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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9552 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9552

To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt ticket agents that are 
small businesses from the requirement to provide refunds for cancelled 
  or significantly delayed or changed flights, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 2024

  Ms. Salazar (for herself, Ms. Titus, and Mr. Alford) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt ticket agents that are 
small businesses from the requirement to provide refunds for cancelled 
  or significantly delayed or changed flights, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Flight Refund Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. REFUNDS FOR CANCELLED OR SIGNIFICANTLY DELAYED OR CHANGED 
              FLIGHTS.

    Section 42305(e) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Special rule for small businesses.-- This subsection 
        shall not apply to a ticket agent that is a small business (as 
        determined by the Administrator of the Small Business 
        Administration).''.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 19

- 00341

- CV

No. 04

- 19

- 00342

- CV

IN RE Brittany RETLEDGE and Arnold Lamotte, Jr.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 29, 2019

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On May 23, 2019, r elators each filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the

same underl yin g judgment. After considering the petition s, this court concludes relators ar e not

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petitions for writ of mandamus are DENIED. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019CV04147, styled Brittany Retledge and Arnold LaMotte, Jr. v. Mist y

Santana , pending in the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable J

. Frank Davis presiding.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6298

WILLIAM GREEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MALCOLM A. BOOKER, JR., Clerk, Buckingham

Correctional Center,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-04-723-7)

Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: September 1, 2005

Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Green, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Green appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.

The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is not appealable.

See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d

1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal without prejudice is a

final order only if “‘no amendment [in the complaint] could cure

the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” Id. at 1067 (quoting

Coniston Corp. v. Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461, 463 (7th

Cir. 1988)). In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice

is reviewable in this court, the court must determine “whether the

plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint.”

Domino Sugar, 10 F.3d at 1066-67. In this case, Green may move in

the district court to reopen his case and to file an amended

complaint specifically alleging facts sufficient to state a claim

under § 1983. Therefore, the dismissal order is not appealable.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
Second Order filed October 24 , 2017.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 17

- 00760

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF R .P.R. JR., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 0 4660J



### SECOND ORDER
This is an appeal from a judgment terminating the parental rights of appellant , Mother. In her notice of appeal, Mother requests the appointment of counsel because of her indigent status.
In Texas, there is a statutory right to counsel for indigent persons in parental
termination cases. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1 0 7.013(a)(1) ( West Supp. 2016 );
see also In re M.S. , 115 S.W.3d 534, 544 (Tex. 2003). If an indigent parent requests appointment of an attorney to appeal a judgment terminating his or her parental rights, the trial court must determine the issue of indigenc e

. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 263.405(e) ( West 2014 ). If the court finds the parent to be indigent,or the parent is presumed indigent, the court must appoint counsel to repre sent the

parent on appeal. Id. ; In re K.M. , 98 S.W.3d 774, 776 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).

On October 3, 2017, w e ordered the judge of the 314 th District Court to immediately conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, and, if so, whether appellant is indigent and, thus entitled to a free record and appointed counsel on appeal. We ordered that the transcribed record of the hearing, and supplemental clerk’s record containing findings of fact and
conclusions of law be filed with the clerk of this court on or before October 23, 2017. To date, this court has not received the requested record.
Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days o f the date the notice of appeal is
filed. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). Accordingly, we
issue this second order.
We ORDER the judge of the 314th District Court to immediately conduct a hearing , via teleconference if necessary, to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, and, if so, whether appellant is indigent and, thus entitled to a free record and appointed counsel on appeal. The judge shall appoint an appellate counsel for appellant if necessary. The jud ge shall see that a record of the hearing is made, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings and conclusions. The transcr ibed record of the hearing, and supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with the clerk of this court on or before November 3, 2017

.
PER CURIAM
* 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

July 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51196

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUADALUPE SANDOVAL-TINAJERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-156-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Guadalupe

Sandoval-Tinajero raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
#### Henry M. Gridley, Respondent, v Lever Brothers Company, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 6, 1978, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. Contract rights are limited by the provisions of the contract *(Gitelson v Du Pont,*17 NY2d 46, 48). The disability contract entered into between the parties on July 15, 1965 defines disability as an injury or illness which renders an executive "incapable of satisfactorily performing the duties of his position.” Paragraph Fifth of the contract provides that such disability is to be determined by "the Medical Director of [defendant], or of such other medical doctor as shall be selected by the Compensation Committee of [defendant].” Accordingly, the opinion of the medical director was a condition precedent of defendant’s obligation to pay disability benefits. There is no showing that plaintiff was prevented from presenting a claim of disability to the medical director or that he conveyed to defendant that he was disabled by reason of alcoholism. Indeed, some three months prior to termination of his employment by defendant, plaintiff underwent an annual checkup by the medical director and was found to be in excellent health, except for his cholesterol level. There was no finding that plaintiff was *704incapable of satisfactorily performing his duties. The critical issue is not whether alcoholism is a disease, but whether plaintiff was disabled by that disease. The failure to claim disability and the fact that plaintiff continued to perform his functions until discharge are important factors. Proof that plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the disability contract is not supplied by the mere fact that plaintiff’s performance was unsatisfactory to defendant. "The opponent of a properly made summary judgment motion must present evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (e.g., *Shaw v Time-Life Records,*38 NY2d 201, 207; *Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn.,*32 NY2d 285, 290; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3212.12, p 32-173)” *(Freedman v Chemical Constr. Corp.,*43 NY2d 260, 264). This, plaintiff has failed to do. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Lynch and Sullivan, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1



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 of Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack C. Bridges, Executive Vice-President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    JACK C.
BRIDGESJack C. BridgesExecutive Vice-President7/16/03Date
### The Precambrian of the Rocky Mountain region

By: Carl E. HedgeJack Edward HarrisonR. S. HoustonO.L. TwetoZ. E. PetermanR.R. Reid

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1241D

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (2563 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (1671 pdf)                        
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### § 937.819 Special performance standards—auger mining.

Part 819 of this chapter, *Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—Auger Mining,* shall apply to any person who conducts surface coal mining operations which include auger mining.
#### § 941.702 Exemption for coal extraction incidental to the extraction of other minerals.

Part 702 of this chapter, *Exemption for Coal Extraction Incidental to the Extraction of Other Minerals,* shall apply to any person who conducts coal extraction incidental to the extraction of other minerals for purposes of commercial use or sale.

[54 FR 52123, Dec. 20, 1989]
### **CHAPTER 1049—MISCELLANEOUS**

Sec.
104901.
Central warehouses at System units.
104902.
Services or other accommodations for public.
104903.
Care, removal, and burial of indigents.
104904.
Hire of work animals, vehicles, and equipment with or without personal services.
104905.
Preparation of mats for reproduction of photographs.
104906.
Protection of right of individuals to bear arms.
104907.
Limitation on extension or establishment of national parks in Wyoming.
104908.
Bows in parks.
104909.
Wildlife management in parks.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2019**—Pub. L. 116–9, title II, §§2409(b), 2410(b), Mar. 12, 2019, 133 Stat. 752, added items 104908 and 104909.
- 000100fc
- 000200fc
- 000300tp
- 00040000
- 00050001
- 00060002
- 00070000
- 00080000
- 00090003
- 00100004
- 00110000
- 00120000
- 00130000
- 00140000
- 00150005
- 00160006
- 00170007
- 00180008
- 00190009
- 00200010
- 00210011
- 00220012
- 00230013
- 00240014
- 00250015
- 00260000
- 002700bi
- 002800bc
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84307-84308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28572]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Department of the Air Force


Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Edwards Air Force Base Solar Project

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: On November 23, 2020, the United States Air Force (USAF) 
signed the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement for the

[[Page 84308]]

Edwards Air Force Base (AFB) Solar Project.

ADDRESSES: Mr. Mike Ackerman, AFCEC/CZN, Bldg 1, 2261 Hughes Ave (STE 
155), JBSA-Lackland, TX 78236-9853, (210) 925-2741; 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c2afaba1aaa3a7aeeca3a1a9a7b0afa3acecf082b7b1eca3a4ecafabae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="325f5b515a53575e1c53515957405f535c1c007247411c53541c5f5b5e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The USAF has decided to lease up to 4,000 
acres of undeveloped, non-excess land at Edwards AFB to a developer for 
the construction, operation, and maintenance of a solar photovoltaic 
renewable energy project.
    The Air Force's decision, documented in the Record of Decision, was 
based on analysis provided in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, 
and includes inputs from the public and regulatory agencies. The Final 
Environmental Impact Statement was made available to the public on 
January 24, 2020 through a Notice of Availability in the Federal 
Register (Volume 85, Number 16, Page 4320) with a review period that 
ended on February 24, 2020.

    Authority: This Notice of Availability is published pursuant to 
the regulations (40 CFR part 1506.6) implementing the provisions of 
the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and 
the Air Force's Environmental Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR parts 
989.21(b) and 989.24(b)(7)).

Adriane S. Paris,
Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-28572 Filed 12-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### SUBCHAPTER VI—REEMPLOYMENT FOLLOWING LIMITED APPOINTMENT IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE
### §70505. Lunar outpost

(a) Establishment.—As the Administration works toward the establishment of a lunar outpost, the Administration shall make no plans that would require a lunar outpost to be occupied to maintain its viability. Any such outpost shall be operable as a human-tended facility capable of remote or autonomous operation for extended periods.

(b) Designation.—The United States portion of the first human-tended outpost established on the surface of the Moon shall be designated the "Neil A. Armstrong Lunar Outpost".

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3431.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 70505(a) | 42 U.S.C. 17732(a). | Pub. L. 110–422, title IV, §404(a), (b), Oct. 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 4789. |
| 70505(b) | 42 U.S.C. 17732(b). | |

Section
### §21008. Reports

Not later than 6 months after the end of each fiscal year for which a State received a requirements payment under this subpart, the State shall submit a report to the Commission on the activities conducted with the funds provided during the year, and shall include in the report—

(1) a list of expenditures made with respect to each category of activities described in section 21001(b) of this title;

(2) the number and type of articles of voting equipment obtained with the funds; and

(3) an analysis and description of the activities funded under this subpart to meet the requirements of this chapter and an analysis and description of how such activities conform to the State plan under section 21004 of this title.

(Pub. L. 107–252, title II, §258, Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1697.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in par. (3), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 107–252, Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1666, known as the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 15408 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
#### § 913.1 Scope.

This part contains all rules applicable only within Illinois that have been adopted under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.

[47 FR 23883, June 1, 1982]
### **CHAPTER 2001—COORDINATION OF PROGRAMS**

Sec.
200101.
Findings and declaration of policy.
200102.
Definitions.
200103.
Authority of Secretary to carry out certain functions and activities.
200104.
Consultations of Secretary with administrative officers; execution of administrative responsibilities in conformity with nationwide plan.
###### 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.

#### § 75.1702-1 Smoking programs.

Programs required under § 75.1702 shall be submitted to the Coal Mine Safety District Manager for approval on or before May 30, 1970.
## Subpart I—Miscellaneous
#### § 943.25 Approval of Texas abandoned mine land reclamation plan amendments.

The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to OSM, the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register and the State citations or a brief description of each amendment. The amendments in this table are listed in order of the date of final publication in the Federal Register.

| Original amendment submission date | Date of final publication | Citation/description |
| --- | --- | --- |
| May 11 and 26, 1989 | August 19, 1992 | Certification of the completion of reclamation on all lands adversely impacted by past coal mining. |
| August 24, 1997 | January 30, 1997 | Recodification of TSMCRA Article 5920-11, § 3(7); 4 Ch. 134.142. |
| December 1, 1997 | March 3, 1998 | TSCMRA 134.142. |
| January 23, 1998 | April 22, 1998 | Recodification; 16 TAC 12.800 through 12.817. |
| December 1, 1997 | November 25, 1998 | 12.800 through .814; .815(d); .816; .818 through .823. |
| October 11, 2006 | February 6, 2007 | Emergency response reclamation program; AML Plan sections 884.13(c)(6), (d)(2) and (d)(3). |
| February 14, 2007 | November 19, 2007 | TSCMRA 134.150(c) and TAC 12.816(c) |
| December 3, 2019 | September 20, 2023 | Replace AML Plan in response to OSMRE 884 Letter. Updates AML Plan to be consistent with changes to Federal program and extends limited liability protection for certain coal and noncoal reclamation projects. 16 TAC Texas Administrative Code Sections: 12.801; 12.802; 12.803; 12.804; 12.805; 12.806; 12.807; 12.808; 12.809; 12.811; 12.812; 12.814; 12.815; 12.815; 12.816; 12.818; 12.819; 12.820; 12.821; 12.822; 12.823. |

[62 FR 9954, Mar. 5, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 10320, Mar. 3, 1998; 63 FR 19823, Apr. 22, 1998; 63 FR 65070, Nov. 25, 1998; 72 FR 5333, Feb. 6, 2007; 72 FR 64946, Nov. 19, 2007; 88 FR 64816, Sept. 20, 2023]
§ 254.27 What information must I include in the “Dispersant use plan” appendix? Your dispersant use plan must be consistent with the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule and other provisions of the National Contingency Plan and the appropriate Area Contingency Plan(s). The plan must include: ( a ) An inventory and a location of the dispersants and other chemical or biological products which you might use on the oils handled, stored, or transported at the facility;
( b ) A summary of toxicity data for these products;
( c ) A description and a location of any application equipment required as well as an estimate of the time to commence application after approval is obtained;
( d ) A discussion of the application procedures;
( e ) A discussion of the conditions under which product use may be requested; and
( f ) An outline of the procedures you must follow in obtaining approval for product use.
#### § 1602.23 State.

The word *State* includes, where applicable, the several States of the United States, the City of New York, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.