alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
' li 

### I! ':

I· 

# " I I· 

### [i U.S. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D. C.

# RECE~VED JAN 2

# a2015 

## HEAR.!NG**DOCK~T**

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0685 SMYRNA AIR CENTER. FAA CASE NO. 2011CE190020 Respondent Judge J.E. Sullivan

DraftJoint Section 13.217/Rule 26(f) Report Submitted by Complainant FAA and Respondent Smyrna Air Center I. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.217 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), a teleconference was held on January 13,2015, and was attended by (I) Ryan Landers, counsel for Complainant, and (2) Will Leech, counsel for Respondent. 2. The parties have discussed settlement, but have not reached a settlement. Settlement discussions will continue. 3. The parties will exchangethe discovery disclosures required byRule 26(a)(I)byJanuary 30,2015. 4. The parties agree that initial discovery requests will bemade by February I1, 2015. The parties will have until March 13, 2015, to respond to initial discoveryrequests. 5. The parties agree that follow-up discovery requests will be made by March 23, 2015. Theparties have until March 3I, 2015, to respond to follow-up discovery requests. 6. Any objections to discovery requests must be made to the requesting party within two weeks ofthe discoveryrequest.7. The parties agree that all dispositive motions must be filed by May 1, 2015. A response briefto any dispositive motion must be filed by June 1, 2015. A reply briefmust be filed by June 8, 2015. Iforal argument is needed on a dispositive motion, oral argument will be June 22, 2015 from 10:00-11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. 8. The parties agree that a trial the week ofJune 29, 2015, in the Nashville, Tennessee area would bebest for them. Respectively submitted this 

# IL-/ ,day ofJanuary, 20!5.

# ~~':;;.**!ft-~-** Will Leech Counsel for RespondentCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certify that the foregoing Section 13.217/Rule26(f) Report was sent as follows: original and one copy via regularmail and Federal Express to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wrigbt Building- Suite 2Wl000

one copy via facsimile and Federal Express to: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20, Room E12-320 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE East Building Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590 facsimile: (202) 366-7536

one copyvia certified mail to: Mink & Duke, PLLC c/o Thomas F. Mink, II, Esq. c/o William M. Leech, III, Esq. P.O. Box 198742 Nashville, TN 37219-8742

Dated
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VOLTERRA SEMICONDUCTOR

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

 PRIMARION, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Case No. C08-05129 JCS

AMENDED ORDER STRIKING ALL

DISCOVERY LETTERS [Docket Nos. 752,

753, 754 and 756]

On April 7, 2010, the Court issued an Order Striking all Discovery Letters, which were

docket nos. 752, 754, and 756.

It has been brought to the Court’s attention that docket no. 753 was a continuation of docket

no. 752, and should have also been included in the Court’s previous order.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s April 7, 2010 Order is amended to include

docket no. 753 as being stricken from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010

_____________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document 768 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 9a.7 Access. ( a ) Except as set forth in this section, access to information or material classified under the provisions of these regulations shall be governed by the provisions of 22 CFR 9.20 through 9.25.
( b ) Classified information and material which was created by or in connection with an advisory body to the IEA may be made available to participants in such advisory body and their colleagues in accordance with the following subsections.
( c ) Such information and material classified “Confidential” may be made available for review to participants in the meeting of the advisory body in which it was developed or discussed. Where participants are acting as representatives of companies or of the IEA Secretariat, such information and material may be made available for review to employees or other representatives of, or counsel for, such companies or Secretariat: *Provided,* That such person is determined by an appropriate officer of the Department to be trustworthy and to have a need for access to the particular classified information sought in connection with the performance of duties in furtherance of the purposes of the IEA, including the furnishing of legal advice to such participants.
( d ) Such information and material classified “Confidential” may be left in the custody of such participants or other persons who may review it for reasonable period of time: *Provided,* That an appropriate officer of the Department determines that it will be protected from unauthorized disclosure by adequate security safeguards. Such information or material may not be reproduced by those permitted to review it pursuant to this section without the written consent of an officer of the Department with classifying authority.
( e ) Such information and material classified other than “Confidential” under E.O. 11652 may be made available for review only to participants in the meeting in which it was developed or discussed; it must be reviewed in the presence of an official of the United States Government with an appropriate security clearance granted by the Department, and may not be left in the custody of such participants.
#### Gary J. Dalton, an Infant, by Marion O. Davis, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v General Motors Corporation, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, on the opinion at Special Term, Hancock, Jr., J. (Appeal from order of Jefferson Supreme Court—preclusion order.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 42
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 42 appear at 71 FR 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 42.53 Priority date of individual applicants. ( a ) *Preference applicant.* The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the fiing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
( b ) *Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977.* Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) or (b).
( c ) *Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien.* A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                        90,577
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                203,330
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  147,404
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             195,957
<PP&E>                                     1,354,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                38,560
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             2,069,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        608,072
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     121,400
<OTHER-SE>                                   658,454
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               2,069,493
<SALES>                                      352,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             354,228
<CGS>                                         96,724
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                430,259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            27,005
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (76,031)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (76,031)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (76,031)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)


</TABLE>
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEMHAL SIRAJ,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-09-0233 SI (EMC)

ORDER EXCUSING ATTENDANCE AT

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

By letter dated March 9, 2010, the corporate representative of Defendant BAYER

HEALTHCARE, LLC, through counsel Michelle Griffith-Jones, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,

requested to be excused from personally appearing at the settlement conference scheduled for March

15, 2010. No opposition was filed by any party.

Upon consideration of the request, the Court finds good cause for excusing personal

attendance. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Defendant BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC’s

corporate representative be available by telephone from 1:30 p.m. Pacific Time until further notice

on March 15, 2010.

If the Court concludes that the absence of Defendant BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC’s

corporate representative is impeding the settlement conference, the Court may continue the

settlement conference and may order personal attendance by each party including Defendant

BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC’s corporate representative.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2010 _______________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00233-SI Document 69 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Laguer, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 8, 1974, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal also brings up for review the denial after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. Judgment affirmed. The pretrial photographic identification procedure, though utilizing only a single photograph, was not so unnecessarily or "impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification” (see *Simmons v United States,*390 US 377, 384). For all intents and purposes, the sole eyewitness had "identified” appellant as the perpetrator at the scene of the crime. The witness recognized appellant as a fellow resident of the hotel; appellant’s room was just around the corner from the witness’ and the latter had seen appellant many times before. When the police arrived, within a half hour of the crime, the witness led them to the perpetrator’s room. The latter was nowhere to be found, but the police secured certain identification papers belonging to the room’s occupant from the hotel management and, shortly thereafter, the witness identified a methadone clinic card containing appellant’s photograph as depicting the perpetrator thus confirming his prior information and giving the police a name and a face to work with. Clearly, the focusing upon appellant at this point was not the product of suggestive police action, but of the witness’ own information (see *People v Logan,*25 NY2d 184, 194). We would further note that the witness’ in-court identification, in any event, would have had an independent source; namely, his observations at the time of the crime and the fact that he had seen appellant in the hotel on about a dozen occasions prior to the crime. The hearing court correctly ruled that a "mug shot” taken of appellant upon his arrest some eight days after the crime, would be admissible in evidence upon the trial to establish appellant’s appearance shortly after the crime; appellant had grown a beard since the crime (see *People v Logan, supra; People v Griíñn,*29 NY2d 91; *People v Greenridge,*46 AD2d 947).

Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Appendix B

- 4

Statistical Results of 2008

- 2010 Annual PM 2.5 Design Value

for Moon (AQS ID: 42

- 003

- 0095)
Rel: July 12, 2024

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

THE SUPREME COURT SPECIAL TERM, 2024

SC-2023-0788 Hinge Tech USA, Inc. v. Chul Kim, Youngil Kim, Ji Woon Choi, and Hee Jun Ryu (Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-17-901326). MENDHEIM, Justice. AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(E), Ala. R. App. P. Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.
NOTICE OF INTENTTO ISSUEA BESTAYAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION PURSUANTTO CONSENTDECREE

Take notice that the North Dakota Department of Health has reevaluated a proposed Best Available Control Technology Determination for the reduction of nitrogen oxides emissions from the Milton R. Young Station near Center, North Dakota. The Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Determination was made in response, and in accordance with, the Consent Decree in the case ofthe United States ofAmerica and the State of North Dakota versus Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. and Square Butte Electric Power Cooperative, Civil Action No.: 1:06-CY-034.

In June of2008, the Department made apreliminary determination thathigh dust, low dust and tail end selective catalytic reduction were not technically feasible at the M.R. Young Station. Based on the public comments, the Department determined that low dust and tail end SCR are technically feasible. Cost estimates have been provided for low dust and tail end SCR. The Department's preliminary determination is that low dust and tail end SCR do not represent BACT. The Department is seeking comments on those cost estimates and its reasoning for the rejection oflow dust and tail end SCR as BACT. Comments will be considered, evaluated, and the BACT determination issuedpursuantto the ConsentDecree. Comments shall be considered, but dispute resolution is limited to the disputing parties as set forth in the Consent Decree approvedbythe Court.A thirty-day public comment period regarding the cost estimates and the Department's preliminary decision**re~arding** low dust and tail end SCR will begin April 11, 2010 and end on May 10, 2010. Comments shall be directed in writing to the North Dakota Department of Health, Terry L. O'Clair, Director, Division ofAir Quality, 918 E Divide Avenue, 2nd Floor, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501-1947. The cost estimates, the Department's evaluation and supporting data are available for review at the Department of Health in Bismarck and at www.health.state.nd.us/AQ/notices.htm. Acopy ofthese documents maybeobtainedbywriting the Department of Health at the above-mentioned address or contact the Department at (701)328-5188.

Datedthis

# daYOf~O Terry L. O'Clair, P.E. Director DivisionofAirQuality
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**INTERLINE BRANDS, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Interline Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Grebe,Chief Executive 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 Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| /s/ MICHAEL  J. GREBE   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Michael J. Grebe        |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| March 14, 2006     |   |

 

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 2, 2015

NO. 03-14-00029-CV

Oscar Melendez and Connie Melendez, Appellants

v.

Citimortgage, Inc.; Ernestine Williams; and Wendy Alexander, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on October 17, 2014. The Court’s 

opinion and judgment dated June 25, 2015 are withdrawn. Having reviewed the record and the 

parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s 

judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The appellants shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\JLALL\CASES\CIV-REF\08-2295\Ord re response.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Cheryl Cotterill,

Plaintiff,

v.

City and County of San Francisco,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 08-2295 JSW (JL)

ORDER

This Court received Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections, filed after the hearing on the

motions for costs and attorneys’ fees. The Court hereby grants to Defendants two weeks

within which to respond. At that time briefing will be closed and the matter will be deemed

submitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 9, 2010

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02295-JSW Document 274 Filed 02/09/10 Page 1 of 1
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T18:56:43-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY SAAVEDRA, 

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

A. HEDGPETH, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-0178 CRB (PR)

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of

the court's order of June 2, 2010 granting in part and denying in part defendants'

motion to dismiss. The court requests that defendants file a response to the

motion by no later than August 20, 2010.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Aug. 5, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.09\Saavedra, M1.or3.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-00178-CRB Document 45 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT S.L.L., Petitioner

v. K.N.D., Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 106 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 12th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
#### § 51.50 Form of payment.

Passport fees must be paid in U.S. currency or in other forms of payments permitted by the Department.
#### In the Matter of Maurice Barnwell, Petitioner, v Howard E. Goldfluss et al., Respondents.

Application for an order, pursuant to CPLR article 78, in the nature of a writ of prohibition, unanimously denied and the petition dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. The stay affixed to the notice of application, dated November 9, 1977, is vacated. No opinion. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Markewich, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0907-18T3

ROBERT J. TRIFFIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GREGG GEORGE RALSTON,

Defendant-Respondent,

and

DAVID KLINGER,

Defendant.

____________________________

Argued November 13, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Accurso.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Camden County, Docket No. DC-004943-18.

Robert J. Triffin, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

December 9, 2019
2

A-0907-18T3

Appellant having filed a request to withdraw his appeal with prejudice and 

without costs to any party, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
#### Maggie Polite, Appellant, v. Irving Burres, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 142
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 142 appear at 68 FR 51359, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 142.5 Assurances required. ( a ) *Assurances.* An applicant for Federal financial assistance to which this part applies shall submit an assurance on a form specified by the Secretary, that the program or activity will be operated in compliance with this part. An applicant may incorporate these assurances by reference in subsequent applications to the Department.
( b ) *Duration of obligations.* ( 1 ) In the case of Federal financial assistance extended in the form of real property or to provide real property or structures on the property, the assurance will obligate the recipient or, in the case of a subsequent transfer, the transferee, for the period during which the real property or structures are used for the purposes for which Federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits.
( 2 ) Where no transfer of property is involved but property is purchased or improved with Federal financial assistance, the recipient shall agree to include the covenant described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section in the instrument effecting or recording any subsequent transfer of the property.
( 3 ) Where Federal financial assistance is provided by the Department in the form of real property or interest in real property, the covenant shall also include a condition coupled with a right to be reserved by the Department to revert title to the property in the event of a breach of the covenant. If a transferee of real property proposes to mortgage or otherwise encumber the real property as security for financing construction of new, or improvement of existing facilities on the property for the purposes for which the property was transferred, the Secretary may, upon request of the transferee and if necessary to accomplish such financing and upon such conditions as the Secretary deems appropriate, agree to forbear the exercise of such right to revert title for so long as the lien of such mortgage or other encumbrance remains effective.