alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §47e. Certification of award; approval; payment

Any awards granted under section 47b of this title shall be certified by the Attorney General and, together with the approval of the President in those cases where such approval is required, transmitted to the Director of Central Intelligence for payment out of funds appropriated or available for the administration of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended.

(July 15, 1955, ch. 372, §6, 69 Stat. 366; Pub. L. 93–377, §1(c), Aug. 17, 1974, 88 Stat. 473.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The National Security Act of 1947, as amended, referred to in text, is act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, 61 Stat. 495, which is classified principally to chapter 44 (§3001 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Amendments

1974—Pub. L. 93–377 substituted "Attorney General" for "Awards Board".

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

#### Change of Name

Reference to the Director of Central Intelligence or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Director's capacity as the head of the intelligence community deemed to be a reference to the Director of National Intelligence. Reference to the Director of Central Intelligence or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Director's capacity as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency deemed to be a reference to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. See section 1081(a), (b) of Pub. L. 108–458, set out as a note under section 3001 of this title.
#### § 77.800-2 Testing, examination, and maintenance of circuit breakers; record.

The operator shall maintain a written record of each test, examination, repair, or adjustment of all circuit breakers protecting high-voltage circuits. Such record shall be kept in a book approved by the Secretary.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 8, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60999

Summary Calendar

GRANT AYERS

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH THOMAS, SR., in his individual capacity,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:05-CV-75

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Joseph Thomas, Sr., a police officer for the City of

Holly Springs, has filed an interlocutory appeal of the district

court’s order denying summary judgment on his qualified immunity

defense in a case involving a dispute between Thomas and the

plaintiff, Grant Ayers, over a traffic stop. 

A district court’s decision to deny qualified immunity on a

motion for summary judgment is only immediately appealable if it

turns on an issue of law, and is not immediately appealable if it

is based on a claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.
No. 06-60999

-2-

Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2006). “Therefore,

if the district court concludes that the summary judgment record

raises a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether ...

qualified immunity is applicable, then that decision is not

immediately appealable....” Id., quoting Palmer v. Johnson, 193

F.3d 346, 351 (5th Cir. 1999). The only authority Thomas cites to

the contrary is Petta v. Rivera, 143 F.3d 895, 899 (5th Cir. 1998),

a case in which the district court denied summary judgment without

any explanation. In this case, the district court explained its

decision in a written opinion, concluding that the evidence

presented “clearly establishes fact issues” as to the First

Amendment claims. The court deferred a decision on the Fourth

Amendment claims, noting that it was disinclined to ultimately

allow them to proceed. Even if this deferral is assumed to

constitute a final order, the court’s decision was also based

solely on whether there were “triable jury issues regarding

plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims against Thomas.” We therefore

DISMISS THE APPEAL for lack of jurisdiction.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Theodore Jardine.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted insofar as to permit the appeal to be heard on the original record, without printing the same, and upon typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points, on condition that the appellant serves one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points upon the District Attorney, New York County, and files 6 typewritten or 19 mimeographed copies of appellant’s points, together with the original record, with this court and on the further condition -that the appeal be perfected and noticed for argument for a term on or before the February 1961 Term of this court. Anthony F. Marra, Esq., of 100 Centre Street, New York, New York is assigned as counsel for the appellant for the purposes of the appeal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-18-00224-CV 

________________________

LANDRY ROBERT LLOYD, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

KACY JEANNE HENSLEY, APPELLEE 

 

 

On Appeal from the 237th District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2016-519,987; Honorable Les Hatch, Presiding 

 

July 3, 2018 

 

ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

This appeal relates to an Order of Enforcement following entry of a Final Decree 

of Divorce between Appellant, Landry Robert Lloyd, and Appellee, Kacy Jeanne Hensley, 

that was previously appealed to this court. The issues from the previous appeal related 
2

to the trial court’s award of certain personal property to Kacy as her separate property. 

In that prior appeal, this court affirmed the decree of divorce on September 26, 2017.1 

Subsequent to this court’s decision, Kacy filed, in the trial court, a Motion for 

Enforcement of Property Division. When Landry failed to appear at the hearing on Kacy’s 

motion, the trial court found that good cause existed for granting the motion and, on May 

3, 2018, signed an Enforcement Order directing Landry to deliver specific property to 

Kacy. Landry has now appealed that order to this court.

Several weeks after filing his appeal, Landry filed, in this court, a Motion to 

Suspend Enforcement Pending Appeal seeking to suspend enforcement of the 

Enforcement Order and stay further proceedings, pending disposition of this appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 24.1(a). Landry offered to post a bond pursuant to Rule 24.1(a) should 

“this court set one.” Rule 24.1(a)(2), however, provides for suspension of enforcement of 

a judgment by “filing with the trial court clerk a good and sufficient bond.” Under Rule 

24.2(a)(2), when the judgment is for recovery of an interest in personal property, the 

amount of the bond is determined by the trial court, not this court. By her response to 

Landry’s motion, Kacy agrees that Landry should post bond pursuant to an order from the

trial court. Consequently, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court 

for further proceedings to determine the amount of the bond necessary for suspension of 

enforcement pending the outcome of this appeal.

 

1 See Lloyd v. Hensley, No. 07-16-00417-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 8479, at *8 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo Sept. 6, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
3

Upon remand, the trial court shall, by whatever means necessary, enter an order 

setting the type and amount of security that Landry must post to suspend the Enforcement 

Order of May 3, 2018, while the appeal from that order remains pending in this court. The 

trial court shall cause a supplemental clerk’s record containing its order setting bond and 

any other necessary orders related to this matter to be filed with the clerk of this court on 

or before July 30, 2018. 

All appellate deadlines are suspended pending the trial court’s determination of 

the amount of bond to be posted by Landry and reinstatement of this appeal.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.382 Mechanical escape facilities. ( a ) Mechanical escape facilities shall be provided with overspeed, overwind, and automatic stop controls.
( b ) Every mechanical escape facility with a platform, cage, or other device shall be equipped with brakes that can stop the fully loaded platform, cage, or other device.
( c ) Mechanical escape facilities, including automatic elevators, shall be examined weekly. The weekly examination of this equipment may be conducted at the same time as a daily examination required by § 75.1400-3. ( 1 ) The weekly examination shall include an examination of the headgear, connections, links and chains, overspeed and overwind controls, automatic stop controls, and other facilities.
( 2 ) At least once each week, the hoist shall be run through one complete cycle of operation to determine that it is operating properly.
( d ) A person trained to operate the mechanical escape facility always shall be available while anyone is underground to provide the mechanical escape facilities, if required, to the bottom of each shaft and slope opening that is part of an escapeway within 30 minutes after personnel on the surface have been notified of an emergency requiring evacuation. However, no operator is required for automatically operated cages, platforms, or elevators.
( e ) Mechanical escape facilities shall have rated capacities consistent with the loads handled.
( f ) Manually-operated mechanical escape facilities shall be equipped with indicators that accurately and reliably show the position of the facility.
( g ) *Certification.* The person making the examination as required by paragraph (c) of this section shall certify by initials, date, and the time that the examination was made. Certifications shall be made at or near the facility examined.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7637
RUSS L. BROWN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALFRED CRAMER, Doctor; VIRGINIA SMITH, Nurse; CAROLYN GILMORE, Nurse; EARL ISAAC, Major; JAMES SHIFFLETT, Corporal; OFFICER RORRER, Defendants - Appellees, and ROBERT RUTKOWSKI, Doctor; BENJAMIN ALLEN, Doctor; LOUISE MALONE, (PT), Defendants.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1193-R) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 9, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Russ L. Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Gene Rodney Young, II, WHARTON, ALDHIZER & WEAVER, Harrisonburg, Virginia; Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIR GINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brown v. Rutkowski , No. CA-95-1193-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 30, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### §41906. Duty to oppose unreasonable prices under the Universal Postal Union Convention

The Secretary of State and the United States Postal Service shall—

(1) take appropriate action to ensure that the prices paid for transporting mail under the Universal Postal Union Convention are not higher than reasonable prices for transporting mail; and

(2) oppose any existing or proposed Universal Postal Union price that is higher than a reasonable price for transporting mail.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1156, §41909; renumbered §41906, Pub. L. 110–405, §2(b)(7)(B), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4289.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 41909 | 49 App.:1376(h)(2). | Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, 72 Stat. 731, §406(h)(2); added Jan. 3, 1975, Pub. L. 93–623, §4, 88 Stat. 2103. |

Section

The words "necessary and" are omitted as being included in the word "appropriate". The words "each" and "all" are omitted as surplus. The words "transporting mail" are substituted for "such services" for consistency in this section. The word "reasonable" is substituted for "fair and reasonable" for consistency in the revised title and to eliminate an unnecessary word. See revision notes following 49:10101.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 41906 was renumbered section 41905 of this title.

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

#### Amendments

2008—Pub. L. 110–405 renumbered section 41909 of this title as this section.
### §3046. Repealed. Pub. L. 108–458, title I, §1075, Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3694

Section, act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title I, §111, formerly §121, as added Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XI, §1114(c), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2685; renumbered §111, Pub. L. 105–107, title III, §303(b), Nov. 20, 1997, 111 Stat. 2252, related to collection tasking authority of Director of Central Intelligence.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 404f of this title and repealed prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

For Determination by President that repeal take effect on Apr. 21, 2005, see Memorandum of President of the United States, Apr. 21, 2005, 70 F.R. 23925, set out as a note under section 3001 of this title.

Repeal effective not later than six months after Dec. 17, 2004, except as otherwise expressly provided, see section 1097(a) of Pub. L. 108–458, set out in an Effective Date of 2004 Amendment; Transition Provisions note under section 3001 of this title.
M ARJORIE K. C ONNER

A TTORNEY

700 W EST V IEW T ERRACE

A LEXANDRIA

, V IRGINIA 22302

A PRIL 13, 2015

703-706-5917 mkconner@mkconnerlaw.com

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: OpenSky Drones, LLC Petitions for Exemption unde r Section 333 of the FAA Reform A ct Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-117, 119, 121, 122, 124, and 2 20

Dear USDOT:

On January 9, 2015, OpenSky Drones , LLC (“OSD”), filed several petitions for exemption pursuant to Section 333 o f the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“Reform Act”), and Section 11.81 of the F AA’s rules, 14 C.F.R. § 11.81. Those filings were assigned the Regulatory Docket Numbers captioned above.

Recently, Dan Pham, former Vice President of OSD filed document s in the captioned dockets purporting to change the na me of OSD to Alert5. As is demonstrated by the attached documents, OSD and Alert5 Interna tional, LLC are separate entit ies, both formed under Florida law. Whatever Mr. Pham purported to do by his recent filing, h e had no authority to change the name on OSD’s petitions.

OSD continues to support its pe titions for exemption, in its o wn name, and asks that the FAA disregard Mr. Pham’s recent filing, in its entirety.

Please give me a call with a ny questions or concerns about OSD ’s petitions or this letter.

Very truly yours,

Marjorie K. C onner C ounsel for OpenSky Drones, LLC

cc: OpenSky Drones, LLC

# Open Sky Drones, LLC

Organizational Documents

# Alert5 International, LLC

Organizational Documents
Exhibit 31-20**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, David E. Meador, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 of TheDetroit Edison Company;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. (Intentionally omitted)  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   /s/ DAVID E. MEADOR Date: November 8, 2005   David E. Meador  Executive Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer of The Detroit Edison Company
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.321 Air quality. ( a ) ( 1 ) The air in areas where persons work or travel, except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, shall contain at least 19.5 percent oxygen and not more than 0.5 percent carbon dioxide, and the volume and velocity of the air current in these areas shall be sufficient to dilute, render harmless, and carry away flammable, explosive, noxious, and harmful gases, dusts, smoke, and fumes.
( 2 ) The air in areas of bleeder entries and worked-out areas where persons work or travel shall contain at least 19.5 percent oxygen, and carbon dioxide levels shall not exceed 0.5 percent time weighted average and 3.0 percent short term exposure limit.
( b ) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 75.322, for the purpose of preventing explosions from gases other than methane, the following gases shall not be permitted to accumulate in excess of the concentrations listed below: ( 1 ) Carbon monoxide (CO)—2.5 percent
( 2 ) Hydrogen (H2)—.80 percent
( 3 ) Hydrogen sulfide (H2 S)—.80 percent
( 4 ) Acetylene (C2 H2)—.40 percent
( 5 ) Propane (C3 H8)—.40 percent
( 6 ) MAPP (methyl-acetylene-propylene-propodiene)—.30 percent
#### § 778.18 Insurance.

An application shall contain either a certificate of liability insurance or evidence of self-insurance in compliance with § 800.60 of this chapter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
unaudited financial statements dated March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its 
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,030,411
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,411,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                   775,294
<INVENTORY>                                 22,255,218
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            55,395,945
<PP&E>                                      22,456,172
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,053,667
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              90,178,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       43,840,787
<BONDS>                                      8,285,033
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,145
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,173,524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                     14,126,416
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,126,416
<CGS>                                       12,364,241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,984,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,328,563
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             841,980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (502,087)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   225,999
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,528,921)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,528,921)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.39)
        


</TABLE>