooths regional DODEA furniture swaps
 
  By Jake Joy
  The Department of Defense Education Activity got a big assist from Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services this summer as schools in Europe and Asia conducted furniture, fixture and equipment disposal projects in preparation for the 2021/22 school year. In Rota, Spain, the agency’s disposal team helped DODEA officials get rid of 10 truckloads of unwanted items like desks, chairs, computer tables and shelving units originally worth $260,000. A DLA Disposition Services scrap contract worker disassembles school tables in Japan. The metal will be sold and proceeds help hold down the Defense Department’s property disposal costs.




A worker disassembles wood tables with metal legs.
        210621-D-D0441-4321
            A DLA Disposition Services scrap contract worker disassembles school tables in Japan. The metal will be sold and proceeds help hold down the Defense Department’s property disposal costs.

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: DLA photo
                    
                    VIRIN: 210621-D-D0441-4321 According to Rota Site Lead Brienne Halifax, solid pre-coordination with Humanitarian Assistance Program colleagues at the Defense Security Cooperation Agency resulted in the donation of nearly 400 items worth $230,000. Donations to HAP help limit disposal costs, reducing DLA’s service-level billing and providing a steady form of U.S. soft diplomacy. In Japan, school disposal support projects took place at Camp Zama, Naval Air Station Misawa, Naval Station Sasebo, Yokota Air Force Base, and Naval Station Yokosuka, according to DLA Disposition Services Sagami Operations Branch Chief Mc Keisha Inness. A large portion of the disposal consisted of student desks and chairs and included additional lots like 2,000 obsolete desktop and laptop computers. Innis said DODEA’s regional logistics chief reached out to DLA all the way back in October 2020 to begin planning 2021’s major furniture replacement projects, and that early coordination paid off for everyone involved. “He wanted to discuss ways he could streamline the disposal process,” Inness said. “It was great that DODEA contacted us way in advance – almost nine months before the scheduled turn in. This allowed the site ample time to prepare for the volume of turn ins and also manage our workforce.” Inness said the team made site visits to all the schools to ensure they selected teacher training or early dismissal days so students would not be in the classrooms, actually using the furniture. They decided to conduct a disposal as “Receipt-in-Place” and coordinated with the schools to create laydown areas for the property, dumpsters for scrap and room for contractor material handling equipment. Ultimately, usable furniture passed through the reuse screening cycle, with hundreds of thousands of pounds of scrap was generated – much of which produced revenue through scrap metal sales and helped avoid additional disposal costs.
Prize Energy Resources, L.P., Co., Hunter Gas Gathering, Inc., Pat R. Rutherford Jr.,

Michael G.



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 27, 2015

N o. 04

- 13

- 00201

- CV

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. a s Trustee of Bettye Baker Brown Trust, u/w, f/b/o William David Deiss, Bettye Baker Brown Trust u/w, f/b/o Diane Elizabeth Mysliweic, Bettye Baker Brown Trust u/w/, f/b/o Paula Jane Roberts, Dorothy Baker Shaw 1966 Trust, Baker E., Appellant s

v.

PRIZE ENERGY RESOURCES, L.P. , Prize Operating Company, Gruy Petroleum Management Company n/k/a Cimarex Energy Co. of Colorado, Magnum Hunter Resources, Inc.,

Cimarex Energy Co., Hunter Gas Gathering, Inc., Pat R. Rutherford Jr., Michael G. Rutherford,
Rut, Appell ee s

From the 343rd Judicial District Court, McMullen County, Texas

Trial Court No. M05

- 0002

- CV

- C Honorable Michael E. Welborn, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellee ’ s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is

DENIED.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of February, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1



MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



The undersigned, Sidney W. Emery Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of MTS Systems Corporation (the Company), has executed this Certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 1, 2006 (the Report).



The undersigned hereby certifies 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

Date: August 7, 2006



| |  | 
| |  | 
| |  | 
| |  | 

---
EXHIBIT 32.2Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002The undersigned officer of Veridien Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies to my knowledgethat the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the on date hereof, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification isprovided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be part of the Report or “filed” for anypurpose whatsoever.     Date: May 19, 2006 /s/ Russell Van Zandt Name:  Russell Van Zandt    Title:    Chief Financial Officer
#### Monique Cartagena et al., Respondents, v Access Staffing, LLC., Appellant.

[57 NYS3d 143]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti, J.), entered October 12, 2016, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied in this action where plaintiff Monique Cartagena alleges that while in the course of her employment, she was walking in a hallway of the Christo*581pher School, when she slipped and fell on water that was on the floor after it had been recently mopped by nonparty Winston Fofana, who was employed by defendant. Plaintiff’s affidavit presents a triable issue of fact as to whether a special employee relationship existed between the school and Fofana. Plaintiff set forth that no one from the school supervised Fofana’s work or directed his daily schedule, and that the school did not provide him with equipment or a uniform *(see Holmes v Business Relocation Servs., Inc.,*117 AD3d 468, 469 [1st Dept 2014], *affd*25 NY3d 955 [2015]; *compare Berhe v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y.,*146 AD3d 697 [1st Dept 2017]).

The motion court properly considered plaintiff’s affidavit, as it did not contradict her deposition testimony *(see e.g. Alvia v Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc.,*56 AD3d 311 [1st Dept 2008]). Furthermore, plaintiff’s deposition testimony and affidavit provide a nonspeculative basis for her account of the accident and sufficiently demonstrates a nexus between the hazardous condition and the circumstances of her fall, because she testified that immediately after she fell she noticed that the floor was wet and that there was a janitor’s cart with wet floor signs attached to it near the accident location *(see Garcia v 1265 Morrison LLC,*122 AD3d 512, 513 [1st Dept 2014]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Richter, Feinman, Webber and Kahn, JJ.
No. 09-11080.

#### Robert Washington, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 861, 131 S. Ct. 137,

178 L. Ed. 2d 84,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5955.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
#### Samaad Bishop, Appellant, v Katz Delicatessen of Houston Street, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. Zurich American Insurance Company et al., Nonparty Respondents.

[51 NYS3d 866]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owens Stinson, J.), entered on or about January 15, 2016, and said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties; and due *439deliberation having been had thereon, and upon the stipulation of the parties hereto dated April 24, 2017, it is unanimously ordered that said appeal be and the same is hereby withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid stipulation.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.
#### Barbara A. Devivo, Respondent, v Dennis J. Devivo, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 892]

*484In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated October 29, 2002, as granted the plaintiffs motion for counsel fees in the sum of $45,746.21 and pendente lite arrears in the sum of $18,975.42, and as failed to decide that branch of his cross motion which was for reimbursement of $16,000 he paid pursuant to two pendente lite orders of the same court.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as failed to decide that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for reimbursement of $16,000 is dismissed, as that branch of the cross motion remains pending and undecided *(see Katz v Katz,*68 AD2d 536 [1979]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from and reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The defendant’s contention that the award of counsel fees was erroneous because it was based on inadmissible hearsay evidence is without merit. The parties waived their right to a hearing on the issue of counsel fees, consented to resolve the issue upon motion papers and submissions, and the plaintiffs attorneys carefully documented each of the charges listed in their respective affirmations of services rendered *(see Pinto v Pinto,*260 AD2d 622 [1999]; *Robinson v Robinson,*166 AD2d 428 [1990]; *cf. Covington v Covington,*249 AD2d 735 [1998]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. McGinity, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 10.2

                               PURCHASE AGREEMENT

      THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made as of July 28th, 2005 by and
between Bionutrics, Inc. ("Purchaser") and John S. Copanos ("Seller").

RECITALS

      WHEREAS,  Seller  owns  all of the  outstanding  Units  (the  "Units")  of
ANDAPHARM,  LLC, a Florida limited liability company,  ("ANDAPHARM") which is in
the business of manufacturing prescription drugs; and

      WHEREAS,  Seller  desires to sell the Units to  Purchaser,  and  Purchaser
desires to purchase the Units from Seller;

      NOW, THEREFORE,  for One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree,
as follows:

      1.    On the  Closing  Date,  as that  term  is  defined  in that  certain
Purchase  Agreement of even date  herewith by and between  Bionutrics,  Inc. and
John D.  Copanos  and  John S.  Copanos  relating  to the  purchase  and sale by
Bionutrics,   Inc.  of  all  of  the  outstanding   membership   units  of  Kirk
Pharmaceuticals,  Inc., and the Closing of all of the transactions  contemplated
in that Agreement,  Seller agrees to sell, and Purchaser agrees to purchase, all
of the outstanding membership units of ANDAPHARM owned by Seller.

      IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties have executed  this  Agreement as of the
date first above written.

BIONUTRICS, Inc.                        Seller


By: /s/ Ronald Howard Lane                  /s/ John S. Copanos
    -----------------------------       ----------------------------
        Ronald Howard Lane, PhD.                John S. Copanos
        President