alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 230.134a Options material not deemed a prospectus. Written materials, including advertisements, relating to standardized options, as that term is defined in Rule 9b-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, shall not be deemed to be a prospectus for the purposes of section 2(10) of the Securities Act of 1933; *Provided,* That such materials are limited to explanatory information describing the general nature of the standardized options markets or one or more strategies; *And, Provided further,* That: ( a ) The potential risks related to options trading generally and to each strategy addressed are explained;
( b ) No past or projected performance figures, including annualized rates of return are used;
( c ) No recommendation to purchase or sell any option contract is made;
( d ) No specific security is identified, other than ( 1 ) An option or other security exempt from registration under the Act, or
( 2 ) An index option, including the component securities of the index; and
( e ) If there is a definitive options disclosure document, as defined in Rule 9b-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the materials shall contain the name and address of a person or persons from whom a copy of such document may be obtained.
(15 U.S.C. 77a *et seq.;* secs. 2, 7, 10, 19(a), 48 Stat. 74, 78, 81, 85; secs. 201, 205, 209, 210, 48 Stat. 905, 906, 908; secs. 1-4. 8, 68 Stat. 683, 685; sec. 12(a), 73 Stat. 143; sec. 7(a), 74 Stat. 412; sec. 27(a), 84 Stat. 1433; sec. 308(a)(2), 90 Stat. 57)
[47 FR 41955, Sept. 23, 1982, as amended at 49 FR 12688, Mar. 30, 1984]
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1369. TAMRA TUGGLE v. HI-SITE HOLDINGS, LLC.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. Following

an adverse ruling in that court, defendant Tamra Tuggle appealed to the state court,

which issued a writ of possession in favor of plaintiff Hi-Site Holdings, LLC. The

defendant then appealed directly to this Court. The plaintiff has filed a motion to

dismiss the appeal.

An appeal from a state court order disposing of a de novo appeal from a

magistrate court decision must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary

review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11); Strachan v. Meritor Mtg. Corp. East, 216 Ga.

App. 82, 82 (453 SE2d 119) (1995). The defendant’s failure to do so deprives us of

jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is

GRANTED, and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

February 14, 2019

02/14/2019
### §15302. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15302 was editorially reclassified as section 20902 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
Order entered November 29, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00696-CV

DAVID DIAZ, SCOTT FISHER, AND KRISTI FISHER, Appellants

V.

SMS FINANCIAL CAP, LLC, CAPITAL ONE, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, STEPHEN F. PERKINS, AND 

CHRISTOPHER FITZWATER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-00653-2011

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee SMS Financial Cap, LLC’s November 22, 2021 

motion for an extension of time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion to the 

extent that we extend the deadline to December 31, 2021.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., DIBIA REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL

AND SCOT SPENCER

i"1' 1:;J'"til "1-J I P 2: ILl

AIRLIFT GROUP, INC.

AND RICHARD BERNARD

Unauthorized Air Transportation,

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules

Enforcement Proceeding

STATUS REPORT

DOT-OST-1995-272

formerly Docket 49233

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and

settlement negotiations.

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents

and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-

17486.
2

There have been no further settlement discussions.

Date: July 31, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

== ---:s - ~elPodbereSkY

Assistant General Counsel for

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

Vinh Q. Nguyen

Senior Trial Attorney

United States Department of Transportation

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Room 96-429

Washington, D.C. 20590

TEL: 202-366-9342

FAX: 202-366-7152
3

Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272

I hereby certify that on this 31st day of July, 2013, a true and correct copy of the

foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following:

Original

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations, M-30

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

By First Class Mail

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder

Chief Administrative Law Judge

Office of Hearings, M-20

U.S. Department of Transportation

Washington, D.C. 20590

TEL: (202) 366-2142

FAX: (202) 366-7536

By First Class Mail

Scot Spencer

SBD Aircraft Services

255 SLeland Norton Way

San Bernardino, CA 92408
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward La Roda, Appellant.

Order of the Rensselaer County Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without prejudice to a further application upon showing a justiciable issue. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         157,523
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  631,787
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,000
<INVENTORY>                                    499,279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,275,488
<PP&E>                                         104,999
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,200,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,078,710
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,218,000
<COMMON>                                       349,574
<OTHER-SE>                                   (485,400)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,820,476
<SALES>                                      5,635,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,635,837
<CGS>                                        4,915,111
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,915,111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               741,020
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (74,354)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (79,354)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (79,354)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1411.9 Effect of failure to meet time limits.

Failure by the Board, the General Counsel or the Federal Service Impasses Panel either to deny or grant any request under this part within the time limits prescribed by the Freedom of Information Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552, and these regulations shall be deemed to be an exhaustion of the administrative remedies available to the person making this request.
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic 

Conferences of the International Air 

Transport Association 

OST-2011-. OO^Cf 

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

lATA AGREEMENT APPROVED & IMMUNFZED 

DOCKET Q'il-ZO'L 0 0 9 0 ACTION DATE _4_2_2 ^ ' 

This approval vxA T" ' -'•"•—;'---•; .;p.^,,•.^:| • •;• -^.bject, where applicable, 

to conditions pi\ ' . .. 

This action i!:: iMi , , '. :' , '.'' • or: is filed under 

14 CFR ^85.30 O: :: .,•••, : ..-L'cp^irtmcnt's own motion. 

In view of the agr^c.i ...': :; .,.;c^..:;!jveri;;.i L-.atiire xA the availability of 

the above-«roctdure, the^l^ y PSXiod in M CFR 303.42 is waived. 

ector. Office of International Aviation 

6 May 2011 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to 

Douglas E. Lavin 

Regional Vice President - North America 

International Air Transport Association 

1776 K.St. N.W. #12'^ Floor 

Washington DC 20006 

M b
To: Docket IDs: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495; EPA-HQ-OAR-2 013-0602; EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0603

Date: February 3, 2015

A meeting was held from 9:00 – 10:00 am on Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at the EPA Campus in Research Triangle Park, NC between representatives from the EPA and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI). The subject was CAA 111(b) and 111(d) proposals for gre enhouse gas emissions from electric generating units. Participants were:

EPA: Kevin Culligan, Nick Hutson, Christian Fellner EEI: Alex Bond, John Kinsman
#### Reba E. Minford, Respondent, v. Richard L. Minford, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
**Exhibit32.3**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 In connection with theQuarterly Report of MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew L. Schroeder, VicePresident, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, certify, to the best of myknowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Andrew L. Schroeder                  |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                     |
| Andrew L. Schroeder                      |
| Vice  President, Treasurer and Secretary |
|                                     |
| May 12, 2004                             |

 

1

----
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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), the undersigned, Lisa M. De La Pointe, Chief Financial Officer of Puradyn
Filter Technologies Incorporated ("the Company") has executed this certification
in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,
2003 (the "Report").

         The undersigned certifies 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 operation of the Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as
of the 13th day of November 2003.

                                                  /s/ Lisa M. De La Pointe
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name: Lisa M. De La Pointe
                                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer
§ 128.11 Consent agreements. ( a ) The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and the respondent may, by agreement, submit to the Administrative Law Judge a proposal for the issuance of a consent order. The Administrative Law Judge will review the facts of the case and the proposal and may conduct conferences with the parties and may require the presentation of evidence in the case. If the Administrative Law Judge does not approve the proposal, the Administrative Law Judge will notify the parties and the case will proceed as though no consent proposal had been made. If the proposal is approved, the Administrative Law Judge will report the facts of the case along with recommendations to the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs. If the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs does not approve the proposal, the case will proceed as though no consent proposal had been made. If the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs approves the proposal, an appropriate order may be issued.
( b ) Cases may also be settled prior to service of a charging letter. In such an event, a proposed charging letter shall be prepared, and a consent agreement and order shall be submitted for the approval and signature of the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, and no action by the Administrative Law Judge shall be required. Cases which are settled may not be reopened or appealed.
[61 FR 48833, Sept. 17, 1996, as amended at 71 FR 20552, Apr. 21, 2006]
No. I-16-031 December 15, 2016 

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

NRC Proposes $14,000 Fine for Virginia Firm for Not

Obtaining Approvals to Perform Work

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $14,000 civil penalty for a Manassas, Va., 

firm for performing work in the District of Columbia without first obtaining approval from the NRC to 

do so.

EMSI Engineering Inc. conducted the activities, which involved using portable nuclear gauges 

to take soil-density measurements at construction sites, on approximately 200 occasions between

April 9, 2009, and Nov. 18, 2015.

As an NRC “Agreement State,” Virginia oversees the use of nuclear materials within its borders 

that would otherwise be regulated by the NRC. Under a reciprocity requirement, if the licensed 

materials are used in the District of Columbia, approval must first be obtained from the NRC.

In addition, the NRC has concluded that EMSI’s former Radiation Safety Officer/Operations 

Manager contributed to the violation by acting in careless disregard of agency requirements.

“The failure to file for reciprocity prior to using licensed materials in areas under NRC 

jurisdiction interfered with the NRC’s ability to inspect EMSI’s activities while in those areas to ensure 

the adequate protection of public health and the safe use of radioactive materials,” NRC Region I 

Administrator Dan Dorman wrote in a letter to the company notifying it of the enforcement action.

The NRC gathered information about these activities during an investigation performed by the 

agency’s Office of Investigations. The NRC notified the company about the apparent violation in a 

letter issued on Oct. 3. EMSI responded on Oct. 11, acknowledging the violation and describing its plan 

to address the issue.

Because the violation was determined to be willful, was not identified by EMSI and credit for 

the firm’s corrective actions was not warranted, the NRC has proposed a civil penalty of $14,000.

EMSI will have 30 days to provide a written response to the enforcement action, which is to 

include steps it has taken or plans to take to address the issue.
#### Stephen Sloan et al., Respondents, v Marshall Danto, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Albany County, entered January 25, 1977, affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of Hughes, J., at Trial Term. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Larkin, JJ., concur.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Sidtek LLC ) ASBCA No. 61928 ) Under Contract No. GS-35-F-0729P, ) P.O. W912NW-12-F-0028) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT: Armani Vadiee, Esq.

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Zachary D. Prince, Esq. Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC Tysons Comer, VA Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney MAJ Ronald M. Herrmann, JA

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: September 24, 2019

Administrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61928, Appeal ofSidtek LLC rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
#### § 1203.735-105 Disciplinary action.

A violation of the regulations in this part by an employee or special Government employee may be cause for appropriate disciplinary action, including separation for cause, which may be in addition to any penalty prescribed by law.
Order entered September 13, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00116
- CR
CLETERRION DENGELO M OSBY, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from t he 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17
- 75925
- V



### O RDER Appellant’s brief was initially due on July 22, 2018. When it was not filed, we notified appellant by postcard dated July 25 that the brief was overdue and dir ected him to file his brief along with a motion to extend time by August 4, 2018. To date, no brief or motion has been filed, and we have had no communication from appellant. Therefore, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appell ant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal or whether appellant has abandoned the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s
absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (percuriam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be

necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Brandon Birmingham, Presiding Judge, 292nd Judicial District Court ; to counsel Sharita Williams Blacknall ; an d to the Dallas County District Attorney.
Th is appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier

.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### § 38.300 Core Principle 5.

To reduce the potential threat of market manipulation or congestion (especially during trading in the delivery month), the board of trade shall adopt for each contract of the board of trade, as is necessary and appropriate, position limitations or position accountability for speculators. For any contract that is subject to a position limitation established by the Commission, pursuant to section 4a(a), the board of trade shall set the position limitation of the board of trade at a level not higher than the position limitation established by the Commission.
#### § 13.4 False certificate as to ownership of property.

If any consul of vice consul falsely and knowingly certifies that property belonging to foreigners is property belonging to citizens of the United States, he or she shall be punishable by imprisonment for not more than three years, and by a fine of not more than $10,000 (22 U.S.C. 4218).

[22 FR 10789, Dec. 27, 1957, as amended by Dept. Reg. 108.838, 49 FR 16989, Apr. 23, 1984; 79 FR 43247, July 25, 2014]
#### Ben Weinstein, Respondent, v. Nathan Banks et al., Appellants.

That plaintiff has alleged a good cause of action against the corporate defendant for breach of contract has been determined in the companion appeal *(Weinstein*v. *Primrose Blouse Co., ante,*p. 764) decided simultaneously herewith. Whether or not the individual defendants may be held liable in this action must be determined on a trial. *(Vassardakis*v. *Parish,*36 F. Supp. 1002, 1005.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 133
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 133 appear at 68 FR 66582, Nov. 26, 2003.

§ 133.505 How are violations of this part determined for recipients who are individuals? An individual recipient is in violation of the requirements of this part if the Procurement Executive determines, in writing, that— ( a ) The recipient has violated the requirements of subpart C of this part; or
( b ) The recipient is convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity.