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

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 49057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19874]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Categorical Exclusion From Further Environmental Review for 
Standard Terminal Arrival Route Procedures for Ronald Reagan Washington 
National Airport

AGENCY: Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee. Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of its 
environmental review of two standard terminal arrival route (STAR) 
procedures, and one conventional arrival procedure, at Ronald Reagan 
Washington National Airport (DCA). As required by the National 
Environmental Policy Act, an evaluation has been performed on the three 
proposed procedures to determine the level of environmental review 
warranted. The FAA has elected to ``Categorically Exclude from further 
environmental review'' the three proposed arrival procedures identified 
as FRDMM1 (RNAV), TRUPS1 (RNAV) and NUMMY.

DATES: Effective upon publication. A Categorical Exclusion (Cat Ex) 
from environmental review does not require a formal public hearing or a 
formal public comment period prior to the Cat Ex becoming effective.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lee Kyker, Environmental 
Specialist, Air Traffic Eastern Service Center, Operations Support 
Group, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the FAA has 
elected to ``Categorically Exclude from further environmental review'' 
the proposed arrival procedures as follows: FRDMM1 (RNAV), TRUPS1 
(RNAV), and NUMMY.
    Project: Publish FRDMM1 (RNAV), TRUPS1 (RNAV), and NUMMY.
    Location: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA).
    This project consists of publishing RNAV arrival procedures 
identified as the FRDMM1 (RNAV) and the TRUPS1 (RNAV) and publishing 
the NUMMY conventional arrival procedure. RNAV facilitates more 
efficient design of airspace and procedures which collectively result 
in improved safety, access, predictability, and operational efficiency. 
Improved access and flexibility for point-to-point operations help 
enhance reliability and reduce delays by defining more precise terminal 
area procedures. The NUMMY is a conventional arrival procedure which 
accommodates the non-RNAV aircraft into the DC Metro area from the 
west. The review process indicated that the proposed project will not 
adversely impact the environment. Consequently, the FAA has elected to 
``Categorically Exclude from further environmental review'' the 
proposed procedures, based upon compliance with FAA Order 1050.1E, 
Sec.  311(i).

    Issued in Atlanta, GA, on August 1, 2012.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group FAA, Air Traffic, Eastern 
Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-19874 Filed 8-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### § 776.7 Reporting requirements.

Covered USG attorneys shall report promptly to the Rules Counsel (see § 776.9 of this part) any disciplinary or administrative action, including initiation of investigation, by any licensing authority or Federal, State, or local bar, possessing the power to revoke, suspend, or in any way limit the authority to practice law in that jurisdiction, upon himself, herself, or another covered attorney. Failure to report such discipline or administrative action may subject the covered USG attorney to discipline administered per this part. See § 776.71 of this part.
Aaron Swank

38777 N Northwestern Ave.

Wadsworth, IL 60083-8601

847-336-8030

mlbboy21@gmail.com

EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR CFR 65.71(a)(2)

I seek relief from CFR 65.71(a)(2), which specifically states that to be eligible for a 

mechanic certificate and associated ratings, a person must “Be able to read, write, speak, 

and understand the English language, or in the case of an applicant who does not meet 

this requirement and who is employed outside of the United States by a U.S. air carrier, 

have his certificate endorsed “Valid only outside the United States.”

I am a deaf person who communicates in sign language (manual English) and is able to 

read lips to a limited extent. I am unable to speak English but am able to read, write, and 

understand English. 

I am currently enrolled at Milwaukee Area Technical College in Milwaukee, WI, in an 

airframe and powerplant program and will be eligible to take the written, oral, and 

practical examination. I have completed the general and airframe and will finish with the 

powerplant curriculum this coming year 2015. With the aid of an interpreter I have been 

able to perform all the FAA-approved curriculum requirements for certification as an 

aircraft mechanic. I will meet all the requirements of CFR 65.71 except for the 

requirement that I speak English. Although I am deaf and speech impaired, this does not 

cause an adverse effect on safety. I am meticulous about my work and more than able to 

interpret and apply written technical information. Even though I am unable to speak 

English and cannot hear. I am able to communicate with others by writing and by using 

sign language with an interpreter. I am a current Private Pilot with the restriction 

description of: Not valid for flying where radio use is required.

An exemption from CFR 65.71(a)(2) would enable me to use a sign language interpreter 

to take the oral and practical examinations for the mechanic certificate and associated 

ratings, because I am deaf and speech impaired.

I would like to reference two granted petitions:

 Exemption No. 9951, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0943

 Exemption No. 6015, Regulatory Docket No. 27810
### §59. Offenses in relation to cotton standards

It shall be unlawful for any person (a) with intent to deceive or defraud, to make, receive, use, or have in his possession any simulate or counterfeit practical form or copy of any standard or part thereof established under this chapter; or (b) without the written authority of the Secretary of Agriculture, to make, alter, tamper with, or in any respect change any practical form or copy of any standard established under this chapter; or (c) to display or use any such practical form or copy after the Secretary of Agriculture shall have caused it to be condemned.

(Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 288, §8, 42 Stat. 1519.)
### §1007. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §341(a), Aug. 8, 1961, 75 Stat. 318

Section, acts July 22, 1937, ch. 517, title II, §21, 50 Stat. 524; Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 964, §4, 60 Stat. 1071; Aug. 23, 1951, ch. 344, §2, 65 Stat. 197; Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 829, §2[6], 70 Stat. 802; Mar. 29, 1961, Pub. L. 87–8, 75 Stat. 17, related to eligible borrowers for production and subsistence loans and terms thereof. See section 1921 et seq. of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective one hundred and twenty days after Aug. 8, 1961, or such earlier date as the provisions of section 1921 et seq. of this title are made effective by regulations of Secretary of Agriculture, see section 341(a) of Pub. L. 87–128, set out as a note under section 1921 of this title.

Section repealed effective Oct. 15, 1961, by former section 300.1 of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, see Effective Date note under section 1921 of this title.
#### SPECTOR, Respondent, v. SAMUELS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20, 1903.)

Action by Charles Spector against Aaron Samuels.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, by default, with costs.
Exhibit 23.2

                 Consent of Independent Auditors




The Board of Directors
Unique Mobility, Inc:


We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  registration  statements
(Nos.  33-61166,  33-63399,  333-01919  and  333-13883)  on Form  S-3 and in the
registration statements (Nos. 33-23113,  33-24071, 33-34612, 33-35055, 33-34613,
33-41325,  33-64852,  34-47454,  33-81430,  and  33-92288) on Form S-8 of Unique
Mobility,  Inc. of our report  dated  January  16, 1997  relating to the balance
sheets of Taiwan UQM Electric  Co.,  Ltd. as of December 31, 1996 and 1995,  and
the related statements of income,  shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the  two-year  period  ended  December  31,  1996,  which report
appears in the March 31, 1997 Transition Report on Form 10-K of Unique Mobility,
Inc.


                                   Horwath & Company

   
Taipei, Republic of China
September 30, 1997
### §427e. Repealed. Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 790, §2, 69 Stat. 674

Section, act June 29, 1935, ch. 338, title I, §6, 49 Stat. 438, defined "Territory". See section 361a of this title.

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

#### Existing Rights and Liabilities

Any rights or liabilities existing under this section unaffected by repeal, see section 2 of act Aug. 11, 1955, set out as a note under former section 361 of this title.
#### 1205.403 Requests from Members of Congress.

The HCA is authorized to approve the release of certain contract information to Members of Congress under FAR 5.403.
#### Charles A. Wood, Respondent, v. Paul Bivona, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Motion to amend notice of appeal granted by consent. The proposed record shall be supplemented by including the papers used on the *707motion for “reargument and reconsideration”. Beldoek, Acting P. J-, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
1 

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 

2023 ND 204

In the Matter of Reciprocal Discipline of Timothy P. Hill, a Member of the 

Bar of the State of North Dakota 

No. 20230296

Recommendation for Reciprocal Discipline. 

REPRIMAND ORDERED. 

Per Curiam. 

[¶1] On August 28, 2023, the Disciplinary Board notified the Supreme Court 

under N.D.R. Lawyer Discpl. 4.4(D) that it was recommending the reciprocal 

discipline of Timothy P. Hill. The record reflects that the State of Minnesota 

filed an order suspending Hill for 12 months for failing to place flat fees into a 

trust account when Hill did not have a fee agreement compliant under 

Minnesota law. 

[¶2] Disciplinary Counsel served Hill notice under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 

4.4(B) that a certified copy of the order of the Minnesota Supreme Court was 

received. The notice informed Hill that he had 30 days to file any claim that 

imposition of the identical discipline in North Dakota would be unwarranted 

and the reasons for the claim. Hill responded asserting that identical discipline 

should not be imposed in North Dakota, arguing the misconduct warrants 

substantially different discipline in this state. On August 9, 2023, the 

Disciplinary Board and Hill entered into a “Stipulation of Consent to 

Discipline.” The Disciplinary Board, Disciplinary Counsel, and Hill agreed that 

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

OCTOBER 26, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2

based on the differences in North Dakota’s practice, rule language, and the 

factors considered for the purposes of imposing sanctions, the misconduct at 

issue would warrant substantially different discipline within this state.

[¶3] With regard to handling a flat fee agreement, the practice in North 

Dakota at the time of the underlying representations differed from Minnesota. 

Rule 1.5, N.D.R. Prof. Conduct was amended, effective July 1, 2023, to reflect 

practice of flat fee agreements and this Court’s decision in Disciplinary Board 

v. Hoffman, 2013 ND 137, 834 N.W.2d 636 regarding this issue. The Court 

agrees that not all conduct considered misconduct in Minnesota would be 

misconduct in North Dakota. Additionally, the Court agrees that the 

misconduct at issue would warrant substantially different discipline in North 

Dakota.

[¶4] The Court considered the matter, and 

[¶5] ORDERED that Timothy P. Hill is REPRIMANDED.

[¶6] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 14, 2013

NO. 03-11-00233-CV

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC, Appellant

v.

Public Utility Commission of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was error in the trial court’s 

judgment: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is reversed, the Commission’s order is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the 

Commission for further proceedings. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellee pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision be certified 

below for observance.
EXHIBIT 4.1


                                                               CUSIP
                                 BTHC III, INC.


              INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

                                                               SEE REVERSE FOR
                                  COMMON STOCK               CERTAIN DEFINITIONS



                                    SPECIMEN


This
certifies
that







is the owner of


 FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, $______ PAR VALUE, OF
                                 BTHC III, INC.


(hereinafter  called  the  "Corporation"),  transferable  on  the  books  of the
Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney,  upon
surrender of the Certificate properly endorsed.  This certificate and the shares
represented hereby are issued and shall be held subject to all the provisions of
the  Articles of  Incorporation  and the Bylaws of the  Corporation,  as amended
(copies of which are on file at the  office of the  Transfer  Agent),  to all of
which  the  holder  of this  Certificate  by  acceptance  hereof  assents.  This
Certificate  is not valid unless  countersigned  and  registered by the Transfer
Agent and  Registrar.  Witness  the  facsmile  seal of the  Corporation  and the
facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.


DATE:


                            [CORPORATE SEAL OMITTED]



                               Countersigned:
PRESIDENT                                    SECURITIES TRANSFER CORPORATION
                                             P.O. Box 701629
                                             Dallas, TX 75370
                                          By:


SECRETARY                                    ___________________________________
                                             TRANSFER AGENT-AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
### -82 -81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

36 37 38 39 40 

## ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲


## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/25 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.03 N 77.49 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■


## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George Diblin, Appellant.

Order entered on December 29, 1959, denying defendant’s application for a writ of error *coram nobis,*affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Stevens, JJ.; Eager, J., dissents and votes to reverse and remand for a hearing.
No. 7949.

#### The State *v.*Bishop et al.

(Decided November 17, 1903.)

Exceptions to the Court of Common Pleas of Butler county.

*551
      *Mr. Warren Gard,*prosecuting attorney, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John F. Neilan*and *Mr. Allen Andrews,*for defendants in error.

Exceptions overruled. Pees to counsel $75.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Orew,- JJ., concur.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 

ALS 88 DESIGN BUILD, LLC §

§

v. § No. 04-15-00096-CV

§

MOAB CONSTRUCTION §

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT: 

 Appellant’s Reply Brief is due to be filed on September 30, 2015. Appellant requests a 

7 day extension of time to file its Reply Brief. Appellant’s counsel needs additional time to 

fully address the response brief and legal authorities raised therein for each of the issues 

presented. Appellant requests an extension to and including Wednesday, October 7, 2015. 

 Respectfully submitted this the 30th day of September, 2015. 

 Law Office of Regina Bacon Criswell 

 Carriage Place 

 7803 Bent Briar 

 San Antonio, Texas 78250 

 (210) 775-1155 (ofc) 

 (210) 251-2071 (fax) 

 By: /S/Regina Bacon Criswell

 SBN: 01496580 

 Attorney for Appellants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and forgoing was served in 

accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on the persons listed below in the 

manner indicated. 

Tom Hall Via e-file 

Attorney for MOAB Construction Company, Inc.

 /S/Regina Bacon Criswell

REGINA B. CRISWELL

ACCEPTED

04-15-00096-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

9/30/2015 3:33:22 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 9/30/2015 3:33:22 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 **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 Composite Technology Corporation (the "Company") Annual
        Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Benton
        H Wilcoxon, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of
        the
        Company, certify, 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, as amended, 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/
                  Benton H Wilcoxon*
                
                *Benton
                  H Wilcoxon*
                *Chief
                  Executive Officer*
                *(Principal
                  Executive Officer)*
                
                *Date:
                  June 4, 2008*
EXHIBIT
32.2


Certification
of the Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,


as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with this quarterly report of Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, David
O’Neil, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to 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 this report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date: May
12, 2010








/s/David
      O’NeilDavid
      O’NeilTreasurer
      and Principal Financial Officer





17
**EXHIBIT 13.4******

 

**CONSENT OF EXPERT**

 

We hereby consent to the use of our name contained in the technical report on the Property in the Durango Mining District of Mexico dated October 27, 2016 entitled “Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. Amended Resource Estimate Update for the Avino Property, Durango, Mexico” by QG Australia (Pty) Ltd. An ARANZ Geo Company and Tetra Tech Canada Inc. (previously Tetra Tech WEI Inc.) and the reference as an expert contained in the Annual Report of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 and incorporated by reference to the Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (SEC File No.: 333-195120), Form F-3 (SEC File Nos.: 333-193471 and 333-195144) and Form F-10 (SEC File No.: 333-214396).

 

** **TETRA TECH CANADA INC.**    Dated: March 10, 2017By:*/s/ Hassan Ghaffari*
 

 
Hassan Ghaffari, P. Eng. 

 

 

 

 

 **
### §3503. Investigative actions

The Secretary may take such actions as the Secretary considers necessary to monitor compliance with the provisions of this chapter and to determine whether the information contained in any report submitted under section 3501 of this title accurately and fully reveals the ownership interest of all foreign persons in any foreign person who is required to submit a report under such section.

(Pub. L. 95–460, §4, Oct. 14, 1978, 92 Stat. 1265.)
STATE OF LOUISIANA 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

CODY HAMILTON AND DEVIN 

LEWIS HAMILTON 

VERSUS 

SAFEGUARD CAPITAL FUND, 

L.P., SAFEGUARD SELF 

STORAGE, INC., SAFEGUARD 

DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, 

SAFEGUARD DEVELOPMENT I, 

LLC, SAFEGUARD EQUITY GROUP, 

LLC, SAFEGUARD STORAGE 

PROPERTIES, LLC, AND 

SAFEGUARD OPERATIONS, LLC, 

ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, AND 

XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY 

NO. 2023 CW 0814 

JANUARY 18, 2024 

In Re: Cody Hamil ton and Devin Lewis Hamil ton, applying for 

rehearing, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of 

East Baton Rouge, No. 681837. 

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. 

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING DENIED. 

CHH 

SMM 

Mcclendon, J., dissents and would grant the application for 

rehearing for the sole purpose of having this matter heard by an 

en bane panel of the court. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT 

FOR THE COURT