alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10390

DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOARD, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

INET AIRPORT SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; MICHAEL F. COLACO; 

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, INET AIRPORT SYSTEMS, 

L.L.C., As Successor in Interest to Inet Airport Systems, Incorporated, 

 Defendants - Appellees

----------------------------

CONSOLIDATED WITH 15-10600

THE DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOARD, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

INET AIRPORT SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; INET AIRPORT SYSTEMS, 

L.L.C., As Successor in Interest to Inet Airport Systems, Incorporated, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
Nos. 15-10390, 15-10600

2

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

Before CLEMENT and HAYNES, Circuit Judges, and GARCIA 

MARMOLEJO, District Judge.*

O R D E R :

The petition for panel rehearing filed by Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport Board is DENIED. Among other arguments in the petition, DFW 

contends that the statement in footnote 2 of our opinion that the parties “do 

not mention or challenge the district court’s dismissal of claims against Colaco” 

is incorrect, as Colaco was mentioned in DFW’s brief on appeal. Although it is 

true that Colaco was “mentioned,” we conclude that this fact does not alter the 

result in the case as DFW failed to adequately discuss the alleged liability of 

Colaco and failed to adequately brief any error in Colaco’s dismissal. See, e.g., 

United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[The defendant] 

raises this argument in a one-sentence footnote and provides no authority for 

the proposition. Inadequately briefed issues are deemed abandoned.”); Dardar 

v. Lafourche Realty Co., 985 F.2d 824, 831 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Questions posed 

for appellate review but inadequately briefed are considered abandoned.”).

 

* District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
Sustainable Communities Resource Center

AboutNewsletterResearch GrantsPartnershipResources

      
**2013**

      -  
**Volume 2, Issue 3**       In this Issue...Chicago Opens First Two-Way Protected Bike Lane in the LoopModular Apartments in Portland, OregonGrantee Spotlight: A Plan to Foster Community Development and Benefit Residents in Southeast D.C.
   
      -  
**Volume 2, Issue 2**       In this Issue... Green Infrastructure Aims to Reshape PhiladelphiaGrantee Spotlight: Planning for Livable Military CommunitiesConnecting Affordable Housing and Public Transportation in Los AngelesEnergy-Efficiency Program Targets Affordable Housing Preservation
   
      -  
**Volume 2, Issue 1**       In this Issue... Grantee Spotlight: Albuquerque’s Bridge Boulevard Redevelopment PlanMixed-Use, Mixed-Income Development near Rail Transit in Reading, MassachusettsARRA-Funded Energy-Efficiency Program Seeds Private-Sector FinancingEarn-A-Bike Aims to Get the University of Louisville Cycling
   
      
**2012**

      -  
**Volume 1, Issue 6**       In this Issue...Boulder Improves Energy Efficiency in Rental Housing Grantee Spotlight: Canal Crossing — From Brownfields to Mixed-Use CommunityInnovative Partnership Funds Transit-Oriented Housing in DenverPilot Program Promotes New Sustainable Farming in Montgomery County, Maryland
   
      -  
**Volume 1, Issue 5**       In this Issue...Neighborhood Energy Challenge Spurs Investments in EfficiencyMixed-Use Transit Village Leads Redevelopment EffortsArizona Study Suggests Dense, Mixed-Use Development Patterns Reduce VMT and CongestionGrantee Spotlight: Planning for a Sustainable Michigan Street Corridor
   
      -  
**Volume 1, Issue 4**       In this Issue...Dedicated Paths and Lanes: Their Influence on Bike Commuting  Grantee Spotlight: Honolulu’s Transit-Oriented Housing Strategy Study Confirms Energy Savings in Multifamily Building RetrofitsMixed-Use, Transit-Oriented Development in Arlington, Virginia
   
      -  
**Volume 1, Issue 3**       In this Issue...Township of West Windsor Designated a Transit Village Ohio’s Brownfield Action Plan Pilot ProgramSubmetering: An Approach to Tracking Energy Expenditures Grantee Spotlight: St. Louis Plans for Regional Renewal
   
      -  
**Volume 1, Issue 2**       In this Issue...Funding and Incentivizing Energy-Efficient Building RetrofitsTurning Blighted Properties into Pocket Parks: Los Angeles Case Study Fireclay Village: A Model for Sustainable Growth Grantee Spotlight: Plan East Tennessee
   
      -  
**Volume 1, Issue 1**       In this Issue...UC Davis Opens Doors to West Village, Aims to Be Largest Zero Net Energy Facility in U.S.Philly Food Bucks: Philadelphia’s Healthy Eating ProgramGrantee Spotlight: The Tomorrow Plan of the Central Iowa RegionThe Lofts at Reynoldstown Crossing Letter from the Editor 
   

----

**HUD USER****Toll Free:****TDD:****Local:****Fax:**
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Rose Warga, Respondent, v. H. C. Bohack Company, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Special Fund for Reopened Cases, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by an employer and carrier from an award of death benefits made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Appellants raise the issues of accident and causal relationship. Decedent was a meat cutter who worked from 9:00 A.m. to 9:00 p.m. cutting meat for self-service counters. Ordinarily his work consisted of reducing sizable cuts of meat to smaller cuts and handling chickens. On April 10, 1958, in the forenoon, decedent lifted a hindquarter of beef weighing approximately 150 pounds from a hook and had to carry it a short distance to another location. Such an operation was not ordinarily a part of his job. At noon a eoworker observed the decedent sitting in a back room. He had not eaten his lunch and complained' that he did not feel good, and the coworker observed that he looked pale and moved slowly. Decedent remained on the job for the remainder of the workday, however, and on his way home told a neighbor about lifting the heavy piece of meat and mentioned that he did not feel good. He told his father-in-law about lifting the quarter of beef, of pain in his chest, and said the pain was getting worse. At 3:00 a.m. the following morning he told his wife that he had a *“*terrific pain ” in his chest from lifting beef. He was hospitalized and died at 4:15 P.M. the following day. The final diagnosis was “ infarction of myocardium from coronary thrombosis.” Appellants argue that there are no circumstances or other evidence corroborating the above hearsay statements, and complain that decedent did not immediately report to any coworker or to the employer that he had suffered an accident. The record discloses that a coworker actually observed him lifting and carrying the quarter of beef, observed that he looked pale and moved slowly, did not eat his lunch, and that he complained of not feeling well. These direct observations at the scene of the. work are adequate corroboration, and there are no requirements in the law that the decedent accurately and immediately diagnose his ill feeling and report the details. There is substantial medical evidence that lifting the meat triggered the heart attack which was aggravated by the continuance of work and that the effort contributed to decedent’s death. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.
#### Armstrong Rubber Company, Respondent, v Autotransformation, Inc., Defendant, and Albert Tantalo Doing Business as Gripp Tires et al., Appellants.

Order and judgment unanimously modified in accord*1130anee with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Special Term granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on its first and third causes of action. The defendants Albert Tantalo and Kathy Tantalo appeal from the order and from the judgment entered thereon. The judgment on plaintiffs first cause of action was entered solely against the defendant Auto transformation, Inc., which has not appeared in the action and is in default. No argument is made for reversal on behalf of that corporation. Plaintiffs third cause of action is based upon a "Guaranty” allegedly executed by the defendants Albert Tantalo and Kathy Tantalo, which guaranteed payment of the indebtedness of the defendant Autotransformation, Inc., to the plaintiff for goods sold to the corporation. The defendant Albert Tantalo acknowledges that the guarantee was executed by him as an inducement for plaintiff to sell merchandise to Auto-transformation, Inc., of which he was the president and sole stockholder. He fails to allege evidentiary facts showing that he has been relieved of his obligation under the guarantee or that the amount claimed is not due and owing to the plaintiff. No genuine issue of fact has been raised and partial summary judgment was properly granted against him on the third cause of action (see *Andre v Pomeroy,*35 NY2d 361; *Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp.,*34 NY2d 338; *Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. v Wesolowski,*33 NY2d 169; *Blake v Gardino,*35 AD2d 1022, affd 29 NY2d 876; CPLR 3212, subd [b]). Special Term erred, however, in granting judgment against the defendant Kathy Tantalo. In her answer she denies that she executed the guarantee and in her affidavit in opposition to the motion she affirmatively asserts that the signature thereon is not hers. Moreover, she avers that she has no knowledge as to how her purported signature came to appear on the document. Since plaintiff’s third cause of action is based solely upon the obligation arising from the guarantee, defendant Kathy Tantalo has raised a triable issue of fact. (Appeal from order and judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—partial summary judgment.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.
### §323. Interference between Government and commercial stations

(a) At all places where Government and private or commercial radio stations on land operate in such close proximity that interference with the work of Government stations cannot be avoided when they are operating simultaneously, such private or commercial stations as do interfere with the transmission or reception of radio communications or signals by the Government stations concerned shall not use their transmitters during the first fifteen minutes of each hour, local standard time.

(b) The Government stations for which the above-mentioned division of time is established shall transmit radio communications or signals only during the first fifteen minutes of each hour, local standard time, except in case of signals or radio communications relating to vessels in distress and vessel requests for information as to course, location, or compass direction.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, §323, 48 Stat. 1090.)
### §70053. Enforcement provisions

The President may employ such departments, agencies, officers, or instrumentalities of the United States as he may deem necessary to carry out this subchapter.

(Added Pub. L. 115–282, title IV, §407(d)(3), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4267.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, as added by Pub. L. 115–282, is based on acts June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title II, §4, 40 Stat. 220; Aug. 9, 1950, ch. 656, §2, 64 Stat. 428; Pub. L. 115–282, title IV, §407(d)(1), (2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4267, which was formerly classified to section 194 of Title 50, War and National Defense, before being transferred to this chapter and renumbered as this section.
### §797d. Election and treatment of benefits

#### (a) Election

(1) Any employee who accepts any benefits under an agreement entered into under section 797 1 of this title or a termination allowance under section 797a of this title, shall, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, be deemed to waive any employee protection benefits otherwise available under any other provision of law or any contract or agreement in effect on August 13, 1981, except benefits under sections 797b and 797c of this title, and shall be deemed to waive any cause of action for any alleged loss of benefits resulting from the provisions of or the amendments made by the Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981.

(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall affect the right of any employee described in such paragraph to benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 [45 U.S.C. 231 et seq.] or the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act [45 U.S.C. 351 et seq.].

#### (b) Treatment of benefits

Any benefits received by an employee under an agreement entered into pursuant to section 797 1 of this title and any termination allowance received under section 797a of this title shall be considered compensation solely for purposes of—

(1) the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231 et seq.); and

(2) determining the compensation received by such employee in any base year under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 351 et seq.).

(Pub. L. 93–236, title VII, §705, as added Pub. L. 97–35, title XI, §1143(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 664.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 797 of this title, referred to in subsecs. (a)(1) and (b), was repealed by Pub. L. 99–509, title IV, §4024(c), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1904, effective on the sale date (Apr. 2, 1987).

The Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), is subtitle E (§§1131–1169) of title XI of Pub. L. 97–35, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 643. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1101 of this title and Tables.

The Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, referred to in subsecs. (a)(2) and (b)(1), is act Aug. 29, 1935, ch. 812, as amended generally by Pub. L. 93–445, title I, §101, Oct. 16, 1974, 88 Stat. 1305, which is classified generally to subchapter IV (§231 et seq.) of chapter 9 of this title. For further details and complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Codification note set out preceding section 231 of this title, section 231t of this title, and Tables.

The Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, referred to in subsecs. (a)(2) and (b)(2), is act June 25, 1938, ch. 680, 52 Stat. 1094, which is classified principally to chapter 11 (§351 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 367 of this title and Tables.

1 See References in Text note below.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. ("Company") Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2007 ("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 operations of the Company.

Date: November 14, 2007

By: /s/ Albert F. Case, Jr.
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 8, 2011 

d0228 

Order 

 

March 8, 2011 

140522(28) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140522 

 COA: 293861 

Wayne CC: 09-004275-FC 

RODNEY CARTER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 5, 

2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

 YOUNG, C.J., would grant the motion for reconsideration.
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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Wise Metals Group LLC (the Company) for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth Stastny, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 operations of the Company.

Date: March 31, 2010



By:

/s/    KENNETH
STASTNYKenneth StastnyChief Financial Officer


A
signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### Geospatial database of ground-water altitude and depth-to-ground-water data for Utah, 1971-2000

By: Susan G. Buto**Brent E. Jorgensen

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds302

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Metadata:  **Metadata**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
PAGE 1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 21


                       NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                          AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
                       ----------------------------------
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                             AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1998


                                                                 STATE OR
                                                                COUNTRY IN
                                                                   WHICH
                                                                SUBSIDIARY
                                                                ORGANIZED
                                                                ----------
Subsidiary included in the financial statements,
   which is 100% owned:
     Navistar International Transportation Corp........          Delaware


Subsidiaries that are 100% owned by
  Navistar International Transportation Corp.:
     Navistar International Corporation Canada........           Canada
     Navistar Financial Corporation...................          Delaware

Subsidiaries  and  corporate  joint  ventures  not  shown  by name in the  above
listing,  if  considered  in the  aggregate  as a single  subsidiary,  would not
constitute a significant subsidiary.
























                                       E-18
<PAGE>

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Computerized Thermal
Imaging, Inc., (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Richard V. Secord, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Richard V. Secord
-------------------------------
Richard V. Secord
Acting Financial Officer

Date:  February 11, 2005
### §569. Reservation of land for park, playground, or community center

#### (a) Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §704(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2792

#### (b) Water service

Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in this section every such tract of land so set apart shall be supplied with water from the Government irrigation system, the cost thereof to be charged to the remaining lands of the project as a part of the construction charge of such project, and shall be maintained and used in perpetuity by the people upon said reclaimed lands for a pleasure park, public playground, and community center.

#### (c) Contract for maintenance and use

For the purpose of carrying out and effecting the objects of this section the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to enter into a contract with the organization formed by the owners of the lands irrigated within said project or project unit pursuant to section 498 of this title, stipulating and providing that the organization will maintain and use such of the lands so reserved for the purposes prescribed in this section as such organization may desire, and that upon failure to so maintain and use such lands, or in the event that same shall be permitted to be used or occupied for other purposes than those stipulated in this section, the control of the lands shall revert to the United States.

#### (d) Disposition of land not contracted for

Any of such lands not contracted for in accordance with the provisions of subsection (c) of this section within ten years from the time water is available for the same, or sooner, if the Secretary of the Interior may deem it desirable, shall be disposed of in accordance with the public land laws applicable thereto, and the proceeds from the disposition of lands reverting to the United States under the provisions of this section, and from sales of water rights, shall be covered into the reclamation fund and placed to the credit of the project wherein the lands are situate.

(Oct. 5, 1914, ch. 316, §§1–4, 38 Stat. 727, 728; Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §704(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2792.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–579 struck out subsec. (a) authorizing Secretary of the Interior to withdraw and reserve lands for country parks, public playgrounds, etc.

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

#### Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §704(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2792, provided that the amendment made by section 704(a) is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976.

#### Savings Provision

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.