alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7176** 

ANTHONY T. STEWART , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. DANIEL T. MAHON, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

**No. 10**  **- 7178** 

ANTHONY T. STEWART , Petitioner

- Appellan t ,
v. DANIEL T. MAHON, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Samuel G. Wilson , District Judge. ( 7:10

- cv - 00207

- sgw - mfu; 7:10

- cv - 00242

- sgw - mfu )

Submitte d : July 21, 2011 Decided: July 25, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.2 Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Anthony T. Stewar t , Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Assistant Atto rney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Anthony T. Stewart seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition s . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U. S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal s . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials4 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSE D
July 27, 2015

Mr. Robert Firth

3700 Airport Road

Suite 405

Boca Raton, FL 33431

Dear Mr. Firth:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your July 2, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2697), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
### §6050A. Reporting requirements of certain fishing boat operators

#### (a) Reports

The operator of a boat on which one or more individuals, during a calendar year, perform services described in section 3121(b)(20) shall submit to the Secretary (at such time, and in such manner and form, as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe) information respecting—

(1) the identity of each individual performing such services;

(2) the percentage of each such individual's share of the catches of fish or other forms of aquatic animal life, and the percentage of the operator's share of such catches;

(3) if such individual receives his share in kind, the type and weight of such share, together with such other information as the Secretary may prescribe by regulations reasonably necessary to determine the value of such share;

(4) if such individual receives a share of the proceeds of such catches, the amount so received; and

(5) any cash remuneration described in section 3121(b)(20)(A).

#### (b) Written statement

Every person required to make a return under subsection (a) shall furnish to each person whose name is required to be set forth in such return a written statement showing the information relating to such person required to be contained in such return. The written statement required under the preceding sentence shall be furnished to the person on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return under subsection (a) was required to be made.

(Added Pub. L. 94–455, title XII, §1207(e)(3)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1707; amended Pub. L. 99–514, title XV, §1501(c)(6), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2737; Pub. L. 104–188, title I, §1116(a)(1)(C), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1762.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 104–188 added par. (5).

1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–514 amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: "Every person making a return under subsection (a) shall furnish to each person whose name is set forth in such return a written statement showing the information relating to such person contained in such return. The written statement required under the preceding sentence shall be furnished to the person on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return under subsection (a) was made."

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

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendments by Pub. L. 104–188 applicable to remuneration paid after Dec. 31, 1996, see section 1116(a)(3)(B) of Pub. L. 104–188, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–514 applicable to returns the due date for which (determined without regard to extensions) is after Dec. 31, 1986, see section 1501(e) of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as an Effective Date note under section 6721 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective for calendar years beginning after Oct. 4, 1976, see section 1207(f)(4)(A) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

-nTivlENT OF 

.rn U A ^0: 23 

Motion of 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

for confidential treatment under Rule 

12 (Form 41, Schedules B-43 and B-7) 

DOT-OST-1996-1203 

MOTION OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. FOR 

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12 

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: 

VIRASB VAHIDI 

Senior Vice President -

Marketing and Planning 

and Chief Commercial Officer 

American Airlines, Inc. 

P.O. Box 619616, MD 5628 

DFW Airport, Texas 75261 

WILLIAM K. RIS, JR. 

Senior Vice President -

Government Affairs 

American Airlines, Inc. 

1101 17th Street, N.W, 

Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

CARL B. NELSON 

Associate General Counsel 

American Airlines, Inc. 

1101 17th Street, N.W. 

Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

(202) 496-5647 

carl.nelson@aa.com 

March 30, 2012 
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Motion of 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

for confidential treatment under Rule 

12 (Form 41, Schedules B-43 and B-7) 

DOT-OST-1996-1203 

MOTION OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. FOR 

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12 

American Airlines, Inc., under 14 CFR 302.12, hereby 

moves that its Form 41, Schedules B-43 for CY2011 and B-7 for 

1Q2012 be accorded confidential treatment and withheld from 

public disclosure. The information for which confidential 

treatment is requested pertains to American's airframe and 

aircraft engine acquisitions and retirements. 

In accordance with the Department's Final Rule on Submitting Airline Data via the Internet, 75 Fed. Reg. 41580, 

41582, July 16, 2010, we are uploading our confidential reports 

electronically to http://esubmit.rita.dot.gov 

On June 5, 1995, by letter of James W. Mitchell, Director, Office of Airline Statistics, the Department granted 

confidential treatment for a 10-year period to similar data 

filed by American. For the reasons stated in that letter, the 

current submission should also receive confidential treatment. 
WHEREFORE, American moves that the schedules being 

submitted electronically to the above-referenced email address 

be withheld from public disclosure under Rule 12 for a period 

of 10 years. 

Respectfully submitted. 

GJL-^M f»t-» 

CARL B. NELSON 

Associate General Counsel 

American Airlines, Inc. 

March 30, 2012
### §85. Contracts relating to tribal funds or property

No contract made with any Indian, where such contract relates to the tribal funds or property in the hands of the United States, shall be valid, nor shall any payment for services rendered in relation thereto be made unless the consent of the United States has previously been given.

(June 30, 1913, ch. 4, §18, 38 Stat. 97.)
Sacramento

River

T11N R2E T11N R3E

YYOOLL OO CC OO

SSUUTTTTEE RR CCOO

30.6 R

29.2 R

30

19

25

24

36 31

13 18

23

26

20

29

35

14

32

17

Contract No. 14-06-200-1616A-R-1

Exhibit B

Heidrick, Mildred

725-202-65

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

0 0.5 1

Miles

Date: November 8, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\heidrick_mildred_1616\heidrick_mildred.mxd

Contractor's Service Area

Point of Diversion
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SGI
International's Form 10-Q for the nine month period ended September 30, 1995,
and is qualified in its entirely by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000737955
<NAME>                        SGI International
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                       1.000
<CASH>                               69,041
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        35,833
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    104,874
<PP&E>                            1,034,809
<DEPRECIATION>                      284,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    5,831,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             4,272,886
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                           1,161
<COMMON>                         31,842,544
<OTHER-SE>                      (34,142,729)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      5,831,945
<SALES>                               9,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     33,819
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  4,668,491
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  768,573
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (5,403,245)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (5,403,245)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     (5,403,245)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (2.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (2.15)
        


</TABLE>
(No. 965

Claimant awarded $29,522.86.)

#### Stewart-Warner Speedometer Corporation, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 26, 1927.*

Franchise *tax*— when *award may he made.*This case is controlled hy the decision of the court in cases of *Booth Fisheries*v. *State*and *Altorfer*v. *State.*

Paul O’Donnell, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; David J. Kadyk, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

In this case there is involved the claim for a refund of excess annual taxes paid and also a claim for refund of excess additional initial fees paid. The facts showing that these payments were made under duress and compulsion are the same as those in the Altorfer case, and our conclusion as to the law on this point is the same as in the Altorfer case. It appears that the claimant had paid the sum of $32,067.14 in excess of the amount due it under the law as annual taxes in the years mentioned. There was, however, the defense of the Statute of Limitations, the same as set forth and discussed in our decision in the Booth Fisheries case, and, in the case of this claimant, the amount so paid was $11,159.78. We reach the same conclusion in this item as was reached in the Booth Fisheries case in the item there. This sum having been paid more, than five years before the suit was filed and this claim *404being based upon the question of the construction of the statute which the court could have passed upon at any time, we have "decided that the court will not allow this item of the claim. The remaining items on the annual tax are allowed. These aggregate $21,908.36. There is an additional claim in this case for excess initial fees paid by this corporation, amounting to $7,614.50. The question of law involved as to this item is the same as the similar question involved in the Altorfer case, and our conclusion is, as we announced there, that the State should, in equity and good conscience, refund this excess initial fee so paid. The court, therefore, finds that this claimant is entitled to an award of the aggregate of said two sums, amounting to $29,522.86. This court is of the opinion that the State of Illinois, in equity and good conscience, should repay said sum and said sum is hereby awarded.
#### Mario Joseph NIETO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. REEVES-GALLOWAY, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division Correctional Officer; J. Karnes, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division Correctional Officer; M. Bright, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division Correctional Officer; B. Graham, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division Correctional Officer; M. Hyde, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division Correctional Officer; J. Ragan, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division Correctional Officer, Inmate Property Officer; T. Smith, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division Correctional Officer; J. Rosser, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division Correctional Officer; R. Newlon, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division Correctional Offi*222cer; G. Griffin, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-21017.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

Mario Joseph Nieto, Huntsville, TX, pro se.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mario Nieto, Texas inmate # 591239, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Nieto’s arguments that the defendants subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment because they failed to protect him from another inmate and used excessive force lack legal bases. *See Jones v. Greninger, 188*F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir.1999); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); *Glenn v. City of Tyler,*242 F.3d 307, 314 (5th Cir. 2001). Nieto’s claim that the defendants denied him access to the courts is likewise without a legal basis. *See Walker v. Navarro County Jail, 4*F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir.1993).

Nieto’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of Nieto’s complaint as frivolous and of this appeal as frivolous each count as “strikes” for purposes of the three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.1996). Nieto is warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA model of the CO2 exchanges between biosphere and atmosphere in the tundraA physical model of the soil thermal regime in a permafrost terrain has been developed and validated with soil temperature measurements at Barrow, Alaska. The model calculates daily soil temperatures as a function of depth and average moisture contents of the organic and mineral layers using a set of five climatic variables, i.e., air temperature, precipitation, cloudiness, wind speed, and relative humidity. The model is not only designed to study the impact of climate change on the soil temperature and moisture regime, but also to provide the input to a decomposition and net primary production model. In this context, it is well known that CO2 exchanges between the terrestrial biosphere and the atmosphere are driven by soil temperature through decomposition of soil organic matter and root respiration. However, in tundra ecosystems, net CO2 exchange is extremely sensitive to soil moisture content; therefore it is necessary to predict variations in soil moisture in order to assess the impact of climate change on carbon fluxes. To this end, the present model includes the representation of the soil moisture response to changes in climatic conditions. The results presented in the foregoing demonstrate that large errors in soil temperature and permafrost depth estimates arise from neglecting the dependence of the soil thermal regime on soil moisture contents. Permafrost terrain is an example of a situation where soil moisture and temperature are particularly interrelated: drainage conditions improve when the depth of the permafrost increases; a decrease in soil moisture content leads to a decrease in the latent heat required for the phase transition so that the heat penetrates faster and deeper, and the maximum depth of thaw increases; and as excepted, soil thermal coefficients increase with moisture.Document ID19940030883Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsLabgaa, Rachid R.*(California Univ. Santa Barbara, CA, United States)*Gautier, Catherine*(California Univ. Santa Barbara, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1992Subject CategoryGeophysicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:196008NASA-CR-196008Accession Number94N35389Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAGW-2737Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19940030883.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Order entered January 27 , 2015

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 01199

- CR

MARK MCCAY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cau se No. F11

- 00694

- K



### O RDER

The Court GRANT S the State’s January , 2015 motion to file an amended brief to the

extent that we ORDER the State to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, an

amended brief making the corrections specified in its mot ion.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         5,954,800
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      48,300
<MORTGAGE>                                      24,200
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   72,600
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               6,350,300
<CASH>                                          37,000
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         454,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,743,000
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                      0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 546,800
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        5,473,500
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                202,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          217,900<F1>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,300
<OTHER-SE>                                     467,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,743,000
<PREMIUMS>                                      99,600
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            249,800
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (3,700)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  23,700
<BENEFITS>                                     205,200
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     34,000
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            64,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,500
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
<FN>
<F1>Mandatorily Redeemable Preferred Securities of subsidiary trusts.
</FN>


</TABLE>