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

( 

REPORT XLS-2-2200-21-ICA 

Revision None, October 15, 2005 

( 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTINUED AIRWORTHINESS 

FOR 

XLS CO., LLC 

HORIZONTAL STABILIZER SUPPORT FITTING SYSTEM 

FOR 

COLONIAL C-1, COLONIAL C-2, LAKE LA-4, LAKE LA-4A, 

LAKE LA-4P, AND LAKE LA-4-200 

AIRCRAFT 

XL..<:; Company, LLC 

Report XLS-2-2200-500 

Installation Instructions and Lnstructions for Continued Airworthiness 
I ' 

Revision 

Affected 

None 

( 

10-15-05 

Log of Revisions 

Description 

Initial Release 

page 2 

( 

All 

XLS Company, LLC 

Report XLS-2-2200-2 I -ICA 

Revision None, October I 5, 2005 
. - ( ( 

Introduction 

The XLS Company, LLC Horizontal Stabilizer Support Fitting System is an improved 

horizontal stabilizer fitting or fitting assembly for installation on Colonial C-1 , Colonial 

C-2, Lake LA-4, Lake LA-4A, Lake LA-4P, and Lake LA-4-200 aircraft. Installation of 

the XLS Company, LLC Horizontal Stabilizer Support Fitting System is an approved 

replacement fitting system meeting the requirements of AD 2005-12-02 paragraphs 

(e)(l)(i), (e)(2)(ii), or (e)(3). 

The XLS Company, LLC Horizontal Stabilizer Support Fitting System is installed in 

accordance with XLS Company Installation Instructions Report XLS-2-2200-21-500. 

Maintenance Instructions 

1. Continue to maintain aircraft and horizontal stabilizer fittings as outlined in the 

standard aircraft maintenance manual. 

2. Inspect XLS fittings and, if applicable, doublers and spacers as outlined in AD 2005-

12-02 paragraph (e)(5) every 50 hours TIS or at each annual inspection, whichever 

comes first. Report to FAA if any cracks are found as outlined in paragraph (e)(6) of 

AD 2005-12-02. Do not fly an airplane with cracks in the horizontal stabilizer fittings 

or doublers. Any cracks in the horizontal stabilizer support fittings render the 

airplane unairworthy. Treat any corrosion found in accordance with AC 43-4A, 

section 5. 

3. Replace XLS fittings and, where applicable, doublers every 850 hours TIS in 

accordance with Horizontal Stabilizer Support Fitting System Installation Instructions 

Report XLS-2-2200-21-500. 

Airworthiness Limitations 

"The Airworthiness Limhations section is FAA approved and specifies maintenance 

required under§§ 43.16 and 91.403 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations unless an 

alternative program has been FAA approved." 

The following parts are life limited and must be replaced every 850 hours time in service. 

XLS-2-2200-22 I Land XLS-2-2200-22 1 R fittings 

XLS-2-2200-21 fittings and XLS-2-2200-I 21 doublers 

Replace life limited parts in accordance with Horizontal Stabilizer Support Fitting System 

Installation Instructions Report XLS-2-2200-21-500. 

page 3 

XLS Company, LLC 

Report X LS-2-2200-21-ICA 

Revision None, October 15, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2001 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2001

To improve the administration of the Women's Rights National Historical 
         Park in the State of New York, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             March 25 (legislative day, February 22), 1994

 Mr. Moynihan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To improve the administration of the Women's Rights National Historical 
         Park in the State of New York, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES.

    Section 1601(c) of Public Law 96-607 (16 U.S.C. 410ll) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``initially'' in the second sentence;
            (2) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'' the last place it 
        appears;
            (3) in paragraph (9) by striking the period and inserting a 
        semicolon; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
            ``(10) not to exceed 1 acre, plus improvements, as 
        determined by the Secretary, in Seneca Falls for development of 
        a maintenance facility;
            ``(11) dwelling, 1 Seneca Street, Seneca Falls;
            ``(12) dwelling, 10 Seneca Street, Seneca Falls;
            ``(13) parcels adjacent to Wesleyan Chapel Block, including 
        Clinton Street, Fall Street, and Mynderse Street, Seneca Falls; 
        and
            ``(14) dwelling, 12 East Williams Street, Waterloo.''.

SEC. 2. MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS.

    Section 1601 of Public Law 96-607 (16 U.S.C. 410ll) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following 
        new sentence: ``Funds available to the Secretary for the 
        purposes of the park shall be available to establish and 
        administer within the park education and research facilities 
        and programs on the history of women's rights pursuant to 
        cooperative agreements with appropriate public or private 
        entities.'';
            (2) in paragraph (5) of subsection (h), by striking ``ten 
        years'' and inserting ``25 years''; and
            (3) in subsection (i)--
                    (A) by striking ``$700,000'' and inserting 
                ``$1,500,000''; and
                    (B) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting and 
                ``$15,000,000''.

                                 <all>
```
# DLA senior leaders impressed with Troop Support's confidence, efficiency

/ Published Oct. 14, 2015
PHILADELPHIA,
No. 10-6139.

#### Michael Gross, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 945, 131 S. Ct. 370,

178 L. Ed. 2d 240,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7741.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-6025.

#### George Cosio, Petitioner v. Randy Grounds, Warden.

562 U.S. 995, 131 S. Ct. 423,

178 L. Ed. 2d 344,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8276.

October 18, 2010.

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

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 381 Fed. Appx. 714.
# Where in the World: Rota

/ Published March 14, 2022

On the sandy “playas” of Spain’s Atlantic coast, halfway between its border with Portugal to the northwest and the vital Gibraltar Strait and Mediterranean Sea to the southeast, lies the largest American military community in the country – Naval Station Rota.

The 6,100-acre Spanish-owned installation was constructed in 1953 and is home to about 35 tenant commands drawing an estimated 6,000 servicemembers, DOD civilians, family members and U.S. military retirees. The neighboring city of Rota itself is a smallish town, with about 30,000 permanent year-round residents that triples in size during the summer as Europeans flock to enjoy the sun and surf.

Attending to Rota’s military reverse logistics needs is the small staff of the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services site there, which primarily supports various forward deployed and visiting U.S. Navy ships, submarines and support ships. Permanent units include a Naval Surface Warfare facility, Personnel Support Detachment Rota, Marine Corps entities as well as Air Force units like the 725th Air Mobility Squadron. Rota also has a special role in the preparation and redeployment of the Navy-Marine Corps team’s Amphibious Ready Groups.

According to site leadership, they provide the standard DLA property disposal menu items, like “disposition, turn ins, Reutilization, Transfer, and Donation, warehousing, scrap removal, and troop support,” while averaging about 4,800 DTIDs processed annually.

An unusual recent property turn in they cited was a snowplow. In a place that essentially never dips below 40 degrees Fahrenheit even in its chilliest months, snow equipment does seem like a bit of a head scratcher.

On the humanitarian assistance side of things, the site provided assistance to the OPERATION ALLIED REFUGE effort to evacuate American personnel and Afghan refugees during the conclusion of U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan. Rota personnel also worked with the Department of Defense Education Activity on the turn in of classroom furniture in 2021. Coordination included the removal of 10 truckloads of desks, chairs, computer tables, and shelving units originally valued at $260,000.  Advanced communication with the Defense Security Cooperation Agency’s Humanitarian Assistance Program resulted in the requisitioning of most of the items to partner nations in need. 

Rota is part of Spain’s southernmost region, Andalucia. Its 500 miles of beaches, vineyards, olive orchards and sunflower fields attract vacationers who are treated to bullfights, festivals, flamenco shows and a temperate climate. The weather is described as Southern California-esque; very warm in the summer, still mildly warm in the winter.

_________________________________________________________________________

DLA Disposition Services is celebrating its 50th Anniversary by reflecting on its mission, culture, and workforce. This series is highlighting individual field sites throughout the agency, across the globe. Visit the historical page to learn more about the MSC and its history.
No. 10-5159.

#### Marion Edward Pearson, Jr., Petitioner v. Alvin W. Keller, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction, et al.

562 U.S. 907, 131 S. Ct. 251,

178 L. Ed. 2d 166,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7119.

October 4, 2010.

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

*167Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 442.
No. 10-5237.

#### Johnny Hunt, Petitioner v. R. David Mitchell, Correctional Administrator, Mountain View Correctional Institution.

562 U.S. 910, 131 S. Ct. 263,

178 L. Ed. 2d 174,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6811.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 454.
No. 10-295.

#### James B. Veasaw, Petitioner v. United States, et al.

562 U.S. 964, 131 S. Ct. 480,

178 L. Ed. 2d 292,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8062,

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 361 Fed. Appx. 628.
# C_2014085EN.01002602.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/26

---

Action brought on 20 December 2013 — ZZ v FRA

(Case F-97/13)

2014/C 85/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Laure, M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

To annul the decision to nominate another candidate to the Senior Programme Manager position in FRA and the implicit decision not to nominate the applicant to the other position of Senior Programme Manager, mentioned in the vacancy notice.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Director’s decision of 5th February 2013 informing the Applicant that the Director of FRA had chosen to appoint another candidate to the position of Senior Programme Manager — Social Research (AD8) and, as a consequence, not to appoint her to this position; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Director’s decision of 5th February 2013 informing the Applicant that the Director of FRA had chosen to appoint another candidate to the position of Senior Programme Manager — Social Research (AD8) and, as a consequence, not to appoint her to this position;

th

| — | annul the undated implicit decision not to appoint her to the other position as Senior Programme Manager in the vacancy notice; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the undated implicit decision not to appoint her to the other position as Senior Programme Manager in the vacancy notice;

| — | annul any decision taken on the basis of these illegal decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul any decision taken on the basis of these illegal decisions;

| — | annul the decision of 11th July 2013 insofar as it rejects the Applicant’s complaint and as it refuses to initiate an administrative inquiry, conducted by an unquestionably unbiased, impartial and objective investigator, in order to establish the facts; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 11th July 2013 insofar as it rejects the Applicant’s complaint and as it refuses to initiate an administrative inquiry, conducted by an unquestionably unbiased, impartial and objective investigator, in order to establish the facts;

th

| — | compensate the material prejudice suffered by the Applicant estimated at 550 651 euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the material prejudice suffered by the Applicant estimated at 550 651 euros;

| — | compensate the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant estimated at 70 000 euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant estimated at 70 000 euros;

| — | order the Defendant to pay for all costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to pay for all costs.

---
Letter Agreement




	



THIS LETTER AGREEMENT (the
“Agreement”), is made this 1 day of December, 2004, among Hudson United
Bancorp, a New Jersey corporation, Hudson United Bank, a New Jersey state chartered bank
(collectively, the “Company”), that maintain principal offices at 1000 MacArthur
Boulevard, Mahwah, New Jersey, and Kenneth T. Neilson (the “Executive”). 



             1.       
          In consideration of a payment by the Company of $2,625,000.00, receipt of which
          is hereby acknowledged by the Executive, the Change in Control, Severance and
          Employment Agreement entered into between the Company and the Executive, as
          amended on September 17, 2003, is hereby terminated. The Company and the
          Executive agree that such payment relieves the Company of all obligations and
          terminates all rights of the Executive under such Change in Control, Severance
          and Employment Agreement. 



             2.       
          The only benefits payable by the Company to the Executive arising from the
          Company’s termination of employment of the Executive with the Company or
          its subsidiaries shall be those, if any, set forth in the new Company-wide
          severance plan, adopted by the Company on December 1, 2004. 



             3.       
          The terms of this Agreement shall be governed by, and interpreted and construed
          in accordance with, the laws of New Jersey. This Agreement supersedes all prior
          agreements and understandings with respect to the matters covered hereby. Any
          amendment of this Agreement may be made only in a writing executed by the
          Company and the Executive, and no amendment or termination of this Agreement
          shall be effective unless and until made in such a writing. This Agreement may
          be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
          original, and it shall not be necessary in making proof of this Agreement to
          produce or account for more than one such counterpart. 



        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Letter Agreement to be signed by its duly
authorized representatives pursuant to the authority of its Board of Directors’
Compensation Committee, and the Executive has personally executed this Letter Agreement,
as his own act, all as of the day and year first above written. 













	ATTEST:




  /s/  Ann LaCarrubba
——————————————

    Ann LaCarrubba, Assistant 
Corporate Secretary    
             		HUDSON UNITED BANCORP AND 
HUDSON UNITED BANK



By:  /s/ John H. Tatigian, Jr.
——————————————

        John H. Tatigian, Jr.,     
        Chairperson,
Compensation Committee






	WITNESS:



  /s/  Victoria S. Freund
——————————————

  Victoria S. Freund  
              		EXECUTIVE



  /s/  Kenneth T. Neilson
——————————————

     Kenneth T. Neilson
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATIONS I, Richard L. Feinstein, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ameritrans Capital Corporation;2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and5.The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 15, 2010/s/ Richard L. Feinstein
Richard L. Feinstein
Chief Financial Officer
#### Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Respondent, v Mohamed Cisse, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[65 NYS3d 689]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered November 13, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for an order of reference and a default judgment against defendant Cisse, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is unnecessary to consider whether defendant demonstrated a meritorious defense to this foreclosure action, because he failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse, or indeed any excuse, for his failure to answer the complaint or otherwise timely appear in this action, which was commenced in 2009 *(see Mutual Mar. Off., Inc. v Joy Constr. Corp.,*39 AD3d 417, 419 [1st Dept 2007]; *see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Mazzara,*124 AD3d 875 [2d Dept 2015]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
#### Jay Garay et al., Appellants, v Lenin R. Castillo et al., Respondents.

[768 NYS2d 367]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff Jorge Vargas appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered September 24, 2002, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by him on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and the plaintiffs Jay Garay and Gladys Paredes also appeal from the same order.

*579Ordered that the appeals by the plaintiffs Jay Garay and Gladys Paredes are dismissed as abandoned for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court *(see*22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further;

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff Jorge Vargas, that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by Jorge Vargas is denied, and the' complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted by that plaintiff.

The defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff Jorge Vargas did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.