alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 241.610 Assurance of completion. ( a ) The borrower shall furnish assurance of completion of the project in the following minimum forms and amounts: ( 1 ) Where the estimated cost of construction of the improvements is $500,000 or less, the borrower shall furnish assurance of completion of the project in the form of a personal indemnity agreement executed by the principal officers, directors, stockholders, or partners of the entity acting as general contractor.
( 2 ) Where the estimated cost of construction of the improvements is more than $500,000 or where such cost is less than $500,000 and a personal indemnity agreement is not executed, the assurance shall be in the form of corporate surety bonds for payment and performance, each in the minimum amount of 25 percent of the construction contract, or a completion assurance agreement secured by a cash deposit in the minimum amount of 15 percent of the amount of the construction contract.
( 3 ) All types of assurance of completion shall be on forms approved by the Commissioner. Any surety company executing a bond and any party executing a personal indemnity agreement must be satisfactory to the Commissioner.
( 4 ) A mortgagee may prescribe more stringent requirements for assurance of completion than the minimum requirements of this section.
( b ) The lender may accept, in lieu of a cash deposit required by paragraph (a) of this section, an unconditional irrevocable letter of credit issued to the lender by a banking institution. In the event a demand under the letter of credit is not immediately met, the lender shall forthwith provide cash equivalent to the undrawn balance thereunder.
#### § 232.591 Smoke detectors.

After October 30, 1992, each occupied room must include at least one battery-operated or hard-wired smoke detector in proper working condition. If the room is occupied by hearing-impaired persons, the smoke detector must have an alarm system designed for hearing-impaired persons, unless the smoke alarm is connected to a central alarm system that is monitored on a 24-hour basis, or otherwise meets industry standards.

[57 FR 33850, July 30, 1992]
DISMISSED; Opinion Filed June 7, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-01191-CV

JULIE JONES, Appellant

V.

DAN WILLEMS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-04952-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Nowell

This is an appeal from a judgment of possession in a forcible detainer suit. Because a 

review of the clerk’s record revealed a writ of possession had been served on appellant, it appeared 

appellant was no longer in possession of the premises and the appeal had become moot. See Olley 

v. HVM, LLC, 449 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.—Houston [14

th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) 

(generally, appeal in forcible detainer action becomes moot when appellant is no longer in 

possession of premises). We questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal and directed appellant to 

file a letter brief addressing our concern. See id. (appellate courts lack jurisdiction over moot 

controversies). Although we cautioned appellant that failure to comply could result in dismissal 

of the appeal without further notice, more than a month has passed and appellant has not 

responded. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a),(c).
–2–

When, as here, an appeal has become moot, an appellate court must vacate the trial court’s 

judgment and dismiss the case. See Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 

782, 785 (Tex. 2006). Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment of possession and dismiss 

the case. See id.

181191F.P05

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JULIE JONES, Appellant

No. 05-18-01191-CV V.

DAN WILLEMS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-04952-E.

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell, 

Justices Bridges and Brown participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial court’s 

judgment and DISMSS the case.

Judgment entered this 7

th day of June, 2019.
AFS-12-356-E

June 11, 2012

 Exemption No. 9510A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-28247

Mr. Randolph Shields

Director, Safety and Certification

Hawker Beechcraft Corporation

10511 E Central Avenue

Wichita, KS 67206

Dear Mr. Shields:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9510. 

It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions and 

limitations, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 6, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (HBC) for an extension of Exemption No. 9510. 

That exemption from § 47.65(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) permits 

HBC to use its Dealer’s Aircraft Registration Certificate to conduct flights outside the 

United States for flight testing, sales demonstrations, and marketing its products.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to HBC.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9510 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 
2

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. HBC must own the aircraft;

2. The aircraft must have a temporary registration number or an assigned registration 

number affixed as required by 14 CFR part 45;

3. HBC shall maintain records of each international flight for one year after the aircraft 

returns to the United States, such records to consist of:

a. Registration number and manufacturer’s serial number;

b. Dates of departure and return to the United States; and,

c. General overseas itinerary.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9510, as amended, to 

July 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9510, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9510.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Deputy Director, Flight Standards

 Service
## SERVE D DECEMBE R] 5 , 200 1 • n?=?ARTMEN TO F • ; RANSPORTATiOh l ^ U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N -^^ry^ i QPERATiON b ' OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON . D C .Q| = Q^ P \i ^ A °.

^ 3 U I N THE MATTERO F TG I FREIGH T FA A DOCKE T NO . CPI0NM0O1 2 (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) DMSNo . FAA-20I0

- 107 9 NOTIC E O FHEARIN GDATE S Thi s matter

will no t b e schedule dprio r

to Februar

y 2012 . Counse l shoul dadvis e Mr . Leibovvit z o f thei r availability durin g th e perio dfro mFebruar

y 1 throug hMa

y 2012 . Th e matte r wil l b e set

fo r tlirc e (3 ) days . Hearing s will commenc e a t 9:0 0 a.m . andconclud e a t 4:0 0 p.m . eac hday . Th e partie s shoul dvacate th e courthous e o n o r before 5:0 0 p.m . eac hday . Settle dcase s wil l no t b e remove dfro mth e docke t unti l th e .Judg e receive s th e prope r plcading(s) . Pleading s ma y b e forwarde db y fax , expres s mail , courie r o r posta l scr\'iec . S O ORDERED .

IWI l 

### U.S . Administrativ e La

w JLidili e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No . CPI0NM001 2 (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 ,

Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2WIOOO '

ON E COP Y Rebecc aJ . Hozubin , Respondent' s Counse l Wilkcrso n Hozubi n 31 0 K Street , Suit e 40 5 Anchorage . A

K 9950 1 TEL : 907-276-529 7 FAX : 907-276-529 1 Howar d L . Martin , Jr. , Complainant' s Counse l Regiona l Counsel , Offic e o f

Regional Counsel , AAL- 7 Alaska n Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 22 2 W . 7* ^ Avenu e #1 4 Anchorage , A

K 99513-758 7 TEL : 907-271-527 3 FAX : 907-271-280 0 The Honorabl e RichardC . Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Department

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-213 9 Legal Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r service i n perso n o r b y expeditedcourier, us e the followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Adniinistralion , 60

0 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2WI000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; AttenUon : Hearin g Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .
Slip Op. 08-90 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x CANADIAN LUMBER TRADE ALLIANCE, : et al. , : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : Before: Pogue, Judge : : Consol. Ct. No. 05-00324 THE UNITED STATES, et al. , : : : Defendants. :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

**AMENDED JUDGMENT**

This consolidated case having been duly submitted for decision, and the Court, after due deliberation, having rendered decisions herein; and Said decisions having been appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; and Said appeal having resulted in a decision affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding, Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States , 517 F. 3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008); and The Federal Circuit having issued its mandate after appeal; The Court having issued judgment in accordance with said mandate; and The defendant having requested an amendment of said judgment to further specify that the affirmance of the dismissal of the Government of Canada’s complaint was for lack of standing; Now, in conformity with those decisions and mandate, it is hereby

**ORDERED** that the motion of the Government of Canada for judgment on the agency record is **denied** ;

**ORDERED** that the motions of the Defendants and DefendantIntervenors for judgment on the agency record as against the Government of Canada are **granted** ;

**ORDERED** that the motion of the Canadian Wheat Board for judgment on the agency record is **granted** ;

**ORDERED** that the motions of the Defendant and DefendantIntervenors for summary judgment as against the Canadian Wheat Board are **denied** ;

**ORDERED** that the complaints of the Canadian Lumber TradeAlliance, Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc., Ontario Forest Industries Association, Ontario Lumber Manufacturers Association, and the Free Trade Lumber Council are **dismissed as moot** ; and it is further

**ORDERED** that the Government of Canada’s complaint is **dismissed** for lack of standing; and it is further

**ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED**  that pursuant to Section 408 of the North American Free Trade Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. § 3438, the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2002, 19 U.S.C. § 3438, does not apply to antidumping and countervailing duties assessed on imports of goods from Canada or Mexico; and it is further

**ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED** that Defendant W. Ralph Basham, Commissioner of the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, his employees, officers, agents, attorneys, and successors in office are **permanently enjoined** , as of July 14, 2006 from making any continued dumping and subsidy offsets, payments or distributions, to affected domestic producers, as defined by 19 U.S.C. § 1675c (2005), to the extent they derive from duties assessed pursuant to countervailing duty orders, antidumping duty orders, or findings under the Antidumping Act of 1921, upon hard red spring wheat from Canada imported into the United States.

Dated: New York, New York September 2, 2008

/s/Donald C. Pogue Donald C. Pogue, Judge
### §7273c. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 105–85, div. C, title XXXI, §3133, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 2036; Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title X, §1069(b)(3), div. C, title XXXI, §3131, Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2136, 2246, which related to international cooperative stockpile stewardship, was renumbered section 4301 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(f)(2)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1762, and was classified to section 2561 of Title 50, War and National Defense, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 111–84, div. C, title XXXI, §3117(a), Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2709.
### §6348. Energy efficiency in industrial facilities

#### (a) Grant program

#### (1) In general

The Secretary shall make grants to industry associations to support programs to improve energy efficiency in industry. In order to be eligible for a grant under this subsection, an industry association shall establish a voluntary energy efficiency improvement target program.

#### (2) Awarding of grants

The Secretary shall request project proposals and provide annual grants on a competitive basis. In evaluating grant proposals under this subsection, the Secretary shall consider—

(A) potential energy savings;

(B) potential environmental benefits;

(C) the degree of cost sharing;

(D) the degree to which new and innovative technologies will be encouraged;

(E) the level of industry involvement;

(F) estimated project cost-effectiveness; and

(G) the degree to which progress toward the energy improvement targets can be monitored.

#### (3) Eligible projects

Projects eligible for grants under this subsection may include the following:

(A) Workshops.

(B) Training seminars.

(C) Handbooks.

(D) Newsletters.

(E) Data bases.

(F) Other activities approved by the Secretary.

#### (4) Limitation on cost sharing

Grants provided under this subsection shall not exceed $250,000 and each grant shall not exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the project for which the grant is made.

#### (5) Authorization

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this subsection.

#### (b) Award program

The Secretary shall establish an annual award program to recognize those industry associations or individual industrial companies that have significantly improved their energy efficiency.

#### (c) Report on industrial reporting and voluntary targets

Not later than one year after October 24, 1992, the Secretary shall, in consultation with affected industries, evaluate and report to the Congress regarding the establishment of Federally mandated energy efficiency reporting requirements and voluntary energy efficiency improvement targets for energy intensive industries. Such report shall include an evaluation of the costs and benefits of such reporting requirements and voluntary energy efficiency improvement targets, and recommendations regarding the role of such activities in improving energy efficiency in energy intensive industries.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title I, §131, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2836.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and not as part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act which comprises this chapter.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH SCHEINUCK, 

Plaintiff, 

 v.

CAPTAIN D. SEPULVEDA,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-0727 WHA (PR) 

ORDER VACATING HEARING

Pursuant to the order of service dated September 30, 2009, no hearing shall be held on

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Consequently, the hearing noticed by defendant for

May 13, 2010, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10 , 2010 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.09\SCHEINUCK0727.HRG.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-00727-WHA Document 29 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document 116 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 3 Case3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document115 Filed07/08/10 Page1 of 3
Case 3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document 116 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 3 Case3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document115 Filed07/08/10 Page2 of 3
Case3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document115 Filed07/08/10 Page3 of 3

12

Case 3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document 116 Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 3
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 9, 2015

a1202

Order 

Clerk

December 9, 2015

151311

TIMOTHY A. CARL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 151311

COA: 319017 

Muskegon CC: 12-048776-CZ

MUSKEGON COUNTY, MARK BURNS, 

TODD GILCHRIST, THERESA JONES-BURTON,

BRIAN BONSTELL, LEONARD BETHKE and

BRENDAN BOWEN, Personal Representatives of

the Estate of CHRISTY BOWEN, DARRYL

HAIRSTON, JASON CERKA, RICHARD TOPP,

SCOTT SMITH, DEAN ROSELER as Muskegon 

County Sheriff and Individually, and STEVEN J.

WEINERT,

Defendants, 

and

KATHERINE A JAWOR, D.O.,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
OMB Control Num ber: 2060

- 0482 Expiration Date : 6/30/15

EPA Form # 5900

- 14 5 , Revised 7 / 1 4



### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency **STRA TOSPHERIC OZONE**  **PROTECTION PROGRA M**  

### CLASS I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE METHYL BROMIDE **SECOND** 

### - **PA RTY**  **DESTRUCTION ANNU**  **AL REPORT** 



### (40 CFR **82. 13**  **)** 

## SECTION 1 **COMPA NY IDENTIFICA**  **TI ON**  **1.1 Date of Submission 1.2 Year to Which This Report A**  **pplies 1.**  **3 Original Submittal**  **Re -**  **submittal 1.4**  **Have you submitted a one -**  **time destruction report to EPA (per 40 CFR 82.13)?**  Yes No 

### 1.5 **Have you submitted a destruction verification to the producer or importer (per 40 CFR 82.13)?** Yes No 

### 1. **6 Company**  **Information** Company Name Street Address City State Zip Code 

### 1. **7 Company Contact Identification**  Reporting Company Contact Person E

- mail Address Phone Number Fax Number 

### 1.8 **Destruction Total**  Second

- Party Destruction of Methyl Bromide (kg): 

### 1.9 **Signature of Reporting Company Representative** I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this and all attached documents, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true , accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. Name Title Signature Date 

## SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO: **For U.S. Postal Service:** U.S. EPA Stratospheric Protection Division Office of Atmos pheric Programs Mail Code: 6205T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave nue, NW Wa shington, D.C. 20460 **For Private Courier:** U.S. EPA Stratospheric Protection Division Office of Atmospheric Programs Room 4355CC 1201 Constitution Avenue , NW Wa shington, D.C. 20004 A company may assert a claim of confidentiality for information submitted in this form by clearly marking that information as confidential. Such information shall be treated in accordance with EPA’s procedures for information claimed as confidential at 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, and will only be disclosed by the means set forth in the subpart. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the report when it is received by EPA, it may be made p ublic without further notice to the company (40 CFR 2.203). The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of i nform ation is estimated to average 1.3 hours per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing r espondent burden, including throu gh the use of aut omated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1 200 Pennsylvania Ave., N W, W ashington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the comple te d form to this address.
#### §§ 530.112-530.129 [Reserved]
### §9655. Legislative veto of rule or regulation

#### (a) Transmission to Congress upon promulgation or repromulgation of rule or regulation; disapproval procedures

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, simultaneously with promulgation or repromulgation of any rule or regulation under authority of subchapter I of this chapter, the head of the department, agency, or instrumentality promulgating such rule or regulation shall transmit a copy thereof to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the rule or regulation shall not become effective, if—

(1) within ninety calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date of promulgation, both Houses of Congress adopt a concurrent resolution, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: "That Congress disapproves the rule or regulation promulgated by the        dealing with the matter of        , which rule or regulation was transmitted to Congress on            .", the blank spaces therein being appropriately filled; or

(2) within sixty calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date of promulgation, one House of Congress adopts such a concurrent resolution and transmits such resolution to the other House, and such resolution is not disapproved by such other House within thirty calendar days of continuous session of Congress after such transmittal.

#### (b) Approval; effective dates

If, at the end of sixty calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date of promulgation of a rule or regulation, no committee of either House of Congress has reported or been discharged from further consideration of a concurrent resolution disapproving the rule or regulation and neither House has adopted such a resolution, the rule or regulation may go into effect immediately. If, within such sixty calendar days, such a committee has reported or been discharged from further consideration of such a resolution, or either House has adopted such a resolution, the rule or regulation may go into effect not sooner than ninety calendar days of continuous session of Congress after such rule is prescribed unless disapproved as provided in subsection (a) of this section.

#### (c) Sessions of Congress as applicable

For purposes of subsections (a) and (b) of this section—

(1) continuity of session is broken only by an adjournment of Congress sine die; and

(2) the days on which either House is not in session because of an adjournment of more than three days to a day certain are excluded in the computation of thirty, sixty, and ninety calendar days of continuous session of Congress.

#### (d) Congressional inaction on, or rejection of, resolution of disapproval

Congressional inaction on, or rejection of, a resolution of disapproval shall not be deemed an expression of approval of such rule or regulation.

(Pub. L. 96–510, title III, §305, Dec. 11, 1980, 94 Stat. 2809.)