alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OF^mRTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

: JOCKET OPERATIONS 

ZOiO OCT - I A .'0:2U 

CIT Y O F COLUMBI A 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

OFFIC E O F TH E MAYO R 

August 13, 2010 

Ms. Susan Kurland 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation & International Affairs, X-1 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE W88-324 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Small Community Air Service Development Grant Application 

Docket OST-2010-0124 

Columbia Metropolitan Airport - Columbia, SC 

Dear Ms. Kurland: 

As the Mayor of the City of Columbia, SC and a frequent air traveler, I strongly support the air 

service proposal detailed in the Small Community Air Service Development Program grant 

application. Commercial air service at Columbia Metropolitan Airport plays a vital role in 

providing support to education, government, business, and leisure travel to/from the area. 

Future community growth of the Columbia community depends, in part, on the airport's ability to 

meet the needs of existing local businesses as well as companies considering Columbia as a 

location for their operations. The proposal to support improved air service will greatly improve 

our ability to remain competitive in the gloliai marketplace, which is the basis for supporting the 

local economy and attracting new businesses and residents to the area. 

The Columbia Metropolitan Airport has forged strong ties with the business community to retain 

and improve local air service. We appreciate the opportunity to expand that partnership to 

include the U.S. Department of Transportation through the Small Community Air Service 

Development Program. 

Sincerely, 

Stephen K. Benja 

Mayor 

Stephen K. Benjamin 

1737 MAIN STREET • PO BOX 147 • COLUMBIA, SC 29217 • PHONE: (803) 545-3075 • FAX: (803) 733-8633
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-90,083-02

IN RE DARTANIEL JAMES HARRIS, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 1482712-B IN THE 263RD DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus under this

Court’s original jurisdiction. He contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in

Harris County and his application has not been properly forwarded to this Court.

Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris County, shall forward Relator’s habeas application

to this Court, respond that Relator has not filed a habeas application in Harris County, or forward

a copy of an order designating issues together with correspondence documenting the date the State

received Relator’s habeas application. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(c) and (d); TEX.

R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(5). This motion for leave to file will be held. Respondent shall comply with this

order within thirty days from the date of this order.
2

Filed: MAY 12, 2021

Do not publish
### §380. Lease of inherited allotments by superintendent

Restricted allotments of deceased Indians may be leased, except for oil and gas mining purposes, by the superintendents of the reservation within which the lands are located (1) when the heirs or devisees of such decedents have not been determined and (2) when the heirs or devisees of the decedents have been determined, and such lands are not in use by any of the heirs and the heirs have not been able during a three-months' period to agree upon a lease by reason of the number of the heirs, their absence from the reservation, or for other cause, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. The proceeds derived from such leases shall be credited to the estates or other accounts of the individuals entitled thereto in accordance with their respective interests.

(July 8, 1940, ch. 554, 54 Stat. 745.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
§ 3515.25 Is BLM required to publish notice or hold a hearing? Yes. After you and BLM agree on the lands for exchange, we will publish a notice of the proposed exchange in the Federal Register and in a newspaper(s) in the county(s) where the lands involved are located. The notice will include: ( a ) The time and place of a public hearing(s);
( b ) Our preliminary findings that the exchange is in the public interest; and
( c ) A request for public comments on the merits of the proposed exchange.
#### § 1882.5-5 Security for a loan.

The only security for loans made under this subpart shall be the mineral revenues received by a qualified State or its political subdivisions under the Act. Loans made under this subpart shall not constitute an obligation upon the general property or taxing authority of the qualified recipient.
NO. 07-05-0430-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

JULY 10, 2006

______________________________

LORENZO KEITH LASALLE, 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 35,213-A; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

Lorenzo Keith LaSalle (appellant) appeals from an order denying him postconviction DNA testing. Via a single issue, he contends that the trial court abused its

discretion so ordering. We overrule the issue and affirm the order.

Appellant’s request for testing and affidavit attached thereto were deficient in several

respects. First, while numerous items were seized by the police and remain in the custody

of the State, appellant did and has not identified the evidence he wants tested. That
2

omission proved fatal in Dinkins v. State, 84 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

Appellant has given us no reason to deviate from the holding in Dinkins.

Second, one requesting DNA testing must also establish by a preponderance of the

evidence that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have been prosecuted or

convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing. Id. at 642-43.

Appellant’s “evidence” purporting to satisfy this burden consisted of his opinion that “I

believe that if the court will order DNA testing on the original specimens taken from both

the alleged victim to this offense and the specimen taken from me, (or any other evidence

in the State’s possession subject to DNA testing), that a DNA test will prove my innocence.”

This conclusory utterance or his “belief” falls short of being evidence sufficient to create a

reasonable probability that he would have neither been prosecuted or convicted had DNA

testing been favorable. Nor does his “belief” tend to negate the plethora of the inculpatory

evidence presented against him at trial. This evidence consisted of, among other things,

1) his own statement that he entered the victim’s abode and struck her at the time in

question, 2) the discovery of his shoe prints outside the victim’s house, and 3) the

discovery, in appellant’s house, of clothing matching that of the person who assaulted the

victim.

Third, DNA testing was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on various

specimens obtained from the victim and appellant, contrary to appellant’s representation.

The testing proved inconclusive. Why that result would not be obtained if additional testing

was undertaken goes unexplained by appellant. 
3

The foregoing circumstances preclude us from holding that the trial court erred in

ordering that appellant’s request for DNA testing be denied. Consequently, we affirm that

order. 

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

November 29, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00618

- CV

Dina P. CISNEROS

- BONNETTE,

Appellant

v.

Emcel P. BONNETTE, Jr., Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 11830 Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter s ’ record s in this appeal were originally due on October 11, 2017. Ms. Mary Helen Vargas, one of the three court reporters in this case, filed her portion of the record on November 16, 2017. Ms. Letitia Moncivais

, the second court reporter, filed a N otification of Late Record stating the reporter’s record ha d not been filed because appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee

. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Moncivais filed a letter stating she ha d been paid

, and she filed her portion of the record. T herefore, Ms. Moncivais ’s request for additional time is moot.

On November 27, 2017, appellant filed proof of payment to t he third court reporter , Ms. Kayleen Rivera

. Ms. Rivera is hereby ORDERED to file her portion of the reporter’s record no later than December 29, 2017

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of November, 2017

.

___________________ ________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 annual report of CarePayment Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Patricia J. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.





Date:  March 1, 2011/s/ Patricia J. BrownPatricia J. BrownChief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Coast Guard 

          - 33 CFR Part 117 
          - [CGD01-04-116] 

# AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. 

# SUMMARY:

The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the Amtrak Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, mile 3.4, across the Connecticut River, Connecticut. This deviation from the regulations allows the bridge to remain closed from 9 p.m. on October 5, 2004 through 9 a.m. on October 6, 2004, and from 9 p.m. on October 6, 2004 through 9 a.m. on October 7, 2004. This deviation is necessary in order to facilitate necessary inspection and repairs at the bridge. 

# DATES:

This deviation is effective from October 5, 2004 through October 7, 2004. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at (212) 668-7195. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Old Saybrook-Old Lyme, at mile 3.4, across the Connecticut River has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 19 feet at mean high water and 22 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.205(b). 

The owner of the bridge, Amtrak, requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operating regulations to facilitate inspection and maintenance repairs at the bridge. 

This deviation to the operating regulations allows the Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge to remain closed from 9 p.m. on October 5, 2004 through 9 a.m. on October 6, 2004, and from 9 p.m. on October 6, 2004 through 9 a.m. on October 7, 2004. 

                    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible.                           ( print page 59136)                        This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.                 

Dated: September 17, 2004. 

David P. Pekoske, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 04-22273 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 429

 435

 423

 411

 416

 388

 392

 354

 355

 354

 357

 337

 344

 339

 345

 354

 360

 331

 353

 340

 310

 299

 293

 294

 288

 306

 306

 316

 295

 295

 363

 358

 351

 347

 342

 338

 332

 325

 316

 315

 312

 302

 300

 303

 294

 294

 292

 287

 282

 275

 266

 257

 261

 262

 250

 264

 273

 261

 265

 263

 385

 379

 371

 364

 358

 351

 344

 335

 330

 326

 325

 318

 311

 312

 312

 309

 307

 300

 302

 289

 279

 274

 270

 267

 266

 277

 284

 281

 279

 277

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 7, 2013

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

VICTORIA CANAL ON THE MIDDLE RIVER
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5011-5012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2183]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2003-16762; Airspace Docket No. 03-ACE-99]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Marysville, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a direct final rule; request for comments 
that was published in the Federal Register on Monday, January 12, 2004 
(69 FR 1663) (FR Doc. 04-485). It corrects an error in the Marysville, 
KS Class E airspace area legal description.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on 0901 UTC, April 15, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, 
Airspace Branch, ACE-520C, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: 
(816) 329-2525.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Federal Register Document 04-485, published on Monday, January 12, 
2004 (69 FR 1663), modified Class E airspace at Marysville, KS. The 
modification enlarged the controlled airspace area around Marysville 
Municipal Airport to provide proper protection of diverse departures, 
corrected discrepancies in the Marysville Municipal Airport airport 
reference point, redefined the extension of controlled airspace and 
brought the Marysville, KS Class E airspace area legal description into 
compliance with FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handling Airspace 
Matters. However, the Marysville, KS Class E airspace area legal 
description was published incorrectly.

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Marysville, 
KS Class E airspace, as published in the Federal Register on Monday, 
January 12, 2004, (69 FR 1663) (FR Doc. 04-485) is corrected as 
follows:

[[Page 5012]]

Sec. 71.1  [Corrected]

0
On page 1664, Column 3, paragraph headed ``ACE KS E5 Marysville, KS,'' 
first line, change ``Marysville Municipal Airport, IA'' to read 
``Marysville Municipal Airport, KS.'' In the next to the last line of 
the same paragraph, change ``6.6-mile radius'' to read ``6.5-mile 
radius.''

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on January 13, 2004.
Elizabeth S. Wallis,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 04-2183 Filed 2-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### § 3141.66 Consideration of next highest bid.

The Department reserves the right to accept the next highest bid if the highest bid is rejected. In no event will an offer be made to the next highest bidder if the difference between that bid and the bid of the rejected successful bidder is greater than the minimum bonus payment forfeited by the rejected successful bidder.
FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 8/10/2015 10:10:34 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
### §§68, 68a. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–277, §2, June 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 545

Section 68, R.S. §2078, prohibited employees in Indian affairs from trading with Indians and made offenders liable to a penalty of $5,000 and removal from office.

Section 68a, act June 19, 1939, ch. 210, 53 Stat. 840, authorized Federal employees, including Indian Service employees, under rules and regulations of Secretary of the Interior to purchase from Indians and Indian organizations arts and crafts, or other products, services, or commodities, produced, rendered, owned, controlled, or furnished by Indians or Indian organizations, but prohibited employee purchases for purpose of engaging directly or indirectly in commercial selling, reselling, trading, or bartering of such purchases.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 96–277, §4, June 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 546, provided that: "The provisions of this Act [amending former section 437 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, repealing sections 68, 68a, 87a, and 441 of this title, and enacting provisions formerly set out as a note under section 437 of Title 18] shall take effect sixty days after the date of enactment of this Act [June 17, 1980]."
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 58882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22030]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Cane Creek Watershed, Lauderdale County, TN

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service.

ACTION: Notice of availability of record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: James W. Ford, responsible Federal official for projects 
administered under the provisions of Public Law 83-566, 16 U.S.C. 1001-
1008, in the State of Tennessee, is hereby providing notification that 
a record of decision to proceed with the installation of the Cane Creek 
Watershed Remedial project is available. Single copies of this record 
of decision may be obtained from James W. Ford at the address shown 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James W. Ford, State Conservationist, 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 675 U. S. Courthouse, 801 
Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee 37203, telephone (615) 277-2531.

(This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood 
Prevention, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 
12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and 
local officials)

    Dated: September 23, 2004.
James W. Ford,
State Conservationist.
[FR Doc. 04-22030 Filed 9-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
§ 3507.17 What information must my preference right lease application include? Your application must contain: ( a ) A statement of your qualifications and holdings as specified in subpart 3503 of this chapter;
( b ) Three maps showing: ( 1 ) Utility systems;
( 2 ) The location of any proposed development or mining operations and incidental facilities;
( 3 ) The approximate locations and the extent of the areas you will use for pits, overburden and tailings; and
( 4 ) The location of water sources or other resources which you may use in the proposed operations or incidental facilities;
( c ) A narrative statement addressing: ( 1 ) The anticipated scope, method and schedule of development operations, including the type of equipment you will use;
( 2 ) The method of mining anticipated, including the best available estimate of the mining sequence and production rate; and
( 3 ) The relationship, if any, between the planned mining operations and existing or planned mining operations and facilities on adjacent Federal or non-Federal lands;
( d ) Financial information which will enable us to determine if you have found a valuable deposit. Include at least an estimate of projected mining and processing costs, saleable products and markets, and projected selling prices;
( e ) A complete and accurate description of the lands as found in your prospecting permit, if your application is for less than the lands covered by your prospecting permit; and
( f ) Other data, as we may require.
#### Peter Markevich, Appellant, v. Royal Insurance Company, Limited, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Under the decisions of *Tebo*v. *Baker*(77 N. Y. 33) and *Goldenberg*v. *Zirinsky*(114 App. Div. 827), no jurisdiction over plaintiff was acquired by the service of an order for his examination upon his attorneys. The order appealed from is, therefore, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and without prejudice to further proceedings which defendant may take to examine plaintiff before trial. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
Double



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 21, 2014

N o. 04

- 12

- 00841

- CV

SCHUHARDT CONSULTING PROFIT SHARING PLAN , Allan P. Blo sxom, III, Thomas

O. Stoner, Stormy Night, LLC and TOS Ranch, LLC,

Appellant s

v.

DOUBLE KNOBS MOUNTAIN RANCH

, INC and Carlton E. Thompson,

Appellee s

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- 09

- 28311

- CV

Honorable Mickey R. Pennington, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine S t one

, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

DENIED.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

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

court on this 21st day of March, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court