alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2012-1318

 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM104AD

MRA 78-1168, R2 --- 4/19/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
### §8216. Aviation duties: number of personnel assigned

The number of officers and enlisted members of the Navy and the Marine Corps detailed to duty involving flying and to other duties in connection with aircraft shall be in accordance with the requirements of naval aviation as determined by the Secretary of the Navy.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 376, §6021; renumbered §8216, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(b)(7), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1834.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6021 | 34 U.S.C. 732. | July 12, 1921, ch. 44, §8 (last par., less provisos), 42 Stat. 141. |
| | 34 U.S.C. 732a. | July 22, 1935, ch. 402, §8, 49 Stat. 490. |

The provisions cited as source are consolidated in this section. The second sentence of §8 of the Act of July 22, 1935, is omitted as executed.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6021 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
2 

MICHAEL STEVE COX, No. 62079 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN 

AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WHITE PINE, 

Respondent. 

MICHAEL STEVE COX, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN 

AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WHITE PINE, 

Resnondent. 

No. 62080 

ORDER DENYING WRIT PETITIONS 

These are seven original proper person petitions for 

extraordinary relief. The petitions are not consolidated. 

Having considered these petitions and supporting documents, 

we conclude that petitioner's arguments lack merit and that our 

intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. Accordingly, 

we deny the petitions. NRAP 21(b)(1); NRAP 21(c). 

Additionally, as demonstrated by the this order, petitioner has 

filed numerous meritless proper person petitions in this court seeking 

extraordinary writ relief and has further filed a number of similarly 

meritless appeals in this court. See Cox v. McDaniel, Docket No. 60056, 

Cox v. McDaniel, Docket No. 60151, Cox v. Bannister, Docket No. 60637, 

Cox v. State, Docket No. 61322. We caution appellant that continued filing 

of such meritless petitions and appeals may result in restrictions on his 

ability to file papers in this court in forma pauperis. See Jordan v. State, 

Dept. of Motor Vehicles & Pub. Safety, 121 Nev. 44, 110 P.3d 30 (2005), 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

KlEEZZI 
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

SINEEMEZMMEEMEIN 

3 

11EMESEM-11UMMEMEMEEtiaidiEM -

abrogated on other grounds by Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 

Nev. 224, 181 P.3d 670 (2008). 

It is so ORDERED. 1 

Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

Michael Steve Cox 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Carson City Clerk 

White Pine County Clerk 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'In each of these writ petitions, this court has received petitioner's 

requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We direct the clerk of this 

court to file the May 17, 2011, and the June 28, 2011, motions in Docket 

No. 58292; the March 19, 2012, motion in Docket No. 60404; the March 19, 

2012, motion in Docket No. 60406; the March 19, 2012, motion in Docket 

No. 60407; the March 19, 2012, motion in Docket No. 60409; the November 

20, 2012, motion in Docket No. 62079; and the November 20, 2012, motion 

in Docket No. 62080. Because petitioner was granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis in each of these writ petitions, no action is required on 

these motions.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 110

Congratulating the Government and the people of the Republic of El Salvador

on successfully completing free and democratic elections on March 7, 1999.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 11, 1999

Mr. GALLEGLY (for himself, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr.

BALLENGER, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, and Ms. ROYBALALLARD) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Congratulating the Government and the people of the Republic of El Salvador on successfully completing free and

democratic elections on March 7, 1999.

Whereas on March 7, 1999, the Republic of El Salvador successfully completed its second democratic multiparty elections for President and Vice President since the signing

of the 1992 peace accords;

Whereas these elections were deemed by international and domestic observers to be free and fair and a legitimate nonviolent expression of the will of the people of the Republic

of El Salvador;

Whereas the United States has consistently supported the efforts of the people of El Salvador to consolidate their de-
2

•HRES 110 IH

mocracy and to implement the provisions of the 1992

peace accords;

Whereas these elections demonstrate the strength and diversity of El Salvador’s democratic expression and promote

confidence that all political parties can work cooperatively

at every level of government; and

Whereas these open, fair, and democratic elections of the new

President and Vice President should be broadly commended: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives, That the

2 House—

3 (1) congratulates the Government and the peo4 ple of the Republic of El Salvador for the successful

5 completion of democratic multiparty elections held

6 on March 7, 1999, for President and Vice President;

7 (2) congratulates President-elect Francisco

8 Guillermo Flores Perez and Vice President-elect

9 Carlos Quintanilla Schmidt on their recent victory

10 and their continued strong commitment to democ11 racy, national reconciliation, and reconstruction;

12 (3) congratulates El Salvadoran President

13 Armando Caldero ́n Sol for his personal commitment

14 to democracy, which has helped in the building of

15 national unity in the Republic of El Salvador;

16 (4) commends all Salvadoran citizens and politi17 cal parties for their efforts to work together to take

18 risks for democracy and to willfully pursue national
3

•HRES 110 IH

1 reconciliation in order to cement a lasting peace and

2 to strengthen democratic traditions in El Salvador;

3 (5) supports Salvadoran attempts to continue

4 their cooperation in order to ensure democracy, na5 tional reconciliation, and economic prosperity; and

6 (6) reaffirms that the United States is un7 equivocally committed to encouraging democracy and

8 peaceful development throughout Central America.

Æ
#### James H. Murphy, Appellant, *v.*Gustav Blumenreich, Respondent.

Second Department,

January 10, 1908.

Bankruptcy — failure to state residence of creditor — cancellation of judgment denied.

A motion to cancel a j udgment against á bankrupt will be denied when it appears that the judgment creditor had no notice of the application for discharge in . bankruptcy, and-, although the address of the creditor and his attorney of record appeared in the directory of the city where the judgment was docketed, the bankrupt’s schedule stated the residence to be in a city of another State, a place where the creditor had never resided.

Appeal by the plaintiff, James H. Murphy, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 9th day of September, 1907, canceling and discharging of record, pursuant to section 1268 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment theretofore recovered by the plaintiff against the defendant.

*David J.*Gladstone, for the appellant.

Ho appearance for the respondent.

Rich, J.:

Ho notice of defendant’s application for a discharge in bankruptcy. was given to plaintiff; he never received any notice that the application had been made until served with motion papers in this proceeding. It appears that Ms name and address have appeared in *646the City Directory of the city of Brooklyn (where the judgment was docketed) for -several years; that the name and address of the attorney of record who procured the judgment have also appeared in the same City .Directory, and also in .the Telephone Directory of the city of Brooklyn, and yet the place of residence of the judgment creditor was given as Hohoken, H. J., a place where he never resided.

The Bankruptcy Act (30 U. S. Stat. at Large, 548, § 7) provides that the bankrupt shall schedule his property, showing the amount and kind of property, the location thereof, *and a list of his*creditors, *showing their*residences, *if l’mown ;■ if unknown, that fact to be stated.*This the bankrupt did not do. Inquiry of the attorney of record would have revealed -the residence of the creditor, or he might have ascertained the judgment creditor’s place of residence by consulting the Brooklyn City Directory,' where the judgment was.docketed, but instead of doing this gave a fictitious address. Plaintiff’s debt was riot'properly scheduled, and the order directing that the judgment be canceled and discharged of record must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Woodward, Jerks, Gayror and Miller, JJ., concurred.

' Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Warren Burnett, d/b/a * From the County Court at Law

AWD Independent Oil Producers, LLC, of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. CC-18417.

Vs. No. 11-16-00157-CV * August 31, 2016

Pirate Oilfield Services, Inc., d/b/a * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

Vaquero Energy Services, (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has considered the motion to dismissthe appeal, filed by Warren 

Burnett, d/b/a AWD Independent Oil Producers, LLC, and concludes that the 

motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed 

against the party incurring same.
KFS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0372

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRYCE CALEB HAMERNICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including January 8, 2023, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

November 28 2022

11/28/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0372
#### In the Matter of Jesus Perez, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 742]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a stabbing incident involving two inmates, correction officials received confidential information indicating that petitioner had retrieved the weapon used in the stabbing and hid it in a refrigerator in the kitchen. After the weapon was recovered in the specified location, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing a weapon. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the hearing testimony and the testimony of the confidential informants considered by the Hearing Officer in camera, constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination *(see Matter of Dukes v Goord,*16 AD3d 747, 747 [2005]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the Hearing Officer independently assessed the reliability of the confidential sources by conducting a personal interview (see *Matter of McCain v Goord,*19 AD3d 910, 910 [2005]; *Matter of Camacho v Goord,*18 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2005]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim that the Hearing Officer was biased (see *Matter of Cunningham v Selsky,*29 AD3d 1254, 1255 [2006]), have not been preserved for our review due to petitioner’s failure to raise them at the disciplinary hearing (see *Matter of Cargill v Goord,*29 AD3d 1255, 1256 [2006]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. RUSSELL A. ROGERS, Defendant.

DECISION

No. 4160

DATED this 18th day of March, 1977.

The application of the above-named defendant for a review of the sentence of Ten (10) years imposed on December 8, 1976, was fully heard and after a careful consideration of the entire matter it is decided that:

The sentence be and remain as originally imposed.

We wish to thank L. Randall Bishop, Montana Defender Project, for his assistance to the defendant and this Court.

SENTENCE REVIEW DIVISION

Jack D. Shanstrom, Chairman; Jack L. Green, Robert C. Sykes.
### §15102. Selection for promotion

(a) In General.—Except as provided in this section, the selection for promotion of officers in any competitive category of officers designated for purposes of this chapter shall be governed by the provisions under chapter 1403 of this title.

(b) No Recommendation for Promotion of Officers Below Promotion Zone.—Section 14301(d) of this title shall not apply to the selection for promotion of officers described in subsection (a).

(c) Recommendation for Officers to Be Excluded From Future Consideration for Promotion.—In making recommendations pursuant to chapter 1403 of this title for purposes of the administration of this chapter, a selection board convened under section 14101(a) of this title may recommend that an officer considered by the board be excluded from future consideration for promotion under this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title V, §514(a), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 246.)
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 340

Expressing the appreciation of the House of Representatives to the King

of Jordan for his efforts to support the Middle East peace process

and to condemn efforts within Jordan to further hostility between Jordanians and Israelis by ostracizing and boycotting those individuals who

have had any contact with Israel or Israeli citizens.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 21, 1999

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida submitted the following resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the appreciation of the House of Representatives

to the King of Jordan for his efforts to support the

Middle East peace process and to condemn efforts within

Jordan to further hostility between Jordanians and

Israelis by ostracizing and boycotting those individuals

who have had any contact with Israel or Israeli citizens.

Whereas Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty in 1994;

Whereas King Hussein of Jordan made the establishment of

peace in the Middle East a priority for his country and

worked to secure peace up until his death;

Whereas King Abdullah, since assuming the throne in February 1999, has continued the peacemaking efforts of his

late father;
2

•HRES 340 IH

Whereas King Abdullah has worked to strengthen Jordan’s

trade and investment with Israel;

Whereas there is an ‘‘anti-normalization’’ movement in Jordan which seeks to boycott any Jordanian who has had

social, business, academic, or cultural exchanges with

Israel or the Palestinian Authority;

Whereas the proponents of ‘‘anti-normalization’’ have as a

goal to boycott products of ‘‘collaborators’’, ruin their

businesses, and force them out of government service and

union membership;

Whereas a ‘‘collaborator’’ may be a government employee who

may have traveled to Israel for work purposes, a businessman who traded with Israel, a journalist who wrote

about Israel, or even an Israeli-born Arab who has an

Israeli passport;

Whereas the opponents of normalized relations with Israel

have reportedly assembled a list of ‘‘collaborators’’, and

have said that they will begin publishing names from the

list in the near future;

Whereas the publication of this list is an effort to prevent,

through intimidation and fear, the ‘‘normalization’’ of

ties between Jordan and Israel; and

Whereas supporters of the anti-normalization movement have

as their stated goal the establishment of a ‘‘psychological

barrier of hostility between Arabs and the Jewish State’’:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports

2 the efforts of King Abdullah of Jordan to further the Mid3 dle East peace process and condemns efforts within Jor4 dan to oppose normalization of ties with Israel by ostra-
3

•HRES 340 IH

1 cizing and boycotting those individuals who have had any

2 contact with Israel or Israeli citizens.

Æ
§ 170.135 What is the TTP Coordinating Committee? ( a ) Under this part, the Secretaries will establish a TTP Coordinating Committee that: ( 1 ) Provides input and recommendations to BIA and FHWA in developing TTP regulations, policies and procedures; and
( 2 ) Supplements government-to-government consultation by coordinating with and obtaining input from Tribes, BIA, and FHWA.
( b ) The Committee consists of 24 Tribal regional representatives (two from each BIA Region) and two non-voting Federal representatives (FHWA and BIA).
( c ) The Secretary must select the regional Tribal representatives from nominees officially submitted by the region's Tribes. ( 1 ) To the extent possible, the Secretary must make the selection so that there is representation from a broad cross-section of large, medium, and small Tribes.
( 2 ) Tribal nominees must be Tribal governmental officials or Tribal employees with authority to act for their Tribal government.
( d ) For purposes of continuity, the Secretary will appoint the Tribal representatives to a three year term. The appointments will be carried out so that only one of a region's two representatives will be appointed in any one year. Should the Tribal appointment or employment of a committee representative terminate during his/her term, the representative must notify the Secretary of this change and his/her membership to the Committee will cease. Upon receipt of the notification, the Secretary will seek nominations from the region's Tribes to replace the representative for the remainder of the term.
( e ) Should the need arise, the Secretary will replace representatives.
#### Philip A. Fain et al., Appellants, v Keith E. Gleasman et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 749]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (William E Eolito, J.), entered November 28, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that part of defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with respect to the statements in the July 22, 2005 corporate form 8-K filing with the Federal Securities and Exchange Commission.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, that part of the motion to dismiss the complaint with respect to the statements in the July 22, 2005 corporate form 8-K filing with the Federal Securities and Exchange Commission is denied and that part of the complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: Elaintiffs commenced this action seeking to recover damages for, inter alia, allegedly libelous statements made in a corporate form 8-K filing with the Federal Securities *1247and Exchange Commission. We agree with plaintiffs that Supreme Court erred in granting that part of defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action with respect to the statements in the form 8-K filing. In granting that part of defendants’ motion, the court determined that the statements made in the form 8-K filing are nonactionable expressions of opinion, that such statements in any event are shielded by a qualified privilege, and that, despite alleging malice, plaintiffs failed to make an “evidentiary showing” of malice. Contrary to the court’s determination, we conclude that the statements are sufficiently factual to be actionable (see *Curry v Roman,*217 AD2d 314, 319 [1995], *lv denied*88 NY2d 804 [1996]; see *generally Brian v Richardson,*87 NY2d 46, 51 [1995]; *Gross v New York Times Co.,*82 NY2d 146, 152-153 [1993]). We further conclude that the complaint with respect to those statements sets forth nonconclusory allegations of constitutional and common-law malice sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss (see *Pezhman v City of New York,*29 AD3d 164, 168-169 [2006]; *see generally Liberman v Gelstein,*80 NY2d 429, 437-438 [1992]; *Stukuls v State of New York,*42 NY2d 272, 279 [1977]). “Although allegations of malice may not rest on mere surmise and conjecture . . . , on a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff is not obligated to show evidentiary facts to support [his or] her allegations of malice” *(Pezhman,*29 AD3d at 169). Present—Kehoe, J.P., Martoche, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.