alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Boston Executive Helicopters 

Complainants 

V. 

Town of Norwood, Massachusetts 

And Norwood Airport Commission 

Respondent 

NOTICE OF DATE OF ISSUANCE 

Docket No. 16-15-05 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B. 

In accordance with 14 CFR §16.3l(a), after consideration ofthe pleadings and other 

information obtained by the FAA and upon completion of the investigation, the Director will 

render an initial determination and serve it upon each party within 120 days of the date the 

last pleading specified in 14 CFR § 16.23 was due. 

The Parties have filed supplemental pleadings in accordance with 14 CFR § 16.23G). 

The last pleading was received on December 15, 20 16; accordingly, the date by which the 

Director's etermination will be issued in this matter is April 17, 2017 

illis, Director 

fAirport Compliance 

and anagement Analysis 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December M::. 2016, I caused to be emailed and placed 

in the United States mail (first class, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy of the 

foregoing Notice addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Timothy I. McCulloch 

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 

2375 East Camelback Road 

Suite 750 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

Counsel for Respondents: 

Brandon H. Moss, Esq. 

Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP 

Crown Colony Plaza 

300 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 410 

Quincy, MA 02169 

Town ofNorwood, Massachusetts 

566 Washington Street 

Norwood, MA 02062 

Norwood Airport Commission 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, C-6 1 0 

FAAAC0-100 Q 

a.J.No 

i ~ 

erts '--" 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
#### Anna Vitelli et al., Appellants, v. Broadway-Marlboro Realty Corporation, Respondent.

No opinion. Present—Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Lewis, JJ.
# Multiple Choices

`/mp/cvpcp/map.php`

Available documents:- /mp/cvpcp/map  (common basename) /mp/cvpcp/map.html (common basename)Please consider informing the owner of the referring page about the broken link.
(No. 741

Claimant awarded $4,275.00.)

#### Vesta Battery Corporation, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 1, 1925.*

Franchise *tax*— when *refund may he made.*This case is similar to that of *Herenden Milling Go.*v. *State, supra,*and the decision of the court in that case governs this claim.

Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for refund of franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, by above claimant, in the years 1920 and 1921, in the total sum of $4275.00.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award above claimant the sum of $4275.00.
### §1463. Repayment of loan; financing from other sources

Loans may be made only when, in the judgment of the Secretary, there is a reasonable prospect of repayment, and only to applicants who in the opinion of the Secretary are unable to obtain financing from other sources on reasonable terms and conditions.

(Pub. L. 93–262, title I, §103, Apr. 12, 1974, 88 Stat. 78.)
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a conference call of the Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska Advisory Committees will convene at 1:30 p.m. and adjourn at 3 p.m. on Thursday, February 26, 2004. The purpose of the conference call is to conduct a subcommittee planning meeting for a regional “Midwest Civil Rights Listening Tour” in 2004. 

This conference call is available to the public through the following call-in number: 1-800-659-8292, access code 21536083. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not initiated using the supplied call-in number or over wireless lines and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number. 

To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Jo Ann Daniels of the Central Regional Office, 913-551-1400 and TDD number 913-551-1414, by 3 p.m. on Thursday, February 19, 2004. 

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington, DC, January 23, 2004. 

Ivy L. Davis, 

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. 

[FR Doc. 04-2210 Filed 2-3-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1931

___________

Laurence Leach, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Waterway Car Wash, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 27, 2007

Filed: March 2, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Laurence Leach appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his civil

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). We construe Leach’s

notice of appeal as an implicit motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and we

grant Leach’s request.

As to the merits, having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint. Leach failed to

comply with the court’s order instructing him to serve defendant and to file a return

of service by a certain date, and the court had warned Leach that failure to comply

would result in dismissal of his complaint. See Good Stewardship Christian Ctr. v.
-2-

Empire Bank, 341 F.3d 794, 797 (8th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Rule 41(b) reviewed

for abuse of discretion); Farnsworth v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 863 F.2d 33, 34 (8th

Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (pro se litigants are not excused from complying with court

orders). We believe, however, that the district court’s order should be modified to

dismiss the action without prejudice, as Leach’s conduct did not rise to the level of

willful disobedience or intentional delay. See Good Stewardship Christian Ctr., 341

F.3d at 797. Accordingly, we affirm, but modify the dismissal to be without

prejudice.

______________________________
Reporting Year 2013 data

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program – Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems 

(Subpart W) Analysis: Onshore Production Storage Tanks 

Definition and Reporting Requirements for Onshore Production Storage Tanks: Reporters are 

required to calculate and report annual CH4 , CO2 and N2O (N2O only reported when flared) emissions 

from atmospheric pressure fixed roof storage tanks receiving hydrocarbon produced liquids from 

onshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities (including stationary liquid storage not owned or 

operated by the reporter).

Coverage and Aggregation-level: Onshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities that emit 

greater than 25,000 metric tons CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) (for all covered emissions sources)1are 

required to report their storage tank emissions based on the methodologies specified in 40 CFR Part 98, 

Subpart W . Storage tanks data for onshore production is reported at the sub-basin (county and 

formation type) level. Formation types include oil, high permeability gas, shale gas, coal seam, and other 

tight reservoir rock.2

Subpart W Counts of Crude Oil and Condensate Storage Tanks:

Total tanks on well pads for 2013 Reporting Year = 212,565

Subpart W reports include data separated for tanks on well pads versus tanks off well pads, and for tanks 

with separators or wells 10 bpd or greater, and with separators or wells under 10 bpd.

Data reported for tanks on well pads, with separators or wells 10 bpd or greater (92,231 tanks) include 

information that allow calculation of percentage of controls. For these tanks, 55,270 (60%) reported 

controls (vapor recover units or flaring). Of these controlled tanks, 94% controlled with flaring, and 6% 

controlled with VRUs.

Subpart W 2013 Data for Tanks on Well Pads, ≥10 bpd

# of tanks % of total tanks

Total Tanks 92,231 100%

Controlled Tanks 55,270 60%

VRU 3,476 4% (6% of controlled tanks)

Flare 51,794 56% (94% of controlled tanks)

Uncontrolled Tanks 36,961 40%

 

1 Onshore petroleum and natural gas production means all equipment on a single well-pad or associated with a single well-pad (including 

but not limited to compressors, generators, dehydrators, storage vessels, and portable non-self-propelled equipment which includes well 

drilling and completion equipment, workover equipment, gravity separation equipment, auxiliary non-transportation-related equipment, 

and leased, rented or contracted equipment) used in the production, extraction, recovery, lifting, stabilization, separation or treating of 

petroleum and/or natural gas (including condensate). This equipment also includes associated storage or measurement vessels and all 

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations using CO2 or natural gas injection, and all petroleum and natural gas production equipment 

located on islands, artificial islands, or structures connected by a causeway to land, an island, or an artificial island.

2 More details on Subpart W available at - http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&sid=9d44ffd9f6d4df77924e55e96c1a446a&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr98_main_02.tpl
NO. 07-08-0487-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	SEPTEMBER 17, 2009

	______________________________

	IN THE INTEREST OF B.W.B., A CHILD

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

	NO. B35481-0706; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of both appellants to their child, B.W.B.  Pending before us is a motion to withdraw filed by counsel for B.W.B.’s mother.  As grounds for the motion, counsel cites a conflict that has developed that “interferes with continued representation in this matter.”

	By statute, an indigent parent defending a suit brought by the State and seeking termination of the parent/child relationship is entitled to appointed counsel.  Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.013(a) (Vernon 2009).  This court and others have construed the statute to include an entitlement to appointed counsel on appeal.  In re T.V., 8 S.W.3d 448, 449 (Tex.App.–Waco 1999, no pet.); In re A.N., No. 07-03-0124-CV, 2003 WL 1987967 (Tex.App.–Amarillo April 30, 2003, pet. denied) (mem. op.).  

	We abate the appeal and remand the cause for the trial court’s disposition of counsel’s motion to withdraw, and the appointment of new counsel if necessary.  On remand, the trial court is directed to take such actions as it finds necessary to determine:

	1.	whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; and

	2.	whether counsel’s motion to withdraw should be granted.

	The trial court’s ruling on counsel’s motion to withdraw shall be contained in a written order, by which the court also shall appoint new counsel if the court grants the motion to withdraw and finds that appellant desires to pursue the appeal. If new counsel is appointed, the court’s order shall contain counsel’s name, address, telephone number, and state bar number.  The court’s order shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court.

	The trial court is directed to hold any hearings it deems necessary to comply with this order.  Any such hearings shall be recorded and a supplemental reporter’s record containing these hearings shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court.

	The supplemental clerk’s record, and the supplemental reporter’s record, if any, shall be filed on or before October 9, 2009.

	It is so ordered.

							Per Curiam
#### § 3583.1-2 Hardrock minerals.

This subpart governs the leasing of hardrock minerals in the Shasta and Trinity Units of the Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area. The terms and conditions of hardrock leases issued under this subpart shall be the same as those set out for hardrock leases in subpart 3561 of this title, except as specifically modified in this subpart.
### PART II—FINANCING

Sec.
9704.
Liability of assigned operators.
9705.
Transfers.
9706.
Assignment of eligible beneficiaries.
### §941i. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 103–116, §11, Oct. 27, 1993, 107 Stat. 1127, which related to tribal trust funds, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
#### § 3263.13 What must I do to restore the site?

You must remove all equipment and materials and restore the site according to the terms of your permit or other BLM approval.
Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 1 of 15
Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 2 of 15
Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 3 of 15
Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 4 of 15
Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 5 of 15
Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 6 of 15
Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 7 of 15
Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 8 of 15
Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 9 of 15
Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 10 of 15
Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 11 of 15
Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 12 of 15
Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 13 of 15
Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 14 of 15
4/14/2020 s/Mendy Halberstam

Case 9:20-cv-80691-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2020 Page 15 of 15
§ 30.234 What happens if a hearing transcript has not been prepared? When a hearing transcript has not been prepared: ( a ) The recording of the hearing must be retained in the office of the judge issuing the decision until the time allowed for rehearing or appeal has expired; and
( b ) The original record returned to the LTRO must contain a statement indicating that no transcript was prepared.
C • II " IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
BETH McLAUGHLIN,

Petitioner, v. OP 21-0173

The MONTANA STATE LEGISLATURE, and the MONTANA DEPARTMENT of ADMINISTRATION

Respondents. 

# FILED JUL 1 11 2021 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

On May 26, 2021,Respondents filed a Petition for Rehearing regarding this Court's decision entered May 12,2021. Petitioner filed a response on June 4, 2021. M.R.App.P. 20 provides that this Court will consider a petition for rehearing only ifthe Court's opinion overlooked a material fact or a question presented that would have proven decisive to the case, or the decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not yet addressed by the Court. This Court has reviewed the Petition for Rehearing and the response and has determined that the Petition for Rehearing does not satisfy any ofthe criteria in M.R.App.P. 20. IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord. DATED this tlhay ofJuly, 2021. ChiefJustice 07/14/2021
Case Number: OP 21-0173istrict Court Judg Donald Harris, sitting for Justice Jim Rice

2
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Richard Carr, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 58771;

First District (3rd Division)

June 6, 1974.

Elliott T. Price, of Chicago, for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and John B. Adams, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Mr. JUSTICE DEMPSEY

delivered the opinion of the court:

The mezzanine section of Tumer-Fagman Clothiers, a clothing store *839located in the Sherman Hotel, Chicago, was broken into on a weekend in June 1970, and a quantity of merchandise was taken. The defendant, Richard Carr, was arrested for the crime, tried by a jury, found guilty and sentenced. The evidence proved him to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but two trial errors impel the reversal of his conviction and the remandment of his case for another trial.

A fur coat with a Tumer-Fagman label was found in Carrs apartment. At this trial a motion was made to suppress this evidence. The court denied the motion without conducting a hearing to determine if the search and seizure was constitutionally permissible. The State concedes that this was error, but suggests that the case be remanded instead of reversed, with directions to vacate the judgment and to hold a hearing on the motion to suppress, and if the motion should be allowed to grant the defendant a new trial and if it is denied to enter a new judgment of conviction.

 This is approved procedure *(People v. Thomas*(1967), 88 Ill.App.2d 71, 232 N.E.2d 259) and would be proper if the failure to conduct a hearing on the motion were the only trial error. However, it was not. A police officer injected into the case intimations that Carr had committed criminal offenses other than the burglary for which he was being tried. In his testimony the officer related a conversation he had with Carr after his arrest. He quoted Carr as saying that he worked with a person named Scott “who is buying all my stolen property * * The defendant’s objection was overruled and the officer continued to testify that Carr said, “Scott, who was buying this stolen property, • * * was waiting out in the back of his [Carr’s] building now to pick up the machines that were up in his apartment, the office machines.”

 A defendant is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely with reference to the crime with which he is charged and evidence of other offenses unrelated to the crime from which he is on trial is incompetent. *(People v. Gregory*(1961), 22 Ill.2d 601, 177 N.E.2d 120; *People v. Brown*(1972), 3 Ill.App.3d 1022, 279 N.E.2d 765.) The references to all Carr’s stolen property and to the office machines which were in Carr’s apartment (no such machines had been taken in the Tumer-Fagman burglary) implied that Carr had been involved in other burglaries or thefts. There was no legal justification for informing the jury of this damaging portion of Carr’s statement and its inclusion in the officer’s testimony was prejudicial and denied the defendant a fair trial.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

McNAMARA, P. J., and McGLOON, J., concur.
### §493. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 493 was editorially reclassified as section 5142 of this title.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________

ALRAY SUMPTER, SR. , Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD , Respondent.

__________________________ 2013

- 3062

__________________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. AT 0752120711 -I- 1.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________
O R D E R

Th e Department of the Treasury moves to recaption to name the Merit Systems Protection Board as responden t , and for a 21

- day extension of time for the Board to file its response brief

. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is desi gnated as the respondent when the Board's decision co ncerns the procedure or jurisdi c tion of the Board. T he employing agency is designated as the respondent when Case: 13-3062 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 03/21/2013ALRAY SUMPTER , SR

. V

. MSPB 2

the Board reaches the merits of the underlying case. Here, the Board dismissed Sum p ter ’s appeal for lack of jurisdi ction. Thus, the Board is the proper respondent in this petition for review. Accord ingly, I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The motion s are granted. The revised offi cial caption is reflected above

. The Board should calculate its brief due date from the date of filing of this order.

F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly J an Horbaly Clerk

s 21 Case: 13-3062 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 03/21/2013
#### § 3182.1 Qualifications of unit operator.

A unit operator must qualify as to citizenship in the same manner as those holding interests in Federal oil and gas leases under the regulations at subpart 3102 of this title. The unit operator may be an owner of a working interest in the unit area or such other party as may be selected by the owners of working interests. The unit operator shall execute an acceptance of the duties and obligations imposed by the agreement. No designation of or change in a unit operator will become effective until approved by the authorized officer, and no such approval will be granted unless the successor unit operator is deemed qualified to fulfill the duties and obligations prescribed in the agreement.