alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 57.12001 Circuit overload protection.

Circuits shall be protected against excessive overloads by fuses or circuit breakers of the correct type and capacity.
No. 01-15-00180-CV

____________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT HOUSTON

______________________

MEDSTAR FUNDING, L.C. and BEACON LEGAL FUNDING,

L.L.C., Appellants

vs.

MYCHELE REED, as next friend of T.R., a minor, JERRY WAYNE

SQUIER and STRIKE, LLC, f/k/a STRIKE CONSTRUCTION, LLC,

Appellees

_________________________

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:

COME NOW MEDSTAR FUNDING, L.C. and BEACON LEGAL FUNDING, L.L.C.,

Appellants, and pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a), respectfully inform the

Court that the underlying dispute that was the subject of this appeal has been settled in its

entirety, that Appellees have settled this matter with Appellants for consideration, and that

therefore, the Appellants no longer wish to pursue this appeal. Appellants therefore ask that this

Appeal be dismissed with prejudice. The relief requested in this Motion is unopposed. The

Guardian Ad Litem’s attorney did not respond to a faxed copy of the instant motion or to a

telephone call regarding same. All costs on appeal are to be borne by the party incurring same.

ACCEPTED

01-15-00180-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

5/29/2015 11:33:47 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/29/2015 11:33:47 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Page -2-

THE BICKHAM LAW FIRM 

/s/David A. Bickham 

David A. Bickham

State Bar No: 02295300

3120 Southwest Frwy., Suite 650

Houston, TX 77098

Telephone: (713)789-4361

Facsimile: (713)523-1816

Email: bickhamlawfirm@yahoo.com

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS MEDSTAR

FUNDING, L.C. AND BEACON LEGAL FUNDING,

L.LC.
Page -3-

. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT a true and correct copy of the foregoing Unopposed

Motion to Dismiss Appeal has been duly forwarded to all parties and/or counsel of record,

pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, on this the 29th day of May, 2015,

addressed as follows:

J. Ryan Fowler 

John D. Sloan, Jr.

SLOAN, BAGLEY, HATCHER & PERRY LAW FIRM 

3000 Smith Street, Suite 4

Houston, Texas 77006

Nicholas J. Lanza 

Steve C. Dollinger 

McCORMICK, LANZA, McNEEL, L.L.P. 

4950 Bissonnet Street 

Bellaire, Texas 77401

Jose R. Lopez, II 

The Washington Centre 

4601 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 

Houston, Texas 77007

/s/David A. Bickham 

DAVID A. BICKHAM
264-14 

SAS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) FAA CASE NO. 2014-GL-70-0239 

) 

COMPASS SYSTEMS & SALES, INC. 

Respondent. 

) FDMS No. FAA-2015-2440 

) 

) JUDGE J.E. SULLIVAN 

) 

) RESPONDENT'S NOTICE OF 

) COMPLIANCE 

Respondent, Compass Systems & Sales, Inc. (herein, "Respondent"), by and through its 

legal counsel, hereby certifies that Respondent's Responses to the Federal Aviation 

Administration - U.S. Department of Transportation's (herein, "FAA") Discovery Requests, 

Interrogatories, and Request to Produce Documents directed to Respondent were served this 16th 

day of December, 2015 by Overnight Mail upon: Brian Khan, Esq., counsel for the Claimant, 

FAA; along with a copy of this Notice. 

Stuart A. Strasfeld, Esq. (Ohw #0012399) 

Louis P. Alexander, Jr., Esq. (Ohio #0076529) 

Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge, L.P.A. 

100 East Federal Street, Suite 600 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

Telephone: (330) 744-5211 

Facsimile: (330) 744-3184 

Email: sstrasfeld@roth-blair.com 

lalexander@roth-blair.com 

Attorneys for Respondent, 

Compass Systems & Sales, Inc. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, in accordance with 14 CFR 13,210, the original and one copy 

of the foregoing Respondent's Notice of Service of Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a) were sent via Overnight Mail this 16th day of December, 2015, to the following address for 

filing with the Federal Aviation Administration: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

Washington D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, in accordance with 14 CFR 13,211, a true and accurate copy 

of the foregoing Respondent's Notice of Service of Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a) was served upon the following via Overnight Mail this l61

h day of December, 2015. 

Brian K. Khan, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7H 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

Attorney for Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Respondent's 

Notice of Service of Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) was served upon the 

following via Overnight Mail this 16th day of December, 2015. 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrate Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 
~c ·----c.::-c:z~ce=-/ ~-----~------=) ----~ STUART A. STRASJtELD (Ohio #0012':399) 

LOUIS P. ALEXANDER, JR. (Ohio #0076529) 

Attorneys for Respondent, 

Compass Systems & Sales, Inc. 

Date: December 16,2015
§ 6.2 Definitions. The following definitions apply in this part. *Applicant.* An individual or organization that manufactures or controls the assembly of a product and applies to MSHA for approval of that product.
*Approval.* A written document issued by MSHA which states that a product has met the applicable requirements of part 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 33, 35, or 36. The definition is based on the existing definitions of “approval” in the parts specified above. It is expanded to include “certification” and “acceptance” because these terms also are used to denote MSHA approval.
*Approval holder.* An applicant whose application for approval of a product under part 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 33, 35 or 36 of this chapter has been approved by MSHA.
*Equivalent non-MSHA product safety standards.* A non-MSHA product safety standard, or group of standards, determined by MSHA to provide at least the same degree of protection as the applicable MSHA product approval requirements in parts 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 33, 35, and 36, or which in modified form provide at least the same degree of protection.
*Independent laboratory.* A laboratory that: ( 1 ) has been recognized by a laboratory accrediting organization to test and evaluate products to a product safety standard, and
( 2 ) is free from commercial, financial, and other pressures that may influence the results of the testing and evaluation process.
*Post-approval product audit.* The examination, testing, or both, by MSHA of approved products selected by MSHA to determine whether those products meet the applicable product approval requirements and have been manufactured as approved.
*Product safety standard.* A document, or group of documents, that specifies the requirements for the testing and evaluation of a product for use in explosive gas and dust atmospheres, and, when appropriate, includes documents addressing the flammability properties of products.
[68 FR 36417, June 17, 2003, as amended at 73 FR 80609, Dec. 31, 2008]
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3926

_____________________________
J OSEPH G EORGE M C K ENZIE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia C ounty

. Jennie Kinsey, Judge.

October 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , R OWE , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Laurel Cornell Niles, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant ; Joseph McKenzie, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

135173 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. BENJAMIN ISRAEL SACHS, Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices Janis Chernoff Sachs, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 135173 COA: 270321 Wayne CC: 99-929550-NH SINAI HOSPITAL OF GREATER DETROIT, a/k/a SINAI HOSPITAL, and DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 20, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

l0211 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 19, 2008

Clerk
### §2590. Estimation of costs of meeting defense environmental cleanup milestones required by consent orders

The Secretary of Energy shall include in the budget justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of Energy budget for each fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31) a report on the cost, for that fiscal year and the four fiscal years following that fiscal year, of meeting milestones required by a consent order at each defense nuclear facility at which defense environmental cleanup activities are occurring. The report shall include, for each such facility—

(1) a specification of the cost of meeting such milestones during that fiscal year; and

(2) an estimate of the cost of meeting such milestones during the four fiscal years following that fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLIV, §4409, as added Pub. L. 116–92, div. C, title XXXI, §3112(a), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1950.)
#### § 43.8 Informal review upon issuance of a notice of negative finding.

A person to whom a notice of negative finding has been issued pursuant to § 43.6 of this part may request informal review of such finding in accordance with the provisions of § 43.7(b)-(d) of this subpart.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130664 & (18) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130664 COA: 264488 Macomb CC: 82-000096-FY CHARLES JOSEPH KELLY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 3, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to remand is DENIED.

s1218 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2006

Clerk
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LARRY WILSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1601 

[September 5, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Charles A. Schwab, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 2010CF000328 A.

Larry Wilson, Indiantown, pro se. 

No appearance required for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

WARNER, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 15-22

November 13, 2002

The Detroit Edison Company
Detroit, Michigan

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of The Detroit Edison Company and subsidiaries for the three-month
and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, as indicated in our
report dated November 4, 2002; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed
no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-100000 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Detroit, Michigan
#### § 57.19135 Rollers in inclined shafts.

Rollers used in operating inclined shafts shall be lubricated, properly aligned, and kept in good repair.
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10955 

Conference Calendar

__________________

STANLEY J. STEVENS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ALAN DOLBERG; CAGEL, Lt.; HAMPTON, Lt.;

WILKERSHINE, Sgt.; WOODS, Officer; BROWN, Officer,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:95-CV-155

- - - - - - - - - -

December 19, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Stevens appeals the dismissal of his action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Stevens does not specifically raise or brief an issue relating to

the basis of the district court's dismissal under Rule 41(b),

other than to state that he did supplement the record with three

additional copies of his complaint and was not required to

produce six copies because he allegedly "did not know."
No. 95-10955

-2-

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Further, we find that Stevens'

appeal is frivolous, and accordingly, we DISMISS it pursuant to

5th Cir. R. 42.2. Stevens was warned in Stevens v. Hay's

Pharmacy, No. 95-10119 (5th Cir. Apr. 14, 1995) that filing

future frivolous appeals would result in disciplinary sanctions. 

Accordingly, Stevens is hereby sanctioned in the amount of $100,

and he is BARRED from filing any pro se, in forma pauperis, civil

appeal in this court, or any pro se, in forma pauperis, initial

civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court's

jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge

of the forum court; the clerk of this court and the clerks of all

federal district courts in this Circuit are directed to return to

Stevens, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this

bar. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          46,247
<SECURITIES>                                     1,924
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,968
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,711
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               362,812
<PP&E>                                       1,762,841
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,308,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 902,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          392,218
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       206,713
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,831
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   902,765
<SALES>                                         28,563
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,087
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  262,559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,865
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (234,337)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (234,337)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 3, 2009 of Insteel
Industries, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/ Michael C. Gazmarian

     Michael C. GazmarianVice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### In the Matter of Salem Inn, Inc., Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, dated July 22, 1977, which, after a hearing suspended petitioner’s special on-premises liquor license for 30 days, 15 days thereof forthwith and the remainder thereof deferred, and imposed a $1,000 bond claim. Determination confirmed and petition dismissed on the merits, with costs. There is substantial evidence to support the respondent’s determination. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Margett, JJ., concur.
#### § 560.300 Operating allowances.

Notwithstanding any other provision in the regulations in this part, BOEM may issue a lease containing an operating allowance when so specified in the final notice of sale and the lease. The allowance amount or formula will be specified in the final notice of sale and in the lease.

[81 FR 18175, Mar. 10, 2016]
### §§1041 to 1055. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 1041 to 1055 were omitted in view of recognition of Philippine independence.

Section 1041, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §8, 39 Stat. 547, related to grant of legislative power to Philippine Legislature.

Section 1042, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §10, 39 Stat. 548, related to Legislature's authority over trade relations, tariff acts, and immigration.

Section 1043, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §12, 39 Stat. 548, related to composition of Legislature.

Section 1044, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §13, 39 Stat. 549, related to qualifications and election of senators.

Section 1045, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, 14, 39 Stat. 549, related to qualifications and election of representatives.

Section 1046, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §16, 39 Stat. 549, related to senatorial and representative districts.

Section 1047, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §15, 39 Stat. 549, related to qualifications of voters.

Section 1048, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §17, 39 Stat. 550, related to terms of office of senators and representatives.

Section 1049, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §18, 39 Stat. 550, related to legislative sessions.

Section 1050, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §18, 39 Stat. 550, related to compensation and privileges of members.

Section 1051, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §18, 39 Stat. 550, related to ineligibility of senators and representatives to hold certain offices.

Section 1052, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §19, 39 Stat. 551, related to enactment of laws and approval by President of the United States.

Section 1053, act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §19, 39 Stat. 551, related to failure to make appropriations.

Section 1054, acts Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §19, 39 Stat. 551; May 29, 1928, ch. 901, §1, 45 Stat. 996; Feb. 28, 1929, ch. 364, §§1, 2, 45 Stat. 1348, related to reporting of laws to Congress.

Section 1055, acts June 2, 1924, ch. 234, §261, 43 Stat. 294; Feb. 26, 1926, ch. 27, §§261, 1200, 44 Stat. 52, 125, related to income tax laws.
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30569 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KEVIN LOVE, also known as Kelvin Love, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 97-CR-10008-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - February 11, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. * PER CURIAM: ** Kevin Love appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride with intent to distribute. He contends that the district court erred in imposing a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 for reckless endangerment during flight. After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in imposing the two-level enhancement. SeeNo. -2- United States v. Lee , 989 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1993). AFFIRMED.